Ron Paul Endorses Radical Statism

Earlier this week Ron Paul held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington DC. His purpose was to announce that he was definitely not endorsing John McCain for the presidency and that he wanted to urge people to support third party candidates in the presidential election. On the stage with him were several candidates and political allies and representatives of groups Paul wanted to promote. They were Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party, Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party and independent candidate Ralph Nader. Former Reform Party candidate Jesse Ventura and John McManus, President of the John Birch Society were also there to lend support. Although invited, Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr smelled a rat (in the tradition of Patrick Henry’s response to the Constitutional Convention) and chose not to attend.

Although Paul’s ostensible goal was to awaken the public to the idea of party diversity, what he ultimately did was to endorse three third parties with agendas completely at odds with his supposed libertarian beliefs. He ended up lending some of the respect which he has earned with his outsider presidential campaign to candidates with ideas so radical and dangerous that most of the public find them completely unacceptable, not because they are minority parties, but because they are crazy extremists. The only third party candidate with any real mass appeal and the potential to be competitive in an election is Bob Barr and he was smart enough not to take part in Paul’s little dog and pony show.

Just being an underdog does not automatically validate your ideas. If you believe in an oppressive state, the destruction of free enterprise and the elimination of basic constitutional rights, you’re still a bad guy, even if Ron Paul has the poor judgment to give you his stamp of approval. Nothing can make the anticapitalist message of Nader, the theocratic leanings of Baldwin or McKinney’s outright communism appealing to a wide audience.

I agree with Paul that we need more than two dominant political parties. Yet embracing McKinney, Baldwin and Nader just because they showed up demonstrates that he puts the opportunity for cheap publicity ahead of principle. If he stood by his libertarian beliefs he would have sent the statists away and brought in Bob Barr who was having his own press conference nearby, or he would have accepted Barr’s generous invitation to join the Libertarian Party ticket. A Barr/Paul ticket might have generated enough attention and support to actually break the two-party stranglehold in a way that all the other third party hopefuls together will never come close to.

But instead, here’s what Ron Paul the supposed libertarian and avowed constitutionalist endorsed:

Government seizure and equitable redistribution of wealth
A carbon tax on every man woman and child in America
Converting all elections to electronic voting
The reversal of all tort reforms
The elimination of the US Senate
Shutting down all immigration, including legal immigration
A federal ban on nuclear power
Forced conversion of all businesses to worker run collectives
Nationalizing all large banks and media companies
Repealing the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Amendments
Criminalization of homosexuality
A 30 hour work week for 40 hours pay
A federal ban on all pornography
The universal right of states to secede from the union
Comprehensive, taxpayer supported socialized medicine

See if you can guess which candidates support which five positions. We’ll have a test later.

Ron Paul raised a lot of people’s hopes with his campaign, his remarkable fundraising success and his promise to continue to promote liberty from within the Republican party. But now, when the McCain campaign seems to be taking up the reform message, Paul seems to have lost track of his objectives. McCain actually had Phil Gramm call Paul on Tuesday to try to win his endorsement, but Paul rebuffed him and instead launched this attack on the party he is a member of and the beliefs he once promoted. It’s starting to look very much like Paul only supports reform and liberty if he’s the one carrying the torch. If someone else is taking the lead and getting all the attention, be it Bob Barr or John McCain or Sarah Palin, he’d rather be stirring the waters and promoting statist spoilers he doesn’t even agree with.


About Dave 536 Articles
Dave Nalle has worked as a magazine editor, a freelance writer, a capitol hill staffer, a game designer and taught college history for many years. He now designs fonts for a living and lives with his family in a small town just outside Austin where he is ex-president of the local Lions Club. He is on the board of the Republican Liberty Caucus and Politics Editor of Blogcritics Magazine. You can find his writings about fonts, art and graphic design at The Scriptorium. He also runs a conspiracy debunking site at


  1. Ron Paul is not worried about this artificial concept of endorsement and controlling public perception. He has established his positions and is not worried about the mere act of standing next to candidates of other parties as diluting his message. You are overly conditioned by the practice of todays politicians who attempt to sway the voters by attempting to manipulate every element of their presentation. Obviously you cannot get over two men of different beliefs standing together for a united cause. Only a simple minded fool would think it indicates he is turning back on the principles he supported for over 30 years.

    Clearly libertarianism and freedom is something you are not ready for. You enjoy to be treated like a simpleton, and essentially that is what you are arguing for.

  2. Why should Ron Paul worry? He’s got his money and he’s laughing all the way to the bank.

    You ought to try reading the article. Familiarizing yourself with actual facts might help get you out of your fanatical delusion.


  3. “fanatical delusion” is a bit strong.
    There is value in cooperating with otherwise “evil heretics” for progress on individual issues. If it draws the major candidates into a debate of substantive issues, all the better.
    I don’t think it will, but the attempt is not “delusional”.

  4. I think that Paul’s assumption that people will interpret his action here the way that he presumably intended it is flawed and yes, delusional. All I see is an exercise in pure ego and a statement that Paul’s message is primarily negative, that hostility to the establishment trumps any positive message he may have to impart.


  5. Since nobody bothered to answer, here’s my best guesses:

    McKinney- Greens
    -A carbon tax on every man woman and child in America
    -A federal ban on nuclear power
    -The elimination of the US Senate
    -Converting all elections to electronic voting
    -The reversal of all tort reforms

    Baldwin- Constitution(?)
    -A federal ban on all pornography
    -Repealing the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Amendments
    -Criminalization of homosexuality
    -Shutting down all immigration, including legal immigration
    -The universal right of states to secede from the union

    Nader- Independent (?)
    -Nationalizing all large banks and media companies
    -Forced conversion of all businesses to worker run collectives
    -Government seizure and equitable redistribution of wealth
    -Comprehensive, taxpayer supported socialized medicine
    -A 30 hour work week for 40 hours pay

  6. Ron Paul stands for now of what you described, you are obviously a disinformation campaign in high gear, good luck to you, go back to sleep.

  7. I would like to express some appreciation to you just for bailing me out of this type of matter. Right after checking through the online world and coming across solutions which are not pleasant, I thought my life was gone. Living devoid of the approaches to the difficulties you have solved through your main posting is a serious case, as well as the kind which could have adversely damaged my entire career if I hadn’t come across your blog post. Your actual ability and kindness in playing with all things was excellent. I am not sure what I would’ve done if I had not come upon such a stuff like this. I can at this moment look ahead to my future. Thanks for your time very much for this professional and amazing help. I won’t think twice to refer your web blog to any individual who wants and needs guide on this subject matter.

  8. Thank you a lot for giving everyone such a marvellous opportunity to read articles and blog posts from here. It is always so useful and as well , stuffed with a good time for me personally and my office friends to visit the blog not less than three times in a week to see the fresh issues you have. Of course, we are actually impressed with the mind-blowing information you serve. Some two facts in this post are surely the simplest we have had.

  9. Just wish to say your article is as surprising. The clarity in your post is simply cool and i could assume you are an expert on this subject. Well with your permission allow me to grab your feed to keep updated with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please continue the rewarding work.

  10. I carry on listening to the news update lecture about receiving free online grant applications so I have been looking around for the top site to get one. Could you tell me please, where could i get some?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.