Ron Paul - Neoliberal?

By Proof

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Neoliberal is a term I don't remember having heard before. When Jeffrey Lord was quoted by Doug Ross as saying...
The Ron Paul campaign is really about re-educating America to what can only be called Neoliberalism. Which, based on the evidence and writings of its supporters, appears to be a thin gruel of free markets and non-interventionism seasoned heavily with anti-Semitism, morally obtuse Neo-Confederates, and an outspoken contempt for both conservatism and conservative leaders past and present. resonated with something I had been contemplating for the last week or so, namely, how fervent Paul supporters are nearly indistinguishable from liberals when they visit conservative websites. Liberals and Paulbots are about the only two groups in the nation that lump all conservatives indiscriminately under the same label, as "Neocons", a term which they use (inaccurately) with great derision. Aside from the fact that I doubt more than a mere fraction of them actually know what a "neoconservative" is, they think using it makes them sound more intelligent. It doesn't.

Secondly, liberals and Paulbots, after they have insulted us liberally (pun intended), go on to tell us how crappy all of our candidates are. Now, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And in the marketplace of ideas, if some people choose to insult their opponents in lieu of actual arguments, that's their choice.

I have long thought it odd, however, just how insulting Paul supporters have been towards conservatives, rather than trying to convince them to join their cause. More flies with honey than vinegar, don'tcha know?

But, divide and conquer is as old as mankind. If say, a George Soros type wanted to fund a fringe candidate, and encourage him to run whether or not he received the nomination of his party. And let's say you send out your followers to attempt to split the conservative vote, but not by supporting anyone who actually has a prayer of a chance of beating your liberal candidate next November,how exactly would that look any different from the campaign Paul is running now?

Now, I'll throw in the following disclaimer. I am in no way saying that there is a conspiracy or that the Ron Paul campaign is a wholly owned subsidiary of George Soros, I'm just asking if it was, how would you tell the difference?

Cross posted at Proof Positive


  1. The difference? A golden light shines from Ron Paul's divine butthole and it showers his followers with intellectual seriousness and snappy slogans to boot. We don't deserve him. He's too good for mere mortals. Just like Brakabama.

    I've always called BS that whole circular political model (the one they teach in poli-sci classes) that described the supposed "far left" and the "far right" merging at some point in the circle, but when it comes to supporters of individual candidates, I'm beginning to wonder. The people devoted to Paul seem every bit as daft as Brakabama's legions. This isn't to say I find any similarities in the character of the two. Paul is an upright man while Brak is a greasy animal. That said, the knee-jerk nature of their respective approaches is probably worth examining. Brak believes government is the answer to every question. In an odd way, so does Ron Paul. He has no policy positions that aren't completely focused on the wholesale elimination of government action.

    They both lack intellectual depth in that regard.

  2. Nothing. Per usual. Just feelings.

  3. Bunga boo jogable.

    If there is anyone who gets that it's you, Les.

  4. Proof,
    As i see it, the very first comment here, represents an example of "indistinguishable from liberal"... The typical "pile on" that we have witnessed in the attacks against a man that has, not attacked his opponents, but addressed the real issues our nation faces.
    I may not agree with everyone, but i do respect their right to be wrong.
    I became politically active in the election of 1992 because I felt it was my obligation as a citizen. And the message that Perot gave stood out from the other two choices.
    Now one might argue that he was the spoiler for the Democrat party. Maybe he was intended to be the spoiler for the Republican party that backfired! At any rate, I voted as I feel many did, out of a desire to see our Govt get back to fiscal responsibility.
    So why is it not possible that Dr Paul and his supporters are motivated by this also?
    As I see it, the term "Neocon", represents the shift away from conservative principals. After all, what have we seen since Regan was president? Conservatism?!
    Thanks for your entertaining "Soros conspiracy theory"...
    And I would add that this piece is hardly represents an effort to "More flies with honey than vinegar," don'tcha know?

  5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  6. Just an observation, but there might be just a tad too many generalities being thrown around on all sides.

    I'm not sure that debating what a neo-con is or categorizing supporters of one candidate or another in the primary season as "bots" is anything but mildly entertaining for the participants.

    Let's see if we can't skirt all the issues and just insult each other as a means of sorting out who will be running against Obama and his ilk.

    I personally support Ron Paul because his candidacy represents the vast majority of ideas and policies that I think will do the most to turn the country back towards significantly smaller government. I also think he actually has a chance at being nominated (albeit not as large as some other candidates) and also has an even better chance of being elected if he is nominated. I understand that many people do not agree. Does that make me a "Paulbot?" Seems unlike what my support means.

    Or are all the others just Newtbots, Cainbots, Romnobots, Perrybots etc? One thing I know for certain, none of those folks are rooting for Obama.

    I'm an ObamaNOT. But I agree Paul on just about every one of his positions, so why on earth would I support anyone else right now? If that makes people like me "bots", oh well.

    But I'm pretty sure that I won't be convinced to support some other candidate by being called names.

    Just my two cents.

  7. OK, now I'm confused

    I was under the impression THIS was a PaulBot website lol

  8. How nice of you to ignore all the issues, and just make up a left-wing conspiracy theory with absolutely no basis in fact. And threading it with smarmy insults doesn't do anything to enhance the political dialogie - it only serves to remind us that the party is controlled by self-serving block-headed bullies and thugs that can't actually engage in an honest debate.

    Accusing the Paul supporters of insulting them - irony.

    It's sad that the party and the people in it, have devolved to the point that they honestly and passionately believe that Democrat-lite is the definition of conservative. Calvin Coolidge - we need you to reincarnate ASAP!

    If pointing out the voting records and hypocrisy in your candidate(s) of choice offends you, then perhaps politics isn't where you belong. Or at least take your juvenile name-calling nonsense back to the left, where Kristol brought it from in the first place.

    The whole left / right paradigm is the wrong way to think about things these days. I could very well ask what's the difference between and Republican and a Democrat? Our "Republican" Speaker Of The House is on record saying that we the people don't want smaller government - we want more efficient government. Excuse me? Neither side wants to cut spending. And social issues are just tools for reelection. The "conservative" leaders have dangled the Roe v Wade carrot in front of their legions for 20+ years now, with nothing but a trail of dead babies in the wake to show for it. In fact, the GOP hasn't ever unwound a single liberal program - they just campaign on promise, then eventually adopt reform into their platforms. (See - any program or law the government wrote or took over - ever.)

    The two parties are essentially the same these days, and Ron Paul is the only candidate that is advocating that the party actually own up to and take responsibility for its failings. There's no significant difference between Romney and Obama, and I don't really care who wins that.

    The real battle is within the GOP between the small government types, and the tired old "We gotta beat the Democrats so the Republicans can sell us out again! But it's ok - we'll spend 4 years whining that the Democrats did it too." contingent.

    PS - What has Ron Paul ever been wrong about?

  9. Chuck, you started out with "The difference? A golden light shines from Ron Paul's divine butthole and it showers his followers with intellectual seriousness and snappy slogans to boot. We don't deserve him. He's too good for mere mortals. Just like Brakabama."

    Since you didn't seem to understand what was considered liberal about your post, let me dumb it down to caveman level for you: That's got the "liberals insult, swear and make up idiotic names" technique threaded all through it.

    If you want to talk history and policy, I'll kick your butt. But if you want to trade schoolyard insults, well, I'd get booted from the site for winning that battle too. You might be on steroids, but I'm quicker and funnier.

  10. Angela - Well said, on all counts.

    Chuck is, as I've said before nothing but a troll sent to disrupt thoughtful people like yourself, and the many great commenter(s) that visit this fine site from engaging in civil debate.

  11. Angela: "What has Ron Paul ever been wrong about?"
    You could start with his definition of "empire" for starters. (I've got others.)

  12. Proof, I would say your assumption was incorrect. And as a matter of fact, Germany has been paying tribute to us! Although it is labeled as reparation....


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.