Is Ron Paul a Republican Ralph Nader?

vimothy

yurp
EconLog & GMU's Bryan Caplan asks an interesting question:

Ron Paul is highly unlikely to be the next president. But could he become the Republicans' Nader? Suppose after being knocked out of the primaries, Paul runs on the Libertarian Party ticket. He's got a big war chest, and enthusiastic supporters. It seems quite possible that he could get 1-2% of the vote, enough to make sure the Republican nominee loses.

Note that given Paul's anti-war platform, this would not merely be a spoiled gesture. He could actually sharply increase the chance of a pull-out from Iraq by running as a third party candidate. Nader tipped the scales in favor of his perceived greater evil; Paul would tip the scales in favor of his perceived lesser evil.

My only doubt about Paul's ability to ensure a Democratic victory is that he might actually steal some far-left anti-war votes, preventing him from tipping the scales.

Convinced? OK, next question: If Ron Paul knew he could be the Republicans' Nader, would he do so? He already ran as the LP candidate in 1988, so it seems pretty likely. Does anyone who has been following Paul's candidacy more closely than I have have any insight to offer?​
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
Paul has been asked this question repeatedly since launching his candidacy, and up until a month or so ago, he categorically denied having any such plans. The message of the day, however, is that he “doesn’t plan” running as a third party candidate, which suggests that he most likely will. So, yeah, I guess that’s bad tidings for the Republicans. Although now that Clinton’s on a roll, I think a more interesting topic is the prospect of the Democrats’ facing a significantly more formidable partycrasher in Michael Bloomberg, who supposedly contemplates jumping into the fray should the eventual nominees be sufficiently “polarizing”. A Clinton/Huckabee match-up would be ideal in this respect, but even a Clinton/McCain one may do.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
My only doubt about Paul's ability to ensure a Democratic victory is that he might actually steal some far-left anti-war votes, preventing him from tipping the scales.

Convinced? OK, next question: If Ron Paul knew he could be the Republicans' Nader, would he do so? He already ran as the LP candidate in 1988, so it seems pretty likely. Does anyone who has been following Paul's candidacy more closely than I have have any insight to offer?

I know very little about him apart from what i've picked up in the last few weeks. But he is a libertarian. In the unlikely event that the economic populist Huckabee wins the GOP nomination, could Paul feel a Dem candidate would be no worse, and possibly better, than a religious conservative who rails against big business (however much he might drag his heels once in office)?
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
A Clinton/Huckabee match-up would be ideal in this respect, but even a Clinton/McCain one may do.

Or Clinton/Guiliani! The New York vs New York battle with a New Yorker playing the independent cavalryman
 

ripley

Well-known member
I think Ron Paul is more of a 21st century Huey Long populist (with a weird obsession with Gold and a lotta religion)

I know he runs as a libertarian, but the dude is not a libertarian
when it comes to women's rights over their bodies, black people's liberties (dude says he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act), gay rights - Dude was a sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004..

that said, I think could be a splitter for the republicans, especially due to his religious freakery.. combined with his more populist stances. They combine weirdly with his tax and pro-monopoly attitudes though (he wants to repeal the antitrust act too!)
 

Guybrush

Dittohead
I know he runs as a libertarian, but the dude is not a libertarian
when it comes to women's rights over their bodies, black people's liberties (dude says he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act), gay rights - Dude was a sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004..

When Ron Paul was a guest on The View a couple of months ago, he elaborated on how his stance on abortion was consistent with libertarianism. Although admitting it was a delicate problem, he thought it evident that, in most instances, safeguarding the rights of the child in embryo was more important than for the mother to-be to “have the right to her own body”. That is, his argument was the reasonable and consistent claim made by most people sceptical of reckless abortions. I will give you, however, that his opposition to gay marriage seems grounded in a religious, rather than a libertarian, belief. Your comment on “religious freakery” seems a bit off, though. In a field awash with religious hotspurs, he has been comparatively taciturn (save for Thompson and McCain, perhaps).

LAWL!
 
Last edited:

ripley

Well-known member
When Ron Paul was a guest on The View a couple of months ago, he elaborated on how his stance on abortion was consistent with libertarianism. Although admitting it was a delicate problem, he thought it evident that, in most instances, safeguarding the rights of the child in embryo was more important than for the mother to-be to “have the right to her own body”. That is, his argument was the reasonable and consistent claim made by most people sceptical of reckless abortions.

it doesn't seem reasonable or consistent with the general claim of libertarians, unless libertarians don't generally consider women to be full citizens or fully human.. which.. maybe I've answered my own question?

(leaving aside the word "reckless" which doesn't seem to me to have much to do with rights or even the Ron Paul quote you provided)

It is maybe consistent with his wish to repeal the civil rights act because white people's property rights (over the bodies of black people) trumps black people's liberty rights (or property rights over their own bodies). Or maybe it contradicts it? I dunno - picking and choosing over whose rights over whose bodies trump whose... this is the essential failure of libertarianism, so maybe he is as libertarian as any..

his libertarianism seems to be mostly federalism anyway, along with being comfortable with some corporate power, he is more comfortable than many libertarians with state and lower-jurisdiction power - he doesn't seem to have a problem with state and "locally" mandated invasions (like Texas banning sodomy etc).

I will give you, however, that his opposition to gay marriage seems grounded in a religious, rather than a libertarian, belief. Your comment on “religious freakery” seems a bit off, though. In a field awash with religious hotspurs, he has been comparatively taciturn (save for Thompson and McCain, perhaps).

I do try to deliberately marginalize him - I don't want people to think he is reasonable, because he really isn't. He's a canny campaigner, but it shouldn't be mistaken for reasonableness.

Taciturn is the right word..just because he hasn't said much doesn't mean he doesn't believe it or hasn't voted it actively. Also, before he was running, he said plenty about how we should have no separation between church and state, how there is a 'war on christianity' going on, etc etc.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
it doesn't seem reasonable or consistent with the general claim of libertarians, unless libertarians don't generally consider women to be full citizens or fully human.. which.. maybe I've answered my own question?

Not at all, if you consider the foetus/unborn child to be a human being with rights equal to the (potential) mother: then it's a greater infringement of the foetus's rights to be killed than it is for the woman to have to have the child.
On the basis that killing someone, other than in the case of euthanasia, is just about the most serious infringement of rights possible.

Of course, if you consider a foetus to have fewer rights than an adult, or no rights at all, you can be a pro-abortion libertarian. It's the foetus's status that the whole argument hinges around.
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
It is maybe consistent with his wish to repeal the civil rights act because white people's property rights (over the bodies of black people) trumps black people's liberty rights (or property rights over their own bodies). Or maybe it contradicts it? I dunno - picking and choosing over whose rights over whose bodies trump whose... this is the essential failure of libertarianism, so maybe he is as libertarian as any..

^^ usual Rothbard / Rockwell / Mises Institute paleo-crypto-bullshit, IMHO.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Well who'd have guessed that everyone's favourite gnome-faced gold fetishist and darling of internet conspiracy pricks would turn out to have links to an openly white-supremacist organization?


What do you reckon? It's come from Anonymous, which as a group is probably not unfriendly to libertarianism generally, but RP's ideology seems to be a weird mix of libertarianism, old-skool Christian conservatism and, perhaps, outright racial fascism...
 
Top