Ron Paul Would Be A Frightening President

Author: October 31, 2011 9:36 am

When I was first handed this Halloween assignment, to write about the most frightening things about a Presidential candidate, I immediately jumped on one of the least obvious, Ron Paul. He was least obvious because there is absolutely zero chance he could win. The truth is, I could have written about anyone, because no haunted house, no vampire or werewolf makes me quite as frightened as the cast of characters running for the 2012 GOP nomination. Yes, I’m inviting some trolls here, but there is not one, with the possible exception of Jon Huntsman, who doesn’t make me seriously consider expatriation.

The reason I chose Ron Paul is because he is interesting. He’s diminutive. Among the Mitt Romneys and the Rick Perrys, he looks more Keebler elf than Presidential candidate. His suits seem ill fitted, like he has yet to grow into them. His voice matches his build, thin and somewhat frail. At 76, he’s the oldest of the bunch. Yet, there is something about Ron Paul that makes you think he’d be kind, that as an obstetrician, he probably took time to listen to his patients. Unlike Romney and Perry, it would be tough to imagine Paul losing his temper. Superficial qualities aside, it’s tough for even the most progressive among us, including myself, to resist the lure of some of Ron Paul’s words. The problem with Ron Paul is that he keeps speaking.

The best description I’ve read of Ron Paul came from the other side of the political aisle from me, Matt Labash of the conservative Weekly Standard,

“The Ron Paul Revolution is like a cozy winter fire. From a distance, the crackling flames of individual liberty and freethinking libertarianism take the chill off sterile two-party politics. But get too near the searing embers, and they will cause blistering, profuse sweating, and all-around general discomfort.”

Ron Paul is for the legalization of drugs. He’s against war. He was against the Patriot Act. He believes that Wall Street has too much influence over our financial system. Paul speaks his own mind. He doesn’t seem to fall victim to politics or lobbyists. It’s easy to see why he seduces even many progressives.

But, like I said, he continues to speak. This is where it gets really scary.

Ron Paul is a racist – He has said he wouldn’t have voted for getting rid of the Jim Crow laws. Throughout the years, Paul or his staffers have written newsletters with quotes such as, “opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,” that “if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,” and that black representative Barbara Jordan is “the archetypical half-educated victimologist” whose “race and sex protect her from criticism,” among many many others.

Paul has denied writing them or he says the comments were taken out of context, but the newsletters did carry his banner. More of Paul’s racist newsletter comments can be read here.

Even if Ron Paul is not himself a white supremacist, his views are such that he has the support of white supremacists.

Ron Paul puts property over people – His justification for his statement that he would have voted against the Jim Crow laws was that they would violate property rights…that property owners should be free to discriminate as they see fit.

“I believe that property rights should be protected. Your right to be on TV is protected by property rights because somebody owns that station. I can’t walk into your station. So right of freedom of speech is protected by property. The right of your church is protected by property. So people should honor and protect it. This gimmick, Chris, it’s off the wall when you say I’m for property rights and states rights therefore I’m a racist. That’s just outlandish.”

When asked if he would have voted for the Civil Rights Act, he said,

“If it were written the same way, where the federal government’s taken over property–it has nothing to do with race relations. It has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.”

Ron Paul really doesn’t like gay people –

“If you want to change people, you change them through persuasion, through family values and church values, but you can’t do it through legislation because force doesn’t work. But if homosexual groups want to enforce their way on us, there’s no right to do that, either. At the same time, you should eradicate all these hate laws. They indicate that some people would receive a different penalty on others.”

He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, but not because he believes in civil rights. He voted against DOMA because he thinks churches should control marriage.

“I think marriage should be between a single man and a single woman. And the federal government shouldn’t be involved. I want less government involvement. I don’t want the federal government having a marriage police. I want the states to deal with it. Really, why do we have to have a license to get married? Why don’t we just go to the church? What other individuals do, why can’t we permit them to do whatever they call it that is their problem not mine? Just so nobody else forces their definition of marriage on you. That is what we have to prevent. So I would say less government would be better if you have to have regulations let the state governments do it.”

In principle, that might not sound terrible, but marriage does have a legal benefit. Without a federally recognized marriage, partners could be prevented from having health insurance, adopting children (which really wouldn’t matter to Paul because he voted against gay adoptions) and even visiting their partner in the hospital. Oh, and don’t get me started on Social Security. Actually, I will get started on Social Security, in just a bit.

Ron Paul is anti-woman – He voted against equal pay legislation. He is vehemently anti-choice. Despite his anti-government rhetoric, he is somehow comfortable with the federal government inserting itself inside a woman’s womb. In fact, he has called abortion “The greatest moral issue of our time.”

“Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the ‘right’ to extinguish individual life.”

In other words, a fetus has more right to liberty than a woman.

Ron Paul believes in States’ Rights – Okay, let’s forget for just a minute that ‘States’ Rights’ is the primary rallying call for white supremacists. The fact is, States’ Rights is a non-starter. Thanks to Laissez-Faire capitalism, a system that Ron Paul is himself an advocate, we are a global society. It’s tough to find a business that doesn’t do some sort of interstate commerce. People are more mobile. Personally, I have lived in six states. Could you imagine being married in one state, having to move because of a job and having your marriage not be recognized? Imagine if a child was to move with his parents, only to be told that his adopted parents are no longer his parents.

Ron Paul is a hypocrite – He wants to abolish every government agency and program that has ever helped anyone, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, FEMA, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, the TSA, federal student loans, etc. He also wants to abolish the federal income tax, yet he has no problem accepting a federal income tax paid paycheck.

Ron Paul is anti-regulation – In Ron Paul’s imagination, the free market will take care of everything. Bad word of mouth will shut down restaurants, after they poison their customers. Polluters will stop polluting because??? Actually, I have no idea. Thanks to corporate lobbyists and think tanks, “regulation” has become a dirty word in the American version of the English language, but regulation is just another word for “laws.”

Ron Paul is anti-worker and anti-union – It’s all about the free market, remember?

Ron Paul’s ideas are completely untested – Ron Paul believes in the Austrian School of Economics. It’s never been tested. It’s never been shown to work. I’m not an economist, but neither is Ron Paul. This guy, however, is:

The bottom line is, a Ron Paul world is a scary place. In his world, the poor are left to fend for themselves, depending on private charity to open soup kitchens and shelters. Inaccessible and unregulated healthcare could result in global pandemics. Liberty, in Ron Paul’s world, is reserved for businesses and property owners. The American dream would be lost to most because protecting property means protecting wealth. Who is wealth protected from? Anyone else who wants to achieve wealth. Anyone who wants to get past the disadvantages that life handed them, like poverty or simply the mistake of being born neither white nor male.

All I can say is, I’m glad Ron Paul won’t be our President. Now, if I could only confidently say that about the rest of the GOP field.






facebook comments:


  • I’ll take Ron Paul over what we have now. I’m having major “buyer’s remorse” w/ Obama…

  • Classical Liberal


    At first I thought your article was a joke, simply because I laughed the entire time at your misunderstanding of liberty. An article basically begging for servitude meant to show the ridiculousness of the position you where taking. (I especially thought the video was funny of a guy whose competition understands Keynes better than he even does.) Though this is the perfect article for The Onion, I fear you believe it.

    Instead of taking a short-cut to thinking and limiting your articles to rhetoric, try to understand the argument(first a rational argument for whatever it is you stand for, then of your opponents.)

    If you took a long hard, honest, look in the mirror you would see you are a far from helping the poor or the worker, you are a devoted advocate of power. Void of principles you are more than willing to proudly throw on your Brown Shirt spread the disinformation and fear.

    The lovers of liberty may be on to something though. The basic premise is that we are a Republic(meaning the majority can’t trample the minority.) It can be summed up in one simple rule – “Do on to others as you would have done to you.” If we can not agree on that simple statement, then we as a nation is truly lost.

    Re-read your article and tell me it isn’t void of any intellectual honesty. If you are truly interested, let me know I can school you on any of the specific topics you mentioned.

    Thank you and good luck.

    • That was the most asinine comment I’ve ever read. I love how you accuse her of “limiting [her] articles to rhetoric,” then write an entire comment about it filled with empty rhetoric.

      You typed 6 paragraphs but failed to make a point about a single issue. Obviously you’re just another mindless Ron Paul supporter. I would respond to any ACTUAL points you made, but you didn’t make any. Accusing her of wearing a “Brown Shirt” only makes YOU look like an idiot, not her.

  • Ron Paul is not a hypocrite, he want to lower the pay for legislators to the average US income. So, even though he accepts payment for his work, he want to decrease what he receives.

    The guy is smart and has a good heart.

    The scary thing is that if the we the people dont change our ways, it will change us. take the power back!!!!

    I guess its a good article if you are trying to be funny.

    comedy is where reality meets with the absurd.

  • You have completely twisted Ron Paul’s words and you have no idea what true liberty looks like. Ron Paul is the ONLY person in ANY political office ever to refuse his luxury congressional health care plan and pension, and he donates his entire paycheck (he even stated he would cut his own salary as president to 39k per year).

    You “report” on some hearsay ad as news… If I reported that Obama hates Jews then posted it with a picture of him it doesn’t make it true now does it?

    Ron doesn’t want the Federal government telling people who can and who can’t get married, and YOU say he’s against gays? Wow, your demented!

    If you are going to argue against something you first need to find out the facts about what it is you are actually against.

  • Wow, this article must have struck a nerve, because look at all the Ayn Rand-worshiping cockroaches coming out of the woodwork! I love it. :)

    • No, we are jsut bored Ron Paul fans using a thing called google to find stuff to read about him.

      ” In his world, the poor are left to fend for themselves, depending on private charity to open soup kitchens and shelters.”

      That’s what its like now. We have 30 million people living below the poverty lin ion this country and a 4 trillion dollar budget. Our taxes don’t go to the poor, they go to the rich. The 5 counties in and around DC are the richest in the country.

      “Inaccessible and unregulated healthcare could result in global pandemics. ”

      How would unregulated healthcare in the US result in global pandemics?

      “Liberty, in Ron Paul’s world, is reserved for businesses and property owners. The American dream would be lost to most because protecting property means protecting wealth.”

      That’s the opposite of what he’s for. The point is the corporations lobnby to make laws that protect them from competition so we can’t , say, buy cheaper drugs from Canada.

      “Who is wealth protected from? Anyone else who wants to achieve wealth. Anyone who wants to get past the disadvantages that life handed them, like poverty or simply the mistake of being born neither white nor male.”

      This is all just nostalgia for the culture wars of the 80’s. Those were big issues back then but now the big issues are war and the economy. Ron Paul was certainly right on the war (so was Obama) and his economic ideas are mainly about people being able to keep more of their paychecks. I think if the counties around DC are only the 2nd richest in the country we will be okay.

  • Since it’s Halloween and we are clearly being melodramatic here…
    I would argue that the stronger of a centralized government state you create, the more death and destruction follows in its wake. Have you ever been to your local farmers market? Was it really that scary? The big government subsidized opposite of the farmers market would be Walmart. Perhaps you liberals don’t even realize that the policies you often support are giving you the opposite results. Now that’s scary! (Look at the history of monopolies. They are always given special protection by the federal government.)

  • Ruth Matrulla

    Wow! To say this is twisting his words is putting it mildly. Just on the abortion issue one of the most blatant lies in your article is “he is somehow comfortable with the federal government inserting itself inside a woman’s womb.” How does not having an abortion insert anything into a woman’s womb? Isn’t it the other way around? Your next blunder is “In other words, a fetus has more right to liberty than a woman.” Life begins at conception every scientific and medical study proves it and where you get it wrong is that the fetus because it is a living human being has exactly the same rights as the woman carrying it. No more, no less. If you can prove anywhere that he said that the fetus has more rights than the woman…well the fact is you can’t. The rest of it you get wrong on so many levels that it’s pretty clear to me that you never actually read from the source to find the reasoning behind what he says and what he believes..You might try reading the Constitution for some insight.

    • Life doesn’t begin at conception. Or any point AFTER conception either. You, and most people, suffer under the mistaken belief that we can spontaneously generate life. We can’t, by the way. A sperm and an egg are living things. The question is not (nor has it ever been) when does LIFE begin. That was quite some time ago. The question is when does humanity begin. And that is not a question science is equipped to answer.
      But please, don’t claim as a scientific fact what is untrue and misunderstood.

    • Life most certainly does not begin at conception and in making that ridiculous statement you plant yourself firmly in the undereducated and religious RP camp. There are several different RTP camps, but the one that will force everyone to be a Christian is the most vile in my mind. I actually identify as a libertarian, and as such I refuse to allow ANYONE to tell me if and when I give birth. If there is anything to me that distills individual freedoms so succinctly it is this freedom. I also refuse to be dictated to by a bunch of long dead, illiterate Bronze Age sheep herders and their morally and ethically bankrupt followers.

  • I’ve never before seen a better written piece of trash article about anyone before. Way to twist ones words around in such a manor it’s rather pathetic to assume anyone with half a brain actually wrote this. Way to be another typical media hack. I’ve never heard anyone be called anti-woman because they dont believe in abortion. Lol this is a good comedy piece though.

    RON PAUL 2012

  • Hate to have to be “that guy”, but the proper spelling is “Laissez-Faire”-

    Other than that, your article *was* pretty chilling-

  • “The bottom line is, a Ron Paul world is a scary place. In his world, the poor are left to fend for themselves, depending on private charity to open soup kitchens and shelters. Inaccessible and unregulated healthcare could result in global pandemics. Liberty, in Ron Paul’s world, is reserved for businesses and property owners. ”

    Absolutely. Now the unacquainted might understand why he named his son RAND Paul. This is just recycled Ayn Rand, the same Ayn Rand who modeled her philosophy on an amoral psychopath.

    • Mike, Rand’s full name is RANDALL. He was not named after Ayn Rand.

      While Ron may like some of Ayn Rand’s philosphies – the best of them – he doesn’t like all of them.

  • (caption for the pic)

    Everyone in this room predicted the financial crisis.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.