What if they're lying to you?

Zla_od · January 25, 2012, 1:34am

Paul is unelectable for a number of reasons:

(1) Merely being a member of congress is not usually considered sufficient qualification to run for the presidency–candidates are typically governors, senators, and vice presidents. The Economist described Paul as a “back-bencher,” which is a reasonable translation into the British system. (This would not however apply to Paul’s son, Sen. Rand Paul, should he choose to run in four years.)

(2) Paul is a crank, an eccentric. The fact that he is famous for voting “no” on everything is a measure not of his integrity, but of just how out of touch with his colleagues he is. The “libertarianism” label is used as an explanation for any number of improbable beliefs or projects, ranging from strict constitutionalism to a return to the gold standard. (I assume that Rand Paul holds similar beliefs, but am willing to be corrected on this.)

(3) The race issue. I do not say that Paul is a racist, but the fact that racists seem to have regularly edited and ghost-written his newsletter does not speak well of his managerial ability–the only reason it has not gotten more scrutiny is because Paul is not thought to have a chance of winning. It is of course possible to attract voters with subtle appeals to racism (as Gingrich has done), but it is equally possible to repel other voters (remember the controversy over Perry and the n-word). (Presumably Rand Paul has been clever enough to avoid such entanglements.)

And then there is his obvious mismatch with the Republican Party, but this is an issue for the primaries rather than the general. (I wonder how Rand Paul has been faring in the Senate, how good his ties with the Republican hierarchy are.)

Charlie_Jack · January 25, 2012, 1:33pm

It doesn’t matter to me whether Ron Paul is electable, or whether he said this or that about Lincoln, or whether he’s considered a crank (heck, I’m a crank), or whether someone I wouldn’t normally agree with or even associate with is also going to vote for him, or any other thing like that.

I’ve had about enough of the two major parties. I want to express that notion by means of a vote.

[quote=“Elsewhere on the board, I”]In the tenth grade I had a super-cool high-school speech teacher, no joke. This was in 1969 in Texas. One day during a conversation in class about national politics, a few of the boys expressed a preference for George Wallace for president. I believe that the teacher was quite liberal in his politics, albeit with a libertarian streak, and also a courageous person who was perfectly capable of disagreeing with their preference, and perfectly capable of expressing strong disapproval of Wallace. But instead, he said something that blew my mind at the time. He said that if Wallace had been elected president, within the first couple of weeks of his administration someone would have explained to him how things worked in Washington, and that Wallace would have wound up being more or less like every other president.

Maybe somebody has explained to Obama how things work.[/quote] [forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.ph … 4#p1156204](Louisiana oil disaster

tempogain · January 25, 2012, 2:45pm

His interviewer here is an idiot, but what Paul is saying is, as far as I’m concerned, batshit nuts. It’s not just that he has a different opinion about Lincoln; there are plenty among American historians; that would be no surprise. It’s that the opinions are completely removed from what I would consider to be historical accuracy. In short, he sounds just like a conspiracy nut, and he’s talking about issues where the facts are well documented. For me, a bit too much, no thanks.

Paul is a member of a major party, but the political climate is not what it used to be. I said all along Obama is just another politician. I wouldn’t say that about Paul and I think if he were elected “how things worked” would be in for a bit of a shock. I’d like to see that, but I don’t think Paul is the man to do it.

Still he is proving that doing so from within one of the major parties could be a viable strategy. History suggests that a third-party candidacy will not succeed.

Charlie_Jack · January 25, 2012, 4:07pm

Whether Ron Paul succeeds–either as a Republican or as a third-party candidate–is not important to me. To me, he symbolizes a rejection of the current arrangement.

I guess I’m going to wind up re-posting this from time to time, because I can’t come up with a better way to say it:

[quote=“Charlie Jack”]I posted this back in 2004, when I was using the name xp+10K:

[quote]During the Vietnam War, there was a man named A.J. Muste, who used to protest the war by standing in front of the White House at night holding a candle. A reporter asked him whether he really thought he was going to change the country’s policy in Vietnam by his one-man protest. Mr. Muste replied, [color=#000080]“Oh, I don’t do this to change the country. I do this so the country won’t change me.”[/color][/quote] [forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.ph … 46#p203746](Police Beating of Paul Clark (Part 2)

Now, I’m not talking about the Vietnam War, or even being anti-war. I’m talking about how people protest or gripe as a way of defending their mental turf, so to speak. That is, sometimes we may gripe because we don’t want an environment to change us too much. . . .[/quote] [forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.ph … 3#p1294333](Venting about Taiwan & Venting about Venting

Incidentally, Paul appeared on the ballot of my home state (Louisiana) in the 2008 general election. For reasons I don’t care to discuss, I didn’t vote in that election, but in my defense, that’s the first presidential election I’ve failed to cast a vote in since my first one, in 1972 (I think it fairly likely that my 1972 absentee vote didn’t count, though, because I cast it rather late because of complications in the delivery of the ballot to me, which I think had to do with my being transferred from one military unit to another).

Formosa_Fitness · January 26, 2012, 1:59am

Just as there’s no real choice in politics, academic subjects are virtually the same. There’s politically correct history and there’s politically incorrect history. Paul’s version is simply politically incorrect according to the world view of the interviewer. Notice how Paul keeps referencing books and the interviewer will have none of it because it’s his agenda to embarrass Paul on national TV. That was the whole point of the interview. In cases like this, I wish Paul had a little more Gingrich in him and I wish he’d light that guy up.

Here’s the book he keeps referencing: amazon.com/Real-Lincoln-Abra … 0761536418

Regarding what Paul said about Lincoln and the Civil War, this Publisher Weekly review of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History is enlightening: publishersweekly.com/978-0-89526-047-5

Well apparently not considering the interviewer’s insistence otherwise and this isn’t exactly a softball review of the book. Remember, views like this are “batshit nuts.” Someone should tell Publisher Weekly.

The interview and the questions asked are part of the campaign to make Paul look like a kook on unimportant topics. Notice how Paul at the beginning wants to talk about Afghanistan, the Iraq War, etc. but none of that is allowed. The interviewer was lynching him and nothing could get in the way of that.

Tigerman · January 26, 2012, 2:16am

I thought all three of the people on the screen were complete assholes. Paul had already stated that Lincoln went to war, once shots were fired, to preserve the Union. It seems clear to me that Paul’s point was that Lincoln could have tried more than he did to avert the Civil War altogether before shots were fired at Fort Sumter. Now, historians can debate that issue forever, but, I think its narrow minded to call such a notion batshit nuts.

ChewDawg · January 26, 2012, 2:41am

I am no fan of Ron Paul as many of my posts on Forumosa have clearly illustrated. However, I don’t think his analysis of the Civil War is wrong at all.

In my opinion, the war was fought over economic issues, not slavery specifically. The North continued to want high tariffs to protect its manufacturing base. The South was vehemently against that and was pro free trade. Lincoln’s election showed that ultimately the population density of the North meant that the South would have less and less political power to determine the political and economic future of the nation. In other words, it was struggle over states rights vs. federal power. The North fought for union, not abolition. Of course, slavery was part of the cause, but no large event has a single cause. The British novelist Charles Dickens observed, “The Northern onslaught upon slavery is nothing more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.”

In many cases, I’d argue African slaves in the South had it better than Northern wage laborers at the time. In many cases slaves worked less, were better fed and whipped only occasionally—their material conditions in the 19th century being “better than what was typically available to free urban laborers at the time”.

Many plantation owners/elite in the South were political Whigs. The Republican Party emerged from the ashes of the old Whig Party. Lincoln could have done a lot more in 1860 to reassure the Southern planters/people with property/Whigs that slavery was safe where it existed and that he respected state’s rights. He didn’t and received virtually no support in the South, and virtually all old Whigs voted for the Constitutional Union Party or voted Southern Democrat. Had he not alienated this Whig bloc in the South (which was politically powerful and wealthy) it is doubtful that certain states would have been able to secede, especially Virginia (which supplied most of the troops for the war).

Paul’s comments that Lincoln could have done more to prevent war are correct although not politically correct!

tempogain · January 26, 2012, 3:30pm

[quote=“Formosa Fitness”]
Just as there’s no real choice in politics, academic subjects are virtually the same. There’s politically correct history and there’s politically incorrect history. Paul’s version is simply politically incorrect according to the world view of the interviewer. Notice how Paul keeps referencing books and the interviewer will have none of it because it’s his agenda to embarrass Paul on national TV. That was the whole point of the interview. In cases like this, I wish Paul had a little more Gingrich in him and I wish he’d light that guy up. [/quote]

Nah, there’s just history. I couldn’t care less what the interviewer thought. Paul said what he said quite clearly, and that is what I am interested in.

Well apparently not considering the interviewer’s insistence otherwise and this isn’t exactly a softball review of the book. Remember, views like this are “batshit nuts.” Someone should tell Publisher Weekly. [/quote]

Paul went much, much farther than that in his comments. I would hardly call an opinion that the Civil War was not fought primarily to abolish slavery “batshit nuts,” and didn’t.

I don’t think it’s unimportant at all. The man’s view of history is important to me. Interviewers ask questions about all kinds of things. Maybe he did want to lynch Paul. I don’t care. All I care about here are Paul’s opinions, which he was able to state clearly.

It might be, but again, Paul said much, much more than this. Here’s a sample:

“He did this just to enhance? and get rid of the original intent of the republic”
“every country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war”
“Lincoln… wanted a strong national government and this was an opportunity”
“he could have just gotten rid of slavery”
“there was a constitutional amendment to get rid of slavery in 1860 that did not get support from Lincoln”

This is all crazy talk. For a start, secession was a fact well before Lincoln even took office in March 1861. The powers in the South ensured there would be secession and war by splitting the Democratic party before anyone ever dreamed Lincoln might be nominated.

Charlie_Jack · January 26, 2012, 6:47pm

That’s true, for a start.

Both slavery and the election of Lincoln are mentioned in South Carolina’s “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union,” of December 24, 1860:

[quote]A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in [color=#000080]the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States[/color], whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.[/quote] avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Lincoln’s election is alluded to and slavery features prominently in Mississippi’s secession document, entitled “A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union,” adopted January 9, 1861:

[quote]Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world.

[Hostility to slavery][color=#000080] has recently obtained control of the Government[/color], by the prosecution of its unhallowed schemes, and destroyed the last expectation of living together in friendship and brotherhood.[/quote] digitalhistory.uh.edu/learni … ssippi.cfm

Here’s part of Alabama’s document, entitled “An Ordinance to dissolve the union between the State of Alabama and the other States united under the compact styled ‘The Constitution of the United States of America,’” adopted January 11, 1861:

[quote][color=#000080]Whereas, the election of Abraham Lincoln[/color] and Hannibal Hamlin to the offices of president and vice-president of the United States of America, by a sectional party, avowedly hostile to the domestic institutions [I have no reasonable doubt as to the identity of the main domestic institution being referred to–cj] and to the peace and security of the people of the State of Alabama, preceded by many and dangerous infractions of the constitution of the United States by many of the States and people of the Northern section, is a political wrong of so insulting and menacing a character as to justify the people of the State of Alabama in the adoption of prompt and decided measures for their future peace and security. . . .[/quote] ehistory.osu.edu/uscw/features/r … ession.cfm

Slavery and the election of Lincoln are mentioned in Georgia’s secession document entitled “A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Georgia to Secede from the Federal Union,” adopted on January 29, 1861:

[quote]. . . the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party [i. e., of the Whigs, defeated in the election of 1852–my note, cj] resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery and to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party to whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated.[color=#000080] They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded. [/color][/quote] civilwar.com/resources/gover … orgia.html

To me, cause is a tricky thing.

[quote]CLUMLY: Tell us why you burned the papers in your billfold.
PRISONER: Because I wasn’t out of matches.[/quote]–John Gardner, The Sunlight Dialogues

So I guess one could say that one cause of the Civil War was that people weren’t out of guns and ammunition. I don’t know how, or even whether, that would fit into Aristotle’s scheme of Four Causes; I didn’t major in philosophy. But I imagine we could probably come up with more than four kinds of causes if we wanted to.

I believe that slavery was very much involved in the Secession and the War. I don’t know whether Lincoln was a real cause of the War, but I doubt whether someone who says Lincoln was a cause, or even the cause, is, by the mere act of saying so, any crazier than the next person.

But say, Tempo, would you vote for Uncle Earl if he were alive and running?

[quote]“Fellas like Faubus and Rainach and Leander Perez and da rest of da White Citizens and Southern Gentlemen in dis state want to go back behind Lincoln,” he said. “And between us, gentlemen, as we sit here among ourselves,” he said arresting a chunk of fried steak in mid-air and leaning forward to give his statement more impetus, “[color=#000080]we got to admit dat Lincoln was a fine man and dat he was right[/color].”

Then, as he turned back to the steak, skewering it against a piece of ham before swallowing both, he caught my look of astonishment and cried, too late, “But don’t quote me on dat!”[/quote]–A. J. Liebling, The Earl of Louisiana (1961)

GuyInTaiwan · January 27, 2012, 3:31am

For what it’s worth, Nassim Nicholas Taleb is not Muslim. He comes from Lebanon, but his family is Greek Orthodox.

Anyway, I agree with Charlie Jack and Forumosa Fitness here. The entire political landscape is deliberately designed to be narrow so that anyone outside that is automatically a wacko. These media hacks (tautology, I know) are completely complicit in that. Rand, if he ever did become president, would be given “the talk” in two weeks and if he insisted on playing his own game, he would have an accident. As I always say, just because I’m paranoid, it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get me. Rand’s existence in politics is akin to having one representative of an ethnic minority in the country club. Let’s be clear, he’s not allowed to ever become the president either (and when he wins a prize, that’s quickly glossed over), nor is he allowed to bring more of his friends, but his presence is a useful tool for those in power so they can swat away any inconvenient claims of being exclusionary. Rand is there purely for “diversity”.

tempogain · January 27, 2012, 6:38pm

[quote=“Charlie Jack”]

I believe that slavery was very much involved in the Secession and the War. I don’t know whether Lincoln was a real cause of the War, but I doubt whether someone who says Lincoln was a cause, or even the cause, is, by the mere act of saying so, any crazier than the next person.[/quote]

First let me say, Paul is a congressman etc etc. He’s as sane as you or me I’m sure (though that may not be saying much in the latter case )

I was addressing his opinion, which is fair game. I don’t really buy this “the media is out to label him as crazy” stuff. When you say crazy things you get labelled as crazy, if you can’t stand the heat hey don’t be a politician.

Which brings me back to what I was saying. All your quotes above mention Lincoln–of course. He was the Republican party nominee. They would have mentioned Seward or whoever else it might have been in the same way. The secession party in the South wouldn’t even accept Douglas as the Democratic nominee! No possible Republican nominee would have been acceptable. Lincoln takes all this heat just for being where he was, and for not being willing to back down. There was nothing–nothing short of something I’ll get to in a minute–he could have done to prevent anything.

Lincoln was no more a cause of the war than any other member of the demographic changes in the country, and changing mores in that population on the whole.

[quote]But say, Tempo, would you vote for Uncle Earl if he were alive and running?

[quote]“Fellas like Faubus and Rainach and Leander Perez and da rest of da White Citizens and Southern Gentlemen in dis state want to go back behind Lincoln,” he said. “And between us, gentlemen, as we sit here among ourselves,” he said arresting a chunk of fried steak in mid-air and leaning forward to give his statement more impetus, “[color=#000080]we got to admit dat Lincoln was a fine man and dat he was right[/color].”

Then, as he turned back to the steak, skewering it against a piece of ham before swallowing both, he caught my look of astonishment and cried, too late, “But don’t quote me on dat!”[/quote]–A. J. Liebling, The Earl of Louisiana (1961)[/quote]

I’d have to hear the rest of what Uncle Earl said (in fact I think I’ll look it up.) If it’s something like “Lincoln shoulda just left us be and stayed up dere and his boys wid’ em” (apologies lol) I won’t argue too much. That was the only way Lincoln was going to avoid war–let the South go its own way. I don’t think that was ever in the cards and would almost definitely been as disastrous or more in the short, medium and/or long term, but I can understand it. I stand by my characterization of what Paul was blathering.

Formosa_Fitness · January 28, 2012, 12:57am

I don’t want people to think that the John Birch Society or anything like that represents this train of political thought. Folks looking for a good place to start might enjoy Dan Carlin – dancarlin.com/disp.php/cs

Charlie_Jack · January 28, 2012, 2:21pm

[quote=“Tempo Gain”][quote=“Charlie Jack”]