Who Said It: Ron Paul or Ron Paul?

The Republican presidential candidate may be a party-switcher, but he's no flip-flopper.

BY URI FRIEDMAN | MARCH 20, 2012

When CNN's John King asked this year's batch of Republican presidential candidates to describe themselves in one word during a February debate in Arizona, Ron Paul didn't hesitate. "Consistent," he declared, as a proud half-smile crept across his face.

Indeed, while the congressman from Texas has changed his views on certain issues over time -- Paul, for example, has become increasingly skeptical of climate change and increasingly tough on immigration, and now touts his ties with Ronald Reagan even though he denounced the Gipper's policies in 1987 -- he is, in many ways, a rare breed in politics these days: a sturdy sandal in a sea of flimsy flip-floppers.

Long before he was calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and arguing for friendship rather than war with Iran, Paul was the only member of the House of Representatives to vote against a 1981 resolution on U.S. efforts to resolve a conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization in Lebanon. "We need less meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, not more," he explained.

In fact, while Paul is now running as a Republican candidate (just how long the ideological strain he represents will remain in the party is unclear), he sounds remarkably similar to how he did in 1988, when he won less than half a million votes as the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate after temporarily leaving the GOP.

Take technology, for instance. In 1987, he told Texas Monthly that "we're going to start testing our TV in smaller states, on off-channels, and on cable television. People who are looking for ideas tend to be watching independent stations and cable." By the 2008 election, when cable television had long since gone mainstream, Paul was channeling his message through the next edgy, disruptive innovation: the web.  

Or take this interview in 1988 with a 53-year-old Paul. Sure, he's younger. But if you close your eyes and ignore the references to communism, you might just lose yourself in time. There's the same ardent, amused, and slightly squeaky talk of honoring the Constitution, taking a wrecking ball to federal institutions (especially his arch nemesis, the Federal Reserve), reining in out-of-control government spending, restoring a bright future for the country's debt-saddled youth, doing away with foreign aid, and turning America's gaze back toward its own shores and national defense.  

Admittedly, the 76-year-old Paul has lost a step or two. He no longer gesticulates wildly when discussing drug legalization (5:00), the Vietnam War (15:00), and getting "high on the ideas of freedom" (16:50), as he did in this surreal 1988 appearance on the Morton Downey Jr. Show, an ear-splitting Jerry Springer forerunner.

But theatrics aside, it's the same Ron Paul. Still don't believe us? We challenge you to a game. Who said it: today's Ron Paul or 1980s Ron Paul?

1. "This country has been the wealthiest country ever. We've been the freest country. And we've been very, very prosperous. We had the strongest currency. We had the most gold. And what is happening today?... The deficits are out of control, we have borrowed to the hilt ... and we're facing serious problems.... It's an end of an era."

Wikimedia Commons/Win McNamee/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS: ELECTION 2012, RON PAUL
 

Uri Friedman is an associate editor at Foreign Policy.

COUNTCHOCULA1011

5:07 PM ET

March 20, 2012

Missed about 3 of them

Ron Paul 2012

 

URI FRIEDMAN

6:12 PM ET

March 20, 2012

Score

Not bad! Any that people are finding particularly difficult? Easy?

 

COUNTCHOCULA1011

2:07 AM ET

March 21, 2012

Difficulty

I wouldn't say it was particularly difficult or easy. However, I did notice a pattern emerging in which quotes which you would naturally assume were comments on modern events tended to be the ones which were actually said by Dr. Paul in the 80s-90s.

 

JIVATMANX

10:31 PM ET

March 20, 2012

Our Cato

Ron Paul is our Cato... a man of true consistency and one of the last politicians who who is not corrupt.

But now need a Cicero... someone who has the same principles but more charismatic and with at least some willingness to compromise and play politics.

 

SPOOD

2:05 PM ET

March 21, 2012

Consistent yes, sane...not quite

Consistency means little when one's platform is fundamentally goofy.

He has always been unequivocably racist, misogynist, deeply in the pocket of the Christian fundamentalists, isolationist anti-abortion, with a clear distaste for using the power of the government to address issues of the working and middle class.

Lets dispel some oft used tropes by Paulies. He is not the only politician speaking out against our wars. Never has been. His "predictions about the current economy" are bullcrap. Taking a contrarian economic position is being a famous psychic. Nobody counts the number of failed predictions and eventually if you wait long enough you will be correct once. Its why we call it the business cycle. [These things happen]. His position on "the war on drugs" is a complete dodge. By referring it down to the states, he ensures a bigger mess with wildly inconsistent forms of enforcement. Those racist newsletters he wrote a few years ago were approved by him and he has defended them in the past and claimed them as his own.

Why is FP still taking him seriously? The guy is 4th in essentially a 2 person primary. His positions ensure he will never be elected president.

 

LITTLEMANTATE

6:36 PM ET

March 21, 2012

Justin Amash, maybe

although he has shown himself to be a willing enabler of Hollywood lobbyists, but otherwise a decent politician. To be a Cicero is a tall order, particularly in today's climate.

Re Spood et al, if they have their way, we'll end up with a Caesar quicker than a Cato. Paul in the pocket of the fundies? That's strange considering the fundies are pretty pro-intervention and they do loves them some foreign aid boondoggles.

And as none of the major candidates, outside of rabble-rousing, will do any serious immigration reform, we can dispense with the claim that Paul is the only one not willing to "help" the middle and working class. And as government-driven inflation hits the poorer and middle class first, I'd have to say our bellicose, hegemonic, exceptionalist leaders are actively working against the interests of the working class and poor.

Everyone else, including Obama, are pretty much status quo. They'll talk a lot, accomplish little, and make sure their backers get a good return on their investment.

 

SPOOD

3:18 PM ET

March 22, 2012

More like our Saig? Takamori

The reference: Saig? Takamori the leader of the Satsuma Revolt in Japan in 1877, a war against modernity. Had he been successful, Japan would not have modernized and more likely than not ended up as a European colony. Paul is a man full of passion for wrongheaded causes.

We already had a couple of Caesars. We called them Teddy Roosevelt, FDR and Reagan. Our system is set up to withstand all sorts of dominating personalities who take its reigns.

As for the fundies, Ron Paul is anti-choice, pro school prayer and creationist. What group of people takes these platforms.....could it be fundies? The take on foreign affairs by Fundies is neither consistent nor important to their agenda.

Ron Paul's view of "immigration reform" is a joke. He has no intention of doing anything other than make our issues on the subject much, much worse. Having an opinion on the subject is not equal to having one worth taking seriously.

Ron Paul supports neo-guilded age policies which hurt the working class and middle class. He wants to remove national level labor protections, consumer protections, environmental protections, wants to encourage discrimination of all stripes. We can dispense with the bullcrap that he wants to do anything for the benefit of those who are not wealthy.

His ideas of economic policies were ridiculous in William Jennings Bryan's age and they are moreso today. Encouraging companies to avoid paying living wages, giving decent benefits or showing accountability to the public isn't going to do much for the working/middle class.

 

JIVATMANX

7:05 PM ET

March 23, 2012

He's a fundie? I guess that's

He's a fundie? I guess that's why he said that Republicans should emphasize liberty and not religion. ( In a reference to Santorum)

 

JIVATMANX

6:40 PM ET

March 21, 2012

"He is not the only

"He is not the only politician speaking out against our wars. Never has been"

There were six congressional Republicans who voted Nay, one Senator. That's a fairly small number, unless I'm missing something

"Taking a contrarian economic position is being a famous psychic."

He's not a stock market predictor and if you read anything he says as advice from him you're doing it wrong.

The significant, long-term deleterious trend he has pointed out is that financial sector is becoming an ever-larger percentage of the economy, and that this is because the Federal Reserve lends an unlimited amount of money to select "Primary Dealer" banks at low rates. They then use that to speculate for their own benefit, at the expense of the real economy.

"His position on "the war on drugs" is a complete dodge."

Interesting, I've heard a lot of criticism of his position here, but never as being not strongly enough in favor of legalization.

"Those racist newsletters he wrote a few years ago were approved by him and he has defended them in the past and claimed them as his own."

You're well aware there exists no written or spoken/video evidence of him espousing racist viewpoints or endorsing them, or any former staffers who say that he espoused such views. In fact, while few people dislike Ron Paul as much as Eric Dondero, a former staffer who left on bad terms and ran against him, Dondero says he is anti-Israel (which of course, he would disagree with), but specifically said he is not anti-semitic or Racist.

 

SPOOD

3:26 PM ET

March 22, 2012

Misrepresentation much?

And how many democrats voted against either of our wars?

His view on the Federal Reserve is the perfect example of letting a platform get in the way of common sense. Because Paul is so wedded to bringing back the Articles of Confederation, he attacks the entire Federal reserve system rather than bother to come up with the more sensible idea of controling its policies. Its typical throwing the baby out with the bathwater. He contributes nothing of value to the discussion.

"Interesting, I've heard a lot of criticism of his position here, but never as being not strongly enough in favor of legalization."

Yet his supporters claim he does. Its one of many fictions Paulies bandy about.

"You're well aware there exists no written or spoken/video evidence of him espousing racist viewpoints or endorsing them"

That is a flat out lie. First of all, they went out under his name. His endorsement is implied. Plus he has defended the views espoused by them on several occasions.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/ron-pauls-shaggy-defense/250256/

Lets not go into the fact that he is the candidate of choice of Stormfront
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBz_7yrJKq0

 

JIVATMANX

9:03 AM ET

March 23, 2012

"And how many democrats voted

"And how many democrats voted against either of our wars?"

Close to half, for Iraq. Most votes nowadays are party line, and if there were a Democratic president the proportions would probably be reversed.

"Because Paul is so wedded to bringing back the Articles of Confederation"

The last link to the gold standard was'nt broken until 1971. The Fed wasn't established until 1913, and the two previous central banks were ended without armageddon happening.

"Yet his supporters claim he does. Its one of many fictions Paulies bandy about."

I'll give you this one, just because I like the word bandy.

"That is a flat out lie."

Than refute it.

"Lets not go into the fact that he is the candidate of choice of Stormfront"

And Castro endorsed Obama's healthcare plan. Not sure how this is relevant.

 

KELLI MINTREAS

2:00 AM ET

April 19, 2012

Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul

I know that, Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul (born August 20, 1935) is an American politician who has been the U.S. Representative for Texas's 14th congressional district, which includes Galveston, since 1997, and a three-time candidate for President of the United States, as a Libertarian in 1988 and as a Republican in 2008 and 2012. He is an outspoken critic of American foreign and monetary policies, including the Military–industrial complex and the Federal Reserve, and is known for advocating certain libertarian positions and opposing his own party on certain issues. Ronald Ernest Paul was born on August 20, 1935 in Pittsburgh,[6] the son of Howard Caspar Paul, who ran a small dairy company, and Margaret (née Dumont) Paul. His paternal great-grandparents emigrated from Germany, and his mother was of German and Irish ancestry.
As a junior at suburban Dormont High School, he was the 220-yard dash state champion.[9] He graduated from Gettysburg College, with a B.S. degree in Biology in 1957. Paul earned a Doctor of Medicine degree from Duke University's School of Medicine in 1961, and completed his medical internship at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit and his residency in obstetrics and gynecology at Magee-Womens Hospital in Pittsburgh.[10] Paul served as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force from 1963 to 1965 and then in the United States Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968.