-Caveat Lector- SpinTech: October 12, 1999 <Picture> Ron Paul For President, Again? by Michael R. Allen No libertarian needs to be reminded of their dearth of choices for president in 2000. While running for president to restore the free society is chiefly a symbolic vocation, it still is a prospect unpalatable to most of us. L. Neil Smith won�t run unless his friends collect a million signatures to place him on the ballot. Jacob Hornberger backed out of the Libertarian Party nominating contest in June. That leaves us with Harry Browne, Larry Hines, and more conservative candidates trying to seduce us. Frankly, enthusiasm about a second-tier conservative like Bob Smith or a friend to the War Party like Steve Forbes is not possible for the radical noninterventionist, the libertarian, or even the constitutionalist. Mr. Browne is already familiar to us, and the others are just unknown. Help! Give us someone who is a principled libertarian, one who takes the firmest of stands against war, against the Federal Reserve, and against tyranny. Give us someone who isn�t afraid to be politically incorrect as he battles the State; we don�t need any market liberals who say �Dick Armey is a great man, let�s have a flat tax and smile a lot.� What we need is a statesman who honors the spirit of the founders, and picks up where the Old Right left off. It is time to have Ron Paul run for president, again. The congressman from Texas�s 14th district may have already run, and learned some lessons then, but his running again would be welcome. When he won the Libertarian party nod in 1988, he campaigned admirably. He expounded on the important issues of the day by treating them to gale-force libertarianism (which later was recognized as �paleolibertarianism�). Party insiders detested his brooding on �foreign policy and economics,� but they nearly hated his close relationship with Murray Rothbard, who was losing favor to the smiles crowd. <Picture>Was it any wonder that Paul would have brought the Libertarian party back to a more radical tone on neglected issues? As a congressman in 1976 and from 1979 to 1984, the physician-turned-statesman never budged on his Old-Right-influenced political philosophy. He had been trained as an obstetrician, but personally absorbed Austrian economics and other subjects until he was an expert on the gold standard. When he came to office, he understood that militarism was the chief enemy of liberty, that capitalism allows for free action, and that he was going to be lonely in his knowledge. That is, he would be lonely among his fellow congressmen; but good company lay in his chief-of-staff Lew Rockwell. One small party, the Constitution Party of California (not affiliated with the ntional party of that name), nominated Paul for president this month. The congressman did not refuse the nomination, but expressed skepticism at the notion his supporters could assemble at well-organized campaign. Earlier, when approached with the notion of running for president on the Reform ticket in August, Dr. Paul demurred, citing his desire to continue being a congressman. The Reform Party chairman-elect, Jack Gargan, is interested in Paul as his party�s nominee. There is an effort to draft Ron Paul to run as a fusion candidate of the Libertarian and Reform parties. Certainly, being a congressman is beneficial to the cause of liberty. In his first stint in the House under presidents Carter and Reagan, Paul was a valuable voice of reason. He was responsible for right-wing opposition to the reinstatement of the draft, as he excoriated colleagues more worried about registering their guns than their sons. When Reagan became president, lesser right-wingers fell in love. Ron Paul actively opposed the Reagan program of foreign policy escapades and its hypocrisy on domestic issues. Due to Ron Paul�s insistence on his principles, more conservatives were willing to vote against Reagan�s statist projects. For a few months in 1981, he achieved notoriety for serving on the Gold Commission, which was set up to advise the president on whether or not a gold standard was wise. Paul, with help from Rothbard, eloquently defended the idea of a gold standard as only two other commission members came to his side. While the commission was a loss for the gold standard itself, it led to a resurgence of private gold investment. While Ron Paul has never presented himself as an anarchist, but instead a believer in limited government, he has always been a radical. �There shouldn�t be any laws against it,� he said about drug dealing on the streets -- in 1984 while still a US Congressman! In the last two years he has been in Washington as a congressman, Paul has again behaved honorably. He has had some minor victories for freedom, and has not wavered in his principles. Though his rejoining the GOP might seem a sell-out, it is more a reflection of what he learned about the Libertarian party and his commitment to paleolibertarian politics. (Rothbard and Rockwell left the LP around 1990.) This year, Ron Paul spoke out when he saw Iraq bombed by the US. He spoke out when he saw Serbia bombed by NATO. His noninterventionism was lightning striking the bored House from its complicity. Some Republicans and a few Democrats united in the House to stand for an end to US recklessness in the Balkans. Outside of Congress, Paul is a key part of the outreach efforts of the growing anti-war movement on the right. More fervently than all but a few activists, Ron Paul has opposed foreign intervention -- the health of the state. In a presidential bid, he would be able to put this important issue at the forefront of civic discourse, where it belongs. It likely would be viewed as improper for Paul to run for both Congress and the presidency in 2000. So, why does he continue running for Congress and let the presidential bid organizers do their work? Paul could simply run for re-election while not refusing the presidential endorsements of various parties. At the least, this would offer Americans a real choice while allowing him to do as he pleases. Ron Paul for president? Indeed, it sounds good -- who else could libertarians vote for with as much zest as conservative constitutionalists? Not the most-mentioned fusion candidate, Pat Buchanan, whom libertarians rightly chastise for his economics. Time is short, though, and there must be organization. There must be presented an effort that would convince Dr. Paul of the need for a great national platform from which he could do for America what he is doing for Congress. -------- Michael R. Allen is Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of SpinTech. He is also senior editor of The American Partisan. Copyright 1999 Michael R. Allen. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
