Infinite MonkeysI'm a Ron Paul fan, in much the same way I'm a Ronnie James Dio fan. I'll buy the t-shirts, sure. I even like the message, more or less. But the idea that either man could actually be elected president of these United States is amusing enough, though not really... er, real.
Wait! Hold on! Am I suggesting that Dr. Paul is as unserious as Dio in his quest for higher office?
Yes. Yes, I am. Sorry, Robb.
But let me first stipulate a few things. I don't think Paul is an anti-Semite, a neo-Nazi, or even an isolationist as such. I do think he's wrong about the war and about Congress's authorization of it. But I think he's pretty much right about spending, about the size and scope of government, and about the Constitution. And unlike certain radio hosts, I think he's essentially right about letters of marque and reprisal.
Does Paul's candidacy appeal to some unsavory citizens? No doubt. But that in itself is no disqualification. Paul's beliefs, however eccentric they may seem to the media, are wholly legitimate. Such beliefs, indeed, deserve a voice in America's government. Just not the executive branch.
What disqualifies Paul from the presidency is his demeanor. He's a whiner. Any man who is going to take a stand for the Constitution needs to be strong. Paul sounds like a 98-pound weakling. He sounds like a trekker. He is a sandwich-board bearing madman, predicting the demise of the Republic.
Yet that seems too cruel. When I think of Ron Paul, for some reason I think of Fisher Ames. Ames, an outspoken Federalist, was brilliant and passionate. Ames had a keen insight on the Constitution and the pitfalls of democracy. Ames was a fine orator, polemicist and congressman. Even today, Ames's writings are worth reading. But Ames would have been a terrible president.
So, too, Ron Paul. It's one thing to be right. It's another thing to govern. And it's another thing to be a statesman. Paul has his place. It's in Congress, not in the White House.
Posted by Ben at November 15, 2007 11:59 PM | TrackBackGod, how I hate to admit it, but I have to agree with you. Ron Paul is a great congressman, but he would be a lousy President. As a moderate Libertarian, I struggle with most of my fellow Libertarians' idealistic stances. I really want to see all our troops stationed over-seas brought home, especially in Europe, Korea, and Japan; but, I think our troops in the Middle-East must stay. I want a Flat Income Tax, ala Ron Clark
Posted by: Hugh Haynsworth at November 16, 2007 12:30 PMSo, you would rather have "strong" but unprincipled statists like Giuliani and Romney in the White House rather than someone with whom you agree on almost everything, but you don't like his "demeanor?"
I don't even know where to start. When did we go from electing a Chief Executive to picking the head of a fraternity?
Posted by: Stu Barnes at November 17, 2007 01:41 PMGood question, Stu. Well worth an extensive follow-up. But I'm off to see Donald Rumsfeld tonight. I'll be sure to pass along your regards.
Posted by: Ben at November 17, 2007 03:15 PMRon Paul is the only presidential hopeful that will try to undo the executive branch's new unlimited power. He is a servant to the people and therefore the best leader. Remember, 2008 will be the most important election in your lifetime. I will vote for Ron Paul, the only hopeful man enough to do what is right no matter how old he may be.
Posted by: at December 1, 2007 08:04 PM