Why Ron Paul Is the Semi-Invisible Man
15th August 2011
Is Paul the Right’s Lyndon LaRouche?
If you know who Lyndon LaRouche is, you need to get out more.
Again and again Paul has dissented, been laughed at, and been proven correct. That may be one reason he evokes so much scorn in certain corners of the Right.
Another is that he tends to have opinions and policy preferences that the voters don’t like, something that doesn’t get a lot of time in coverage like this.
The fact that he’s ‘been proven correct’ may qualify him to be a pundit on TV, or a Presidential adviser; but being President is more than just seeing what’s wrong — it’s being able to craft a solution and persuade people to get with the program, something for which Paul (through over 20 years in Congress) hasn’t demonstrated any talent. If it were enough to figure out what the problem is, Ross Perot would have been President. People vote for those whom they think can fix the problem, not just those who can diagnose it correctly.
August 15th, 2011 at 08:35
“People vote for those whom they think can fix the problem, not just those who can diagnose it correctly.”
So that’s how Obama got elected. He persuaded people he could fix the problem. Never mind that his diagnosis was wrong. Time for some real change: vote for the diagnostician, not the rhetorician.
I’ll take a good doctor with bad beside manner over a likable doofus (or worse) any day.
“policy preferences that the voters don’t like”
No doubt the voters prefer the FDR-Jerry Brown-Barack Obama policies. They vote for them again and again. Get used to it: vote with majority; vote for future; vote Communist (or Democrat, same thing).
August 15th, 2011 at 11:47
I agree that Ron Paul is better suited to be a pundit rather than a leader. His fans adore him not so much because he has good ideas but rather because he actually says what he believes. That is extraordinarily rare for a politician in any era, but especially the current one.
As for Lyndon LaRouche, I’ve never understood why he was able to generate any following, but I’ve always felt that it was a really cool name! Like a stage name or one that would be made up for a movie, e.g., Lash LaRue, Snidely Whiplash, Headly LaMarr.
August 15th, 2011 at 22:36
This is a really good point Tim. Identifying the problem is necessary but insufficient. I also have a problem with Paul in foreign policy where I fear that he would tend so strongly toward isolation that ournenemies would be emboldened and our allies would be discouraged.
August 16th, 2011 at 04:17
I also have a problem with Paul on foreign policy. I don’t mind ‘isolationism’ when it comes to things like this stupid intervention in Libya; it was no threat to us, and smacks of a ‘Wag the Dog’ scenario to push Obama’s poll ratings up. I’d like to see fewer ‘do-gooder’ interventions, and more concentration on areas where our national interests actually apply, like the situation in Somalia — if we put the resources into eliminating piracy that Obama has wasted in Libya, it would largely be solved.