This question is for the realist who are on board with Paul's real goal: to influence and eventually change the GOP. With everybody out of the race but Paul and Romney, and with crossover vote slowed to a halt, we can safely say that Ron Paul has 15% ceiling among Republicans. Obviously the hard work to secure delegates will pay off, but by how much? We know he will not win 1144 delegates.
At the GOP convention he might in combination with Gingrich and Santorum delegates prevent Romney from winning on the first ballot and thus get his real totals on the second vote even though Romney is almost certain to secure the nomination on the second vote.
I predict he will win 30% of the delegates. I think that is a respectable number, but will all the unrealistic supporters who still think he can win feel they were betrayed because there never was a strategy in place to win the presidency?
Of course there is also an additional problem with the exclusive delegate strategy. Next time around it will be mimicked and supplemented by neo-cons and cultural conservatives. That means the popular vote becomes a bigger cause next time around, especially without the aid of crossover voters and the likelihood that the 2016 primary (assuming Romney loses) will see two libertarian candidates dilute that constituency.
August 30 will be a sad day when all of Paul's supporters realize that a huge opportunity to advance the libertarian agenda by putting Ron Paul in the White House is lost. It's even more depressing to realize that the actuarial tables will not allow a take over of the GOP before 2024.
Can you imagine 12 more years of corporate crony rule? Oh let's not have any fantasies about a collapse being what America needs to convert everybody to libertarian. Such a collapse will find as many libertarians as progressives on the wrong end of the firing squad. If you believe otherwise, ....
There seem to be a couple mistakes in your outlook.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest one is to think "there never was a strategy in place to win the presidency."
There was a strategy in place. It was to have the American people wake up in sufficient numbers to change the outcome. They didn't do that.
This is not the fault of the campaign or Ron Paul supporters per se. You see, people are not just raw material for those who want to control them and use them up as they see fit. I know it's exceedingly difficult for you to get that through your progressive head, but it's true. People will move in the direction of what they consider their own self interest, even if they are wrong. Put another way, even if the Ron Paul supporters (or libertarians if you like) are right, until adequate numbers of people educate themselves and agree with that evaluation (which they haven't and don't), we won't have any change. As long as they feel threatened by increased liberty, they will stand in the way of true desirable progress. (It's too bad, by the way, that you progressives don't seem to be interested in true desirable progress, but that's another matter.)
Another consequence of the inevitability of people embracing their perceived self interest is that the market will always work. Corporate crony rule is simply the market solution to the desire of people like you to have the government take care of them. As long as you refuse to take responsibility for yourself, that is what you are likely to get.
The libertarian cause is not really a "cause" either, like the progressive cause. We don't want to run people's lives through tyranny. Libertarians want to be left alone as much as possible and leave others alone as much as possible, and when adequate numbers of people realize the desirability of that situation, then it will have a chance of being tried.
Our strength, of course, is that (assuming we are right and the default situation of tyranny/totalitarianism advocated by progressives and others with a "cause" is unstable) the current prevailing societal model will eventually be recognized for what it is and rejected---or it will destroy itself, i.e., collapse.
And collapse does happen. But libertarians, tend to take care of their own self-interest and prepare. So, maybe there will be equal numbers of us on the wrong end of the firing squad, but there will be more of us shooting back.
At least you've figured out that the appeal for progressive tyranny hasn't lead to anything but crony rule any more than the libertarian appeal for increased liberty.
Setting collapse aside, you should also note that Ron Paul is not the only thing we libertarians have going. That is to say, even if Ron Paul doesn't make it to be president, and even if there is no collapse, and even if we are apparently looking at 12 or 50 years of your corporate crony rule---and you do own it as much as anyone who is afraid of increased liberty---even if all those things are true, it remains to be seen what will happen with the GOP and the increased number of us (or people who in some way appreciate what we're saying) involved in the political process. This could have a real impact in the real goal of having people educate themselves, reject the initiation of force as the basis of society, and become responsible for themselves.
Basically, there are two alternatives, it seems to me. People can go through this process voluntarily (education, preparation, rejection of force/slavery as a basis for society) or they can have parts of it forced upon them by the nature of things through collapse and then repeat the cycle in which a new society based on force takes the place of the old with a period of partially educated people who take care of themselves because they have to, and the rest being killed off. The third alternative of progressing to a society of ever increasing forced management is unthinkable as far as I'm concerned.
So the strategy for winning was to wake up America. And by this you mean buy into every detail of libertarian ideology. That is not a formula for winning. It is a formula for staying safe on the sidelines.
DeleteSectarian ideology is nice for chats but it ain't going to get Ron Paul elected president. Read my previous posts on specific policies and let's have a real conversation rather than this knee jerk ad hominem.
No, by that I do not mean "buying into every detail of libertarian ideology." What I mean is what I said: Not being threatened (scared to death in fact) by increased liberty and true, desirable, sustainable progress. It's as simple as that.
DeleteAs for "knee jerk ad hominem," I certainly had no such intention, and I apologize if that sentiment is there. I went back and read your previous four posts. I didn't see a single thing that I would view as a "specific policy." If you want to make your specific policies known, then perhaps we can have a conversation. I would be willing, though the chances that I frequent your blog are slim. I've come twice in response to seeing your posts on the Daily Paul. And I am greatly sympathetic with your...well, nothing specific, but the general idea of "progressives for Ron Paul."
And I guess that's sort of the problem. I only see vague comments about "building a green economy" (which I read as having the government waste a lot of resources and steal a lot to do it while the corporations and banks smile). You know, if you want to build a green economy, no one is stopping you. I'll even join you. Let's do it. It's irrelevant to elections or government.
Also I see you lament the "obstructionism" of Republicans, which I read as your desire for the government to make progress in its march to control everything. You don't have to agree with every detail of libertarian ideology, but don't you think that just maybe the government is exercising too much control over us already? So "obstructionism" is hardly the direction we should go; what we really need is "roll back." And yes, we need people to wake up to that simple observation and not be scared of it. That's not "every detail."
A quick cut and paste of basic proposals:
DeleteA.) Move 3 trillion dollars out of the federal government through reductions in current spending levels and elimination or consolidation of non-essential programs and departments, with most of the cuts coming MIC, corporate welfare, drug wars and other areas progressives agree need deep cuts.
B.)Raise 1 trillion dollars through the following measures: Reforming and/ or replacing the current income and payroll tax system in a manner that significantly reduces the overall tax burden on at least 90% of the population while raising taxes on not more than 2% of the populations. Reforming our tariff system to base rates on human, civil, labor, consumer and investor rights and on environmental stewardship and justice. Legalizing socially dubious behaviors, products and services while strictly regulating, tightly zoning and substantially taxing the like in non-prohibitive ways. All reforms should move us toward a simple, clear and transparent tax system with greater real progressivity oriented toward collections based more on consumption and less on savings and investment
C.) Take the 4 trillion gained from A and B and apply half of it to debt reduction and the other half to block grants to the states based solely on populations of the states to be used as each state chooses with each state publishing online in open, clear and transparent detail how every penny is allocated.
D.) Appoint an inclusive and balanced coalition cabinet.
These 4 planks are the basis for progressives and libertarians advancing their economic agendas simultaneously: lower taxes, less federal government and more states' rights for libertarians, more money made available to the states to do what progressives have wanted the federal government to do while not destroying the social social security, medicare, medicaid and other economic safety nets, and substantial job growth and debt reduction for both.
Two more things...
DeleteFar from "every detail," there is really only one detail. We have to get enough people to consider and accept (what alternative is there?) the non-aggression principle. That's all. If people simply reject the idea of having a society based on violence, then we're there. If we can't get people like you to reject the foundation of violence, then we're sunk. The rejection of Ron Paul as president is simply a reflection of this point. People are scared to reject the idea of having violence as the basis of society used on their behalf to take care of them.
So, the "compromise" if you want to call it that can easily be on things like eliminating corporate identity. But I don't get the impression you want to do that. You want to keep corporate identity as a mask for your foundation of violence. You think that somehow if you harvest the lives of people through the imaginary concept of harvesting them through corporations (or government), then it's OK.
Am I right on that? You want to "build your green economy by collecting resources from the corporations. And then it's OK because the corporations are evil. The fact that corporations have some fundamental drawbacks---they're evil if you like (I have no problem with that assertion)---does not make it OK to use them as a mask for your part in the evil.
Second point: Your use of the term "crony corporate rule" is redundant. Corporate rule is, inherently it seems, crony corporate rule. It makes sense, I think, to talk about crony capitalism versus capitalism, because there can be capitalism without a component of cronyism. Capitalism can be engaged in by individuals. I can't put it much simpler than that. That is the fundamental difference that makes the term crony corporatism redundant. It's just corporatism.
This, of course, relates to my first point. You give yourself away when you talk about "crony corporatism." You're not interested in getting rid of the cronyism because you're not interested in getting rid of the corporatism. (Correct me if I'm wrong. At least I don't mean to attribute this to you because you're a progressive (ad hominem). I am simply trying to understand correctly your point of view. And this seems to me to be it, or at least consistent with the language and specifics of what I've been able to understand of what you've said.)
Sorry, I posted the above as a follow-up to my last post without reloading the browser, so I didn't see your response.
DeleteI will note that you have not addressed two or three very specific questions I've posed above, but I will attempt to comment on your proposals.
What is below turned out to be too long. I'll break it into two posts.
A) This proposal seems to be based on a misunderstanding. "Moving" implies that something exists. As I understand it, cuts---and especially cuts in spending borrowed money---does not produce resources. So cutting we can agree on. That cutting three trillion in spending magically produces three trillion to spend, you'll have to explain further.
B) You've got a couple real gems of sentences in there. But basically I understand that you want to collect an additional one trillion dollars through the use of governmental force. OK, increase the violence in society. That sounds like progress. Sorry for the sarcasm, but seriously...
I can't help but asking about a couple of these sentences which I guess are supposed to mask the violence.
"Reforming our tariff system to base rates on human, civil, labor, consumer and investor rights and on environmental stewardship and justice."
Interpretation: "Collect resources through the use of government/corporate violence based on rights, environmental stewardship, and justice."
Question (mine and one you should ask): Who decides what is good stewardship for the environment and who decides what is justice?
Seriously, every member of congress except one would say that they are making collections exactly on the principles you suggest. Can you at least see that such a proposal is too vague. It may be cut-and-paste, but it's also meaningless. This is exactly the kind of meaningless talk used by those who support Obama. This is what they want, and most of them are happy with what they are getting. And you say, not to worry about waking people up?
"Legalizing socially dubious behaviors, products and services while strictly regulating, tightly zoning and substantially taxing the like in non-prohibitive ways."
This is absolutely great! You should be a politician.
I guess you have in mind things like drugs and prostitution. So you want strict zones for this kind of activity and extra taxes on people who participate in it. So extend the BATFE to everything else. The BATFEDP, nose picking and so forth. 10frn tax per pick of the nose.
You should really read up on the BATFE and the Gestapo. I think compromise with the Christian conservatives might be a better bet for you.
OK, so in any case, we're going to beat another trillion out of the people and print or borrow another three. Then what are we going to do with it?
C) Half to debt reduction. Excuse me for a moment. (Hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahah.)
DeleteOK, I'm back. You want to borrow three trillion dollars and then use two trillon for debt reduction.
Can't we just not borrow it?
OK, let me try to wrap my mind around what you want to do with the real one trillion which you have beaten out of the people. You want to redistribute it to the states based on population. I guess this could result in some actual redistribution. I'll also guess that any benefits for anyone will be eclipsed by the costs incurred by government for administering the program. But you also spoke about simplification, so maybe it's an improvement on what we have now. OK, maybe that can happen. The neocons also want to simplify the tax code, the "fair" tax and all that. Maybe you can get them on board.
D) Finally, you want to appoint an inclusive and balanced coalition cabinet. I think we can compromise on this. I think Ron Paul and all of us would be totally for it. That word "balanced" is interesting. Do you really mean it? Balanced? Really?
Should I start shouting with all caps now? What we have is not balanced. People who want to continue the anti-social status quo are not balanced.
I'm not going to say much more. I'd be really interested to hear your response to my suggestion of rejecting violence as a basis for society.
But in all honesty, I can't see much content in what you are saying that seems to make sense to me, much less be a basis for compromise, coalition, and all those other good and desirable things of which you speak.
fd,
DeleteBecause of its length, I have posted my response in the post entitled, "Response to fd."
I believe the winning stragey was to spread the message of Liberty, which tends to inspire those that can grasp the Constitutional message. Once inspired and no longer apathetic, one becomes active on a local level. That is happening all accross the country. Winning.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you think that the neo conservatives can energize their base to mirror the delegate strategy of the Ron Paul revolution. They tried to take the money bomb idea from Ron Paul and they failed miserably, they tried to form a "Tea Party" that was created by the Ron Paul movement and hijacked by the GOP status quo which became a hotbed for the far right neo conservative movement that doesn't want government in their social security. They have tried to mirror what has brought Paul success, yet have failed at every turn, and many in the political spectrum have stated that they do not know how he does it. It is done through principled stances, and looking out for the people instead of their own re-elections and special interests, but they will never believe that so again nothing will change from that aspect.
ReplyDeleteYou give Paul 15% of Republicans and I would agree, but yet you do not note the large number that has joined the GOP specifically to play ball on the GOP ticket for Paul. I would agree in a beauty contest that he would garner 15-20%, but the delegate slate; as you know, has zero to do with the primaries and caucuses, so no one will know until the votes are counted how well he has faired, and if Mittens doesn't take the first round, how many GOP delegates supported the anyone but Mitt candidates throughout the primary season that might just join the revolution, like the Santorum and Gingrich delegates that refuse to elect a Mormon on religious grounds?
You also haven't taken into account the possibility that if Romney gets tied to the ponzi scheme in federal court in June; while I am sure he will have the best judge money can buy, there is still that possibility as well as any other scandal that could end him in a day. You might say I am grasping at straws, but the reality is no one knew that the liberty movement could grow to this point either where Paul is actually competing mathematically with Obama and Romney in national polls, and in most is coming out ahead of them both.
Personally I think you would be hard pressed to find a Libertarian realist that is at all focused on getting Paul a speaking position at the convention to steer the GOP slate, as Paul supporters know this will be nothing more than a speech the MSM will edit out of the convention coverage faster than the GOP will edit out any suggestions that do not involve printing money to get out of debt, going to war with any nation that threatens its greenback hegemony, and spending American treasure to buy dictators and pay off the true leaders of the United States in Israel. So while I am a realist and agree that Paul is a long shot, I have also seen long shots pay off in the political realm and elsewhere.
In closing I would just add that the Ron Paul delegate strategy is not something new, he has not opened Pandora's box for future election, the GOP simply has no one worthy of the support Paul gets, he is just a man of principal who has a following that feels that principal is the only thing that will save our republic from corporatism and crony capitalism, and those who will always put money and power over the people, while this was fine in a good economy, it will be interesting to see how Americans react to their 401K's being drained to support a failed government. We are working daily to ensure that should a collapse occur there will be no one on the wrong side of the firing line, progressives, Republicans, or Libertarians and remember one thing that has rang true throughout our history as a nation, America always does the right thing, after trying everything else first, and that most of the Libertarian philosophy that scares the statists so much is derived from their failures, but it will no longer be accepted and we will not be going away unlike the teocon partisan party, we are here to stay.
BlountTruth,
ReplyDeleteI am glad you are full of adrenal optimism. I hope that the long shot pays off. I am not opposed to the delegate strategy. I am in favor of undergirding it with a coalition strategy.
Yes Paul has received some crossover voting support but not as much as he could have. I have outlined on this blog a way to get progressives on board in much bigger numbers without sacrificing core libertarian principles.
I make a distinction between neocons and cultural conservatives. The former are committed to a warfare state. The latter are committed to traditional values including the belief in a violent god to inspire them.
Neocons have no appeal to ordinary cultural conservatism except they provide the funding and political know how for their holy wars. Cultural conservatives have demonstrated a great ability to mobilize. Now that Paul has taught them that delegates count, they will make sure they get that right next time.
The next campaign, if it is to be successful must engage a base of progressives and libertarians in a temporary alliance. There must be a delegate strategy to go along with a more popular uprising. See my previous post for details: http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2012/05/2014-2016-way-to-win.html