Rod Dreher

The great and perverted Bobby Lounge

Ignoring Ron Paul

By Rod Dreher • January 18, 2012, 11:49 AM

I’m a little late to this, but a Ron Paul fan e-mails to complain about something he saw on NRO the other day:

This poll says it all, from the National Review:

Putting aside Paul, who won the debate:

+ Gingrich
+ Perry
+ Romney
+ Santorum

[The reader's comment follows:] Yeah, let’s “put aside” Paul, but not put aside the guy who got less than 1% in N.H. (Perry), the guy who got 4th place in Iowa and N.H. (Gingrich), and the fifth place finisher in NH (Santorum). No, they are all viable. Paul — the guy who got 20% plus in both — he’s not viable.

I tell you what, while Romney will likely win the nomination, Ron Paul could single handedly put a wrecking ball to the GOP’s chances in 2012. He holds the key to so many enthusiastic supporters. If these folks at NR and others in the GOP establishment want to snicker and make fun of the man garnering significant support in the primaries, they do so at their own peril. Paul, unlike any other primary challenger, won’t fall into line so easily (remember, he didn’t endorse McCain in ’08).

They want to divide this party and give Obama 4 more years? Go ahead — mock Ron Paul. See how that works for you.

17 Responses to Ignoring Ron Paul

Rob says:

January 18, 2012 at 12:16 pm

I share the reader’s frustrations, but isn’t general media (and Republican) obscurantism in relation to Paul old news? And it’s not surprising at all from a neocon mouthpiece like NRO.

In any case, I think it’s too late. The Republican party is already deeply divided, with Ron Paul representing an emergent populism that is a curious mix of libertarianism and Old Right sympathies–a mix that is at once salubrious and dangerous in American politics–and the other representing establishment neo”conservatism.” What hath one to do with the other? The distinctions between Paul and, for example, Romney are far greater than those between Obama and Romney. I can only hope Paul’s wing wins out (or forms a new party–even better!). The political landscape would be somewhat beautified thereby.
johan says:

January 18, 2012 at 12:19 pm

Agreed. Viewing NR, and also the website of that notorious GOP propagandist Hugh Hewitt, Ron Paul is truly The Man Who Isn’t There. Even if Paul is surging and Santorum is plunging in a poll, Paul is not mentioned.

I must admit though, in recent NR postings, I have been seeing some respectful items on Paul, along the lines of ‘he has done credibly and his followers must be respected’. Even Krauthammer wrote something like this. So it does seem that a segment of the GOP is aware of the situation.
DeeAnn says:

January 18, 2012 at 12:19 pm

The previous day I believe they had included Ron Paul in the poll. My guess is that the ardent supporters of Paul ran up the numbers, so they decided to see “who else”people would vote for. Paul supporters are notorious for getting the word out on online polls and thus running up the numbers. But I could be wrong.
tbraton says:

January 18, 2012 at 12:31 pm

“My guess is that the ardent supporters of Paul ran up the numbers, so they decided to see “who else”people would vote for. Paul supporters are notorious for getting the word out on online polls and thus running up the numbers. But I could be wrong.”

I heard that those unscrupulous Paul supporters did the very same thing in the Iowa caucuses and the N.H. primary. You just can’t trust those bastards.
Jack Hoey III says:

January 18, 2012 at 12:43 pm

Paul supporters had been spamming NRO debate-related polls. Unless, of course, a disproportionate amount of people really did think Paul won every single debate AND are regular NRO readers. Somehow I think that’s doubtful.
SteveJ says:

January 18, 2012 at 12:52 pm

Well, there’s a bit of a problem.

The Weekly Standard, and unfortunately, The New National Review are threatened by Ron Paul.

I say The New National Review, because it really isn’t the National Review anymore.

The National Review, under William F. Buckley Jr., and Jeffery Hart, was a legitimate Conservative operation.

The New National Review is joined at the hip with the Weekly Standard.

The fact is, the Republican Party has to deal with an infection. And putting it off will only cause more lackluster election results.

The heart and soul of Conservatism is libertarianism. And that is not the belief of the crowd at the Weekly Standard or The New National Review. At those places the heart and soul of Conservatism is neoconservatism. I don’t see a bridge between that and Ron Paul.

If you can think of a bridge between neoconservatives and conservatives, I’m all ears. But neoconservatives are actually Wilsonian liberals. Therefore, you would be trying to build a bridge between a group of liberals and a group of Conservatives.

I am skeptical of a political party being able to function strongly if both groups remain. And since the Republican Party needs enthusiastic Conservatives who send money in order to achieve electoral strength, it is pretty clear who needs to go.
Rod Dreher says:

January 18, 2012 at 1:03 pm

My guess is that the ardent supporters of Paul ran up the numbers, so they decided to see “who else”people would vote for. Paul supporters are notorious for getting the word out on online polls and thus running up the numbers.

I find that plausible. After the debate the other night, Fox had some kind of Twitter activity measure of who did best on this or that question. If memory serves, Paul won most or all of them going away — this, even though he had had a lousy debate (and I say that as someone who, though not a Paul supporter, exactly, wanted him to do well). I thought it was obvious that Paul backers had artificially inflated the numbers. That may be why NRO decided not to include Paul in this unscientific online poll.

The heart and soul of Conservatism is libertarianism.

As a matter of theory, and as a matter of historical fact, that is not true. Modern conservatism is “fusionism,” a practical compromise between libertarianism and (more or less) traditionalism. Pure libertarians and pure traditionalists are always ticked off at the GOP for not being “conservative” enough, by which they mean libertarian enough, or traditionalist enough, depending on their point of view. The one thing both sides dislike, or say they dislike, is statism. But even then it’s a selective dislike.
Steve B says:

January 18, 2012 at 1:14 pm

Just to add fuel to the fire……
“A new Pew Research survey shows that a third-party campaign by Ron Paul would clearly work to President Obama’s advantage: In this scenario, Obama would receive 44%, Mitt Romney would get 32% and Paul would get 18%.

In a two-way general election match up, Obama receives 50% while Romney gets 45%.

“Paul has repeatedly said he is not contemplating a third-party run, but has not ruled it out. While most of Paul’s backing in a three-person race comes from independent voters, they are independents who disproportionately lean Republican.” - Politicalwire
Polichinello says:

January 18, 2012 at 1:14 pm

If this was NRO’s on-line, non-scientfic polling, then, yeah, Paul’s supporters only have themselves to thank for this exclusion. They’re notorious for running up the numbers in these informal polls. If his name is in there, then he’ll come away with some ridiculous amount, like, 70%. If you’re trying to get some sense of your regular readership’s views, then you kind of have to kick him out as an outlier.
SteveJ says:

January 18, 2012 at 1:15 pm

Well perhaps we could agree with a slight change in that comment. The heart and soul of Conservatism “should” be libertarianism.

I was quoting Ronald Reagan, who made that statement numerous times.

Perhaps you feel he was being inaccurate, insincere, or both.

There is massive denial going on in the Republican Party — for at least two decades.

The last time there was enthusiastic Conservative support for the Republican Party at the Presidential level was in 1988. And that was not due to the person who was running, but to the man who was finishing his second term and whose staff still ran the White House and the RNC.

And just by coincidence, that is the last time there was a strong endorsement by the general public as well.

1992, 1996, 2000, 2008. Four of the last five Presidential elections, the Republican nominee failed to win the popular vote. The 2004 exception was most unimpressive, as we were up until 3:00 in the morning tallying up counties in Ohio.
Ping Lin says:

January 18, 2012 at 1:28 pm

I admire Paul for speaking out. I personally disagree with his stance on Bin Laden (the one that got him booed), but it’s a principled objection, and more importantly, one based on arguably the oldest principle there is — the Golden Rule.

Having said that, I wonder how much of Paul’s motivation, and those of his supporters, would be dampened if the Foxes of the world *did* pay attention to him. Even though I am wholly sympathetic to many of his concerns, he does strike me as one fighting for national attention rather than a Presidency.
Polichinello says:

January 18, 2012 at 1:48 pm

Well perhaps we could agree with a slight change in that comment. The heart and soul of Conservatism “should” be libertarianism.

Would that it were, but my feeling is that if it were really tried, it would repeat the stunning GOP results of 1964. People want their government gimmedats too much. Better accomodate yourself to Mitt. He’s as libertarian as any viable candidate will get for a few generations–may events prove me wrong.
Mad Doc MacRae says:

January 18, 2012 at 3:47 pm

What I don’t understand is why the other candidates’ supporters are unable to match Ron Paul’s supporters technically speaking. I’m sure there’s a preponderance of networking-savvy people supporting Ron Paul (of which I would count myself on both counts ) but you don’t need legions of fanboys to flood those polls. Just a few dedicated people with just a little technical know-how. Each candidate has their own diehard supporters, and I would assume each candidate has supporters with no scruples over online polls and a little technical skill. Is it just Ron Paul who has supporters that fall under each category?
SketchesbyBoze says:

January 18, 2012 at 3:57 pm

The Wall Street Journal has been particularly egregious about this lately, almost as bad as FOX News.
Don Yarish says:

January 18, 2012 at 5:01 pm

Within four years the propped up phony US economy will fail.
I hope the take away by the masses is at last statism does not work especially when they see thier social security and medicare and pensions in ruins,THEN we will have a return to Constitutional Libertarianism and free markets, the bomb is ticking we will not have generations to wait, the goverment tit will run dry fast and with little warning to the masses, 2012 will be OK becuase its an election year the ruling class will do whatever it takes to keep the bubble up through the elcetion cycle 2013 on LOOK OUT!
Lord Karth says:

January 18, 2012 at 5:41 pm

The anti-Paul sentiment in some Republican quarters is simply the expression of the disdain that the corporate-interest wing of the party has always had for the populist/religious-Right/evangelical faction. This disdain surfaces every four years during Presidential campaigns.

The Romney faction has always seen themselves as the natural leaders of the party; the populists are supposed to be mere foot-soldiers that do the bidding of the corporate Lords.

By and large this arrangement has worked well for the lords; it got them McCain in ’08 (whose dislike for his populist running mate was/is well documented), Bush the Younger (son of G.H.W. Bush of the Kennebunkport Bushes) in 2000, and so on right back to Nixon and Reagan (who actually leaned more towards the corporate side) and even as far back as Eisenhower. Probably the last serious “outsider”/populist to run for the GOP nomination was Robert Taft (God rest him !).

The reason for this quasi-forced unity of the two factions is simple: ballot-access laws that favor the two wings of AmNatSoc over any groups that might challenge its dominance. The last time any outsider seriously threatened the control of the Presidency by the two wings of AmNatSoc was “Rollicking Ross” Perot, and he was a largely self-financed “independent” who was far more closely connected to AmNatSoc and the State apparatus than most people are aware (most of his wealth came from sales to the State apparatus).

The last real quasi-populist to mount a serious campaign who was NOT independently wealthy was, if memory serves, George Wallace. Not that he did all that well in the general election, either, but there it is.

When we do see a serious contender from outside the Throne City elites, watch out—that will be a sure sign that the electoral/economic system itself is tottering on the verge of collapse.

Unfortunately, Ron Paul is not that serious contender. Beyond his fanatical devotees, he attracts very little support. A vote for him is a protest vote, no more.

But I never said that there was anything wrong with a good, strong protest vote. If anything, such a thing would serve as notice to the Throne City chieftains and their courtiers that the subjects of the American regime are not quite the docile proles that the elites hope they are.

Your servant,

Lord Karth
Lord Karth says:

January 18, 2012 at 5:43 pm

Sorry, that should have read ” ‘Rollicking Ross Perot’s 1992 campaign.” My fault, my fault, my most grievous fault.

Your servant,

Lord Karth