-
A Principled Maverick: Nov. 1999
November 16, 2012 | 0 comments
-
Give ‘Em Heller
March 25, 2008 | 0 comments
-
Lost in Political Philosophy
January 31, 2008 | 0 comments
-
What’s In a Name?
June 24, 2004 | 0 comments
-
Good News, Charlie Brown
May 21, 2004 | 0 comments
Eminentoes
A Principled Maverick
Can an exception rule? The case of Rep. Ron Paul.
(Page 2 of 2)
As one out of 435, this can be an easily ignored peccadillo; on the committee level it can be a problem. Some of the Education and Workforce crew are exasperated with Paul’s “no, no, never, no” attitude. “It’s largely moderates on that committee,” one congressional staffer says. “So they are thinking, how can we leverage federal dollars to make education better, while Ron’s like, What do we need public schools for? It gets frustrating trying to move things through committee. Squishy Republicans might not vote with the chair for one reason, and Paul doesn’t for different reasons.”
Indeed, as libertarian-leaning GOP coalition builder and TAS columnist Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform says, one Ron Paul is grand; and 218 Ron Pauls would be even grander; but 20 Ron Pauls could cripple the party, since the usual half-steps toward less government and less taxation might not find support among the more ideologically rigorous.
“Some Republicans don’t work with the rest of the gang because they are being jerks, or playing to the home team, or being weak,” Norquist says. “Ron is understood to be acting on principle. But he does take principled positions that sometimes cause the leadership heartache because they need to pass less-bad bills, and they can’t count on his vote to do that.”
WHAT GOOD IS A Ron Paul in Congress, even for his fervent supporters? Tom Lizardo, Paul’s chief of staff, is quick to point out that one out of 435 is worth more than a mere 1/435; that his very presence often means the difference between one and zero, which is a very big difference indeed. Paul’s Banking Committee colleague Jack Metcalf agrees; Paul is a lodestar of principle, and Metcalf thinks that even if Paul’s radical ideas go nowhere now, “one of the jobs here in Congress should be to lay ground and point the way for the future.” Metcalf thinks Paul’s electoral success could teach other GOPers who might approach his seriousness about limited government philosophically that being a committed ideologue for liberty needn’t mean electoral suicide.
Indeed, despite the fact that most of his constituents might not really want to, say, end the Cuban trade embargo, Paul’s a popular congressman, turning his 51 percent in ‘96 into 55 in ‘98. His firm statement of principles, and the way he sticks to them, cuts through the usual cynicism about politicians. Paul’s steadfastness protects him from nettling harassment to change his position on this or that, just this once. “Those who go back and forth face pressure I don’t,” Paul notes. “Lobbying can get heavy when they know you are flexible — you know, you bend your stances all the time, why not this time?” Paul also proves that the promise of getting government off your back can be as appealing as government giveaways. Paul taps into a streak of Texas populism, which can manifest itself in an LBJ-like “make government do for the little guy” attitude, or a more Lone Rangeresque respect for the rugged individualist. Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn is an unlikely Paul booster for his stances on issues like privacy arid Waco. Cockburn says he’s “always had a soft spot for Texas populists.”When asked what he didn’t like about Paul, Cockburn could only say, “his reverence for gold is a little excessive.”
Paul has been a public leader in the fight against know-your-customer banking regulations, his most high-profile accomplishment. But as legislator qua legislator, he doesn’t have a lot to show. Perhaps the Ron-for-President people are right: The bully pulpit of a national campaign might be worth more to a consistent ideologue than one seat out of 435. But perhaps, specific success or no, one Ron Paul is very valuable to a GOP that professes a belief in getting government off the people’s backs. As Norquist notes, “Ron provides an articulate vision of where we are trying to get to. Reagan used to provide that for the party, and we haven’t had enough of it recently.”
Brian Doherty is the Warren Brookes Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (13) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Brian Doherty
More Articles From Eminentoes
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/11/16/a-principled-maverick
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
TLP| 11.16.12 @ 7:57AM
You left out: Fckng Douchebag. You forgot Piece a Sh*t, and how he Published "Jews Suck" and "How to Kill Ni**ers" Magazines.
You left out all of the PORK that his District Recieved out of his @ss, while, in Public, he Vehemently Denounced such Larceny, from the other side of his Mouth.
Did you mention that one Word from this Latter Day Jim Koresh, could have sent all of his Mindless Zombies to the Polls on Election Night, and Prevented 4 More Years of Accelerated National Suicide?
He's Nothing, and he's Nobody.
He's a little Weasel, and I don't trust his Kid.
Other than all that?
I think he SUCKS.
TheGr8Goat| 11.16.12 @ 11:17AM
Mindless Zombies? Really? I'll go 1-on-1 with you intellectually any day of the week.
Most of Paul's supporters are very intelligent. It's the lower-functioning among us, like you, that don't understand what he stands for. The morons and the statists, that is. They would rather point out the few inconsistencies in his life than argue the points of his beliefs. That is a progressive trick. Do you really think you can get by with that on THIS site?
Bring it on, TLP. Let's talk about what Dr. Paul believes--not your pathetic, childish, progressive tactics.
That said, I don't trust his kid either but I trust his kid more than I do Boner or McCunnel.
Alan Brooks | 11.16.12 @ 11:39PM
Ron Paul is honest;
Romney would say anything to get elected.
Rhoetus| 11.18.12 @ 11:45AM
Gingrich is a political whore, that's why I didn't/wouldn't vote for him.
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.16.12 @ 8:26AM
Ron Paul makes a lot of sense when he's talking about economic issues. You can't go far wrong in relying on Mises or Rothbard when it comes to economics.
The problem is that in just about every other thing Paul stands for, he and his fellow Lew Rockwell loons are a danger to Reagan's vision of a strong America. They hate the state so much they gag at Reagan's peace-through-strength view of foreign policy. They look on McGovern as their patron saint. Paul says they hate us because we're over there, whereas Reagan knew they hate us because we're over here.
Ron Paul and his fringe supporters are the right-wing version of Proudhon and Bakunin. The faster they are out of the Republican Party, the faster the Party will return to its conservative values.
TheGr8Goat| 11.16.12 @ 11:18AM
Define "Conservative values" as you use it here. I don't think you know what it means or our definitions differ dramatically--and I bet mine has more historical legitimacy than yours.
C. Vernon Crisler | 11.16.12 @ 2:37PM
How do you define them?
aware| 11.16.12 @ 5:11PM
You actually think the Republican Party used to be "conservative"? And you think it can be? Been keeping up with any current events?
Reagan left Beirut, which was the 2nd best thing to do(1st being not going there at all). He also left with the Leviathan bigger, spending more, and borrowing more. A trend unchanged to this day.
One day soon both Nationalists and Socialists are going to find out what an economic term known as bankruptcy means not only for your worship of the State and its false sense of security and fairness, but all the way down to the moments of your personal life too.
The Nationalists won't budge a penny on the Garrison State, and the Socialists feel the same about the Nanny State.
You are right about one thing, Paul's supporters do hate the State. That's because they understand the State. You don't because you still think that the "right" people running it would change its abuses into benefits. A "Reformer".
The State loves "reformers" because "reforms" must be implemented, enforced. That requires personnel, offices, badges, and guns. After war, "reform" is the best way the State grows, takes, controls and ultimately destroys.
No need to worry about we anarchists, we have no designs on taking over to wreck your precious system of cronyism backed with funny money and debt. We are just pointing out the inevitable doom inherent to something that defies the laws of nature and natural law. What you support is ultimately unsustainable.
Simon Templar| 11.18.12 @ 11:33AM
"we have no designs on taking over to wreck your precious system of cronyism backed with funny money and debt."
Really? Then we see no value at all in you. Then why all the whining about it? Actually, we were hoping you would aid in helping us stop the cronyism, corruption. If that is the case then what are you proposing?
aware| 11.18.12 @ 5:26PM
You don't want to stop cronyism, you only want it under your management. As has been proven every time you win an election. How many Depts. did you end under Bush? Or the Gingrich congress? Or Reagan? What would be the excuse for why nothing was ended or cut?
How many budgets did you cut when "conservatives" were in charge?
You "wanted" our help? By changing the rules? Denying delegates? The GOP proved itself for what it is, a supporter of the Status Quo. And most importantly, no friend of liberty.
Just be honest and admit you are a Statist. You just hate it when your "team" isn't running it. Keep your "big tent" which panders for Hispanic votes but doesn't seem to have room for libertarians or Paul supporters.
Rhoetus| 11.18.12 @ 11:43AM
Congress passes laws, the president can only suggest, the only response to object is a veto. How many vetoes did Bush41 or Bush43 use? The Republicans have become a "me too" party once more. If it weren't for the Tea Party and Rand & Ron Paul the "Conservative Movement" would be dead politically.
Simon Templar| 11.18.12 @ 11:11AM
Yes, please tell us what Ron Paul thinks. Particularly tell us his foreign policy and social issue positions beyond "Legalize All Narcotics" and "Blame America for Everything and We have no Real Enemies." When you are done there, an accurate description of what modern libertarianism believes or spouts. That, I know, will be a bit difficult as there are about ten different and conflicting versions, but give it a shot please.
Seriously, educate us.
aware| 11.18.12 @ 5:33PM
We want you to give up your false god, the State.