Bartlett vs The Paulistas

By Freddy Gray • September 29, 2009, 3:38 PM

Bruce Bartlett seems annoyed, and understandably so. His blogged objections to the HR1207 ‘Audit the Fed’ bill have transformed him into a hate-figure among the disciples of Ron Paul. His initial post on the subject, about which Dan wrote yesterday, prompted abuse in its comments section … and presumably elsewhere.

Bartlett writes,

Apparently, the Ron Paul cult has discovered that I am not a supporter of their leader’s prime legislative initiative, auditing and then abolishing the Federal Reserve. For this sin I have been added to their enemy’s list.

To counter the fringier Paulistas, Bartlett, who once worked for Ron Paul, reproduces on his blog a rather pro-Paul article he wrote for the New York Times in the build-up to the 2008 presidential elections.

Bartlett is possibly being a touch dramatic in describing himself as “an enemy” of “the Ron Paul cult.” But the predictably hostile and fulminating response to his critique of HR1207 is depressing. He may have started the name-calling by describing the bill as “a crackpot idea.” He shouldn’t, however, be written off as “liar” or worse — read the comments here — just because he doesn’t support a piece of Ron Paul legislation. There truly is a whiff of cultism there.

Paul’s critics like nothing better than to dismiss the Texan Congressman’s followers as madmen. It’s sad when the Ron Paul movement seems bent on proving them right.

Posted in Uncategorized.

23 Responses to Bartlett vs The Paulistas

Casey Khan says:

September 29, 2009 at 4:15 pm

Blog comments are not necessarily indicative of any movement, nevertheless, there is a lot of anger out there, whether we’re talking about the “Paulistas” the “Becknoids” or the “Palinists”. But don’t we see this sort of nonsense universally amongst all American political movements today, particularly in blog comments. Whether we’re talking of Obama, Bush, McCain, libertarians, conservatives, neolibs, neocons, etc, people’s advocacy of these figures and ideologies, are often nuts. I can show you vast evidence of lunatic support for all these “respectable” causes. Heck all one needs to do is point to the romanesque ceasar burials of folks like Ronald Reagan or Ted Kennedy. Criticize the grandiose displays of these funerals, and one will receive all sorts of invective similar to what Bartlett received, regardless of how valid your points are.

The problem is we unfortunately live in a country, whose people are largely in a state of moral wreck, or as Mother Teresa lamented, America is a great nation “deformed.” These types of comments, whether they come from Paulistas or Obamaniacs, Clintonites, or Bushites, reflect less about the substantive ideas surrounding them, than they do about our country as a whole.
Jeffrey says:

September 29, 2009 at 4:41 pm

Reading the article, he does appear to be woefully misinformed.
The comments on the other hand- perhaps I missed the more colorful ones that seemed to upset Mr. Bartlett- but for the most part I am impressed with the knowledge and passion readers seem to have on monetary policy and the Federal Reserve.
I think it’s quite clear that Dr. Paul wouldn’t trust congress to have the power of the Fed, nor any other entity but the free markets.
This is what is unbelievable in Mr. Bartlett’s statement, and whether it is lying or ignorant of the obvious, it is poor journalism.
James says:

September 29, 2009 at 4:52 pm

Freddy, what’s you take on HR1207?
Cody says:

September 29, 2009 at 5:15 pm

Yeah, whatever. I’m sure Bartlett received quite a few substantive replies to his article from among the many critical minds of those who make up the Ron Paul movement. But it would not be politically expedient for him to focus on those as much as the less substantive replies which are chock full of crazy.

He acts like such a victim and comes off as a bit of a brat. I don’t have a high-profile perch from which I can espouse my views. But despite my soul crushing obscurity, I still get hate mail. Why? I don’t know. I don’t even have a website. If you’re going to target something dear to a group, expect to be criticized for it. A TAC contributor should know this, Freddy.
Tim says:

September 29, 2009 at 5:33 pm

I am a huge Paul supporter, but many of his supporters simply do not know how to be civil with those who disagree, and this makes Paul look bad. That being said, I believe if critics of Paul ceased to use terms like “crackpot” or the like, then there would be less extreme comments made. These terms, in my opinion, make the author of those terms appear ignorant and closed minded and thus I read no further and don’t attempt to sway as there is no hope. Others, however, take titles like “crackpot” as fightin words and push back. They may be justified in some way, but I wish they would do it without being extreme and rude.
Freddy Gray says:

September 29, 2009 at 6:22 pm

James, my opinion on the bill isn’t the point here, but since you ask, I support HR1207 in theory because government transparency is almost always preferable. But would shifting responsibility for monetary policy to the legislature necessarily be a good idea? I don’t know.
Casey Khan says:

September 29, 2009 at 6:41 pm

“But would shifting responsibility for monetary policy to the legislature necessarily be a good idea? I don’t know.”

I think Daniel gives a good answer. Further, as to which captured entity is it preferable to run monetary policy, I think Congress is better since the banker’s influence on Congress is more dispersed than it is through the Federal Reserve where their influence is much more concentrated.

And while I think the ideal is to end the use of technocratic agencies like the Fed, and move to the market determining interest rates, putting Congress in charge is actually a devolution of power, away from the more centralizing Fed. A next step from Congress is to remand to the states, then to the market.
frzngds says:

September 29, 2009 at 7:28 pm

Freddy says, “But would shifting responsibility for monetary policy to the legislature necessarily be a good idea? I don’t know”

No, it wouldn’t. There should be no Gov’t ‘monetary policy’ PERIOD.

This whole fake monetary crisis would end immediately if just two things happened:
1.Repeal all Legal Tender Laws
2.Prosecute Fraud(i.e. Fractional Reserve Banking, counterfeiting)

Let the FED compete against sound money currencies(ie the Liberty Dollar) and let ‘we the people’ decide what we want to use as money.
ryan rabalais says:

September 29, 2009 at 8:18 pm

monetary policy must be controlled by the u.s. department of the treasury just like it says in the constitution. the founders warned very sternly about the consequences of allowing a privately owned central bank and the printing of fiat currency.
James says:

September 29, 2009 at 8:49 pm

# Freddy Gray, on September 29th, 2009 at 6:22 pm Said:

“James, my opinion on the bill isn’t the point here, but since you ask, I support HR1207 in theory because government transparency is almost always preferable. But would shifting responsibility for monetary policy to the legislature necessarily be a good idea? I don’t know.”

HR1207 has nothing with giving congress control on the monetary policc, period
It is such a short, precise and clear bill that even average Joe would understand that it wants only to open the books of the FED. The same books that haven’t been looked into since 1913.

The US constitution acctualy gives congress the power to coin money. Congress is responsible to the people, they can be held accountable if they mess things up unlike the FED.
If you don’t like it, amend the constitution to change the law, but don’t just ignore it.
As for interest rates, Dr. Paul and austrian economists believe that the market is the smartest to set them.
We lived and prospered very well without a central bank. President Andrew Jackson got rid of it in 1832, and he was able to make the USA debt free.
Since its creation in 1913, the dollar lost 95% of its value.
If congress was in charge, the people may have fired their representatives when the dollar would have lost only 10% of its value!

Andrew Jackson opposed the national bank and abolished it because:

* it is unconstitutional;
* it concentrated an excessive amount of the nation’s financial strength into a single institution;
* it exposed the government to control by “foreign interests”;
* it exercised too much control over members of Congress;
* it favors Northeastern states over Southern and Western states.
Matt says:

September 29, 2009 at 9:49 pm

HR1207 will not dictate monetary policy because the audit will happen 6 months or a year AFTER decisions are made. This means market fluctuations will already have occurred we are just holding a “creature” created by congress accountable through the congress. We shouldn’t be afraid of the truth.

Also Paul supporters have been marginalized by people playing political games so they are very sensitive to these intellectually lazy tactics. Paul will not defend himself because he is a man of honor so we do it for him. This is the very nature of GRASS ROOTS
JohnD says:

September 29, 2009 at 11:35 pm

It took me a long time to understand that the Fed is a cartel. It’s a banking monopoly that literally steals wealth from the population. It collects profits for a small group of mandarins in booms and busts, yet when it gets into trouble, socializes the losses on the taxpayers. I sympathize with the Paulista’s lack of patience with any arguments in favor the Fed, especially when ending it is called a crackpot idea. It’s so obviously criminal and unAmerican, once you understand it, that there’s no going back. End the Fed! Put the power of the money back in the hands of the people. And take away the credit card of the politicians to start wars and trouble all over the world. Sound money= Liberty for you and me. It’s really as simple as that.
Trent Hill says:

September 30, 2009 at 12:34 am

Bruce Bartlett is pretty much a down-the-line liberal at this point. He was originally an Austrian economist who abandoned that for Reaganomics when it became politically expedient. He has now abandoned that to support Obama’s policies. He has a lot of experience in migrating to the poll numbers.
Henry says:

September 30, 2009 at 1:44 am

I read the original post, the supposed hate filled comments and this blog post and I am stumped. What I saw was a man who attacked Ron Paul personally for being “foolish”, he called Ron Paul’s ideas “crackpot ideas” all the while not responding to any arguments that Ron Paul actually made. Instead, he assigned pretend conclusions to Ron Paul and then attacked him for those non-existent ideas.

Meanwhile, people who either support Ron Paul, or simply support the idea of auditing the Fed tried to point out the fallacies in the article.

The article was filled with factual inaccuracies and the worst thing I saw the author being called was “liar.” Well, people who write factual inaccuracies run the risk of being called a liar.

Moreover, using phrases like “there is no reason whatsoever to believe”, “crackpot ideas” and then bringing straw men into the debate tends to lead to less than intellectual debates. That is why my professors taught me to avoid these kinds of logical fallacies.

All in all, it appears to me that Mr. Bartlett threw the first punch and then started crying when someone called him names. If you don’t want a fight, don’t draw a ring around your opponents.

I really don’t understand the author of this piece feeling the need to rush to Mr. Bartlett’s defense and rushing to throw punches of his own. Paulistas? Madmen? Cultism? Really? A man writes an inaccurate and misleading article, gets criticized and corrected for doing so and you see a cult of madmen?

Frankly, I would suggest you both get a skin thicker than a five year old girl’s if you are going to throw stones at others. The two of you are coming across much more imbalanced than any of the folks who wrote comments.
Joseph says:

September 30, 2009 at 4:21 am

Greater knowledge of the fed’s open market operations and other actions can only benefit the free market, because the more variables are known, the more accurate decisions are made. This is a even a basic principle of science.

Anyone who dares to claims they are pro free market should understand this reflexively.

Over the long term, transparency is even more important than the specific decisions that are made. The only people who benefit from secrecy are insiders.
Thomas says:

September 30, 2009 at 6:16 am

Of course having the legislature or an executive body or any federally-controlled, legally accountable body controlling interest rates and money supply would be ABSOLUTELY 100% HANDS-DOWN preferable to having a private, secretive clique control it.

And that rings true whether you be a socialist or an Austrian economist.

And that is why the so-called “cult” is so fiercely attacking, because it is such a no-brainer. There is little to no room for intellectual debate on the idea of auditing the most powerful institution in the country that holds the livelihoods of so many in its hands.
Jack Tracey says:

September 30, 2009 at 9:16 am

Although he may be warming to it, Paul never asked to be the figurehead of any movement. The man is just a Congressman that’s interested in telling the truth about American government and its impact on our liberty. Regardless of how his “followers” behave, the facts of his public and private service speak for themselves.

Regarding the Fed audit, if Congress is going to grant its powers to a private monopoly, then an audit is in order. However, as I understand it, the audit is a first step to rouse public opinion against the Fed and in favor of its dissolution.
Jean Lafitte says:

September 30, 2009 at 11:26 am

Woefully, this childish tactic of name calling to discredit an opponent is so over used these days and it most telling with regard to the user. Rather than use critical thinking and empirical evidence to depose a opponents position they resort to name calling to redirect attention from what they dont know or can not prove. To me it says they no real argument or evidence to defend their position so they attack the messenger rather than the message. Fortunately, the new energy in the world is allowing people to see through such poor attempts making these tactics worthless. A tactic known is a tactic blown. I never personally cared for Mr. Bartlett from the first time I listened to him could not explain it at the time but now I know as his true colors as an employee of the Banksters. It is truly strange that someone with truly a diminutive political and moral stature attacking the messages instead of the messages stemming from the Paulests and the campaign for liberty movement is truly laughable. When the Banksters resort to using such poorly prepared and educated persons to defend their position against the Tsunami of public opinion in support of Dr. Paul and those who cherish liberty and freedom it is truly and evident that the dark days are coming to an end soon.
James Orleans says:

September 30, 2009 at 11:39 am

I just don’t get what all the fuss is about. The comments by Ron Paul supporters on Bartlett’s article appear to be more logical and better written than the piece itself.

Note to Mr. Bartlett: Don’t bite off more than you can chew.
JMunny says:

September 30, 2009 at 11:57 am

I have never heard more mean, hateful, and uninformed comments when I hear people talking about politicians they don’t like including Dr. Paul, Obama, Bush, Palin, etc. I read through most of these comments and saw mostly well-informed and thoughtful answers discussing monetary policy. Its a shame poor Bartlett got his feelings hurt. I think that this blog, which attacks the readers of this magazine and citizens of this country is worse than any comment I read on there. It should be in the interest of The American Conservative to support its readers and not condemn them. I mean c’mon! When I read this all I could think was “Is this serious??!?!?”.
Marcello says:

October 1, 2009 at 5:34 am

If you can’t take some crazy comments on your articles, you shouldn’t be writing on the web. The internet is a big place and there are plenty of people who aren’t polite or intelligent.

That being said, most of the comments seemed rational and civil. Perhaps the blog author is a little thin skinned. It seems that he didn’t research his topic very well. Ron Paul has stated numerous times that he does not want the power to that exists at the Fed to be handed over to the Congress.

There are a large number of Ron Paul supporters who are disgruntled and looking for a fight. They feel slighted by the mainstream media, especially during the election, and rightfully so in my oppinion. Terms like “Paulistas, Paulites and Paultards” don’t help. The truth is, he is one of the only politicians who has a proven track record of championing liberty at the Federal level. This may make his followers seem like they have more of a personality cult than they do.

PS: Thanks to the American Conservative for covering the Sibel Edmonds case. It has gotten very little attention.
Robert Taylor says:

October 1, 2009 at 7:48 am

The Fed should first be audited…then eliminated. The Treasury should then peg quarterly or annually to a specie or species such as gold and silver.
Interest rates, ALL interest rates , should be allowed to “float” on a daily basis from the larger banking institutions to the small town rural bank.
Interest rates are a “commodity”, just like lamps, John Deere tractors, jewelry, etc. Let supply and demand and a free-market work out daily all the differentials involved. Billions of economic decisions are made in the U.S. along every single day. No czar or central planning can “in your wildest dreams” do that.
daddysteve says:

October 2, 2009 at 8:10 pm

Ahhh…nothing like Ron Paul to stir up the comments. He’s a damned hero if no other reason than getting so many Americans to think for themselves.