Web Letters: Ron Paul's Roots

I have not come to a personal decision about Ron Paul and his policy ideas. But I do like his style. I get the feeling that he would much prefer an actual debate to the media orgies that we euphemistically refer to as such. If there is another side of his mouth, I have yet to see it. That's refreshing. And it seems that a great many people feel the same.

The media, however, seems to be missing the deeper meaning of the Paul campaign. Step back from agreement/disagreement about policy and look at the socio-cultural movement. The masses are growing restless. The fringes are coalescing around Ron Paul.

In the best case, it suggests that people who don't believe the same things can agree on how to go about disagreeing... and even work together, which requires acknowledgment of shared needs and goals. America needs that more than anything.

In the worst case, it suggests that we are but a half step from demagogy. That next step, however, will likely not be centered around a soft-spoken obstetrician given to passionate discourse about the Constitution.

Alexi Koltowicz

Marquette, MI

" 'You have this weird group of people,' says Lindsey. 'You've got libertarians, you've got antiwar types and you've got nationalists and xenophobes. I'm not sure that is leading anywhere. I think he's a sui generis type of guy who's cobbling together some irreconcilable constituencies, many of which are backward-looking rather than forward-looking.' "

"Paradox"? "Weird group"?

Ya'll just don't (hopefully not won't) seem to get it, do you? Why is it so difficult to realize that the people of all of these diverse groups can be united under a common cause by their weariness and loathing of American-sound-bite-flip-flop-status-quo-special-favor-politics?

I also don't doubt that the ease of examining Dr. Paul's views and principled consistency through his prolific writing and Congressional testimony during his public service career shows that he is thoroughly an Anti-Politician; perhaps the Anti-Politician of our age.

At the very least, the candidacy of Dr. Paul has made a huge impact by forcing the MSM and the other candidates to address some of the most important current political issues, even to such a degree that many of the other candidates have recently started to sound "Paulesque." "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery," I think it goes, even when it is done by those who are the most severely insincere.

But what do I know? With all of the debate, discussion and raising of the prominence of important issues, maybe as Lindsey says, "I'm not sure that is leading anywhere."

Darrin Shrout

Danville, IL

Interesting and mostly factual article, but I think it over-simplifies the two factions of the libertarian movement. I'm a young, mildy pro-choice gay atheist, and I support Ron Paul, a man of great integrity, wholeheartedly. For several years now I've been familiar with the paleo-libertarian sites mentioned and get the impression that most contributors are socially conservative. Well, that's their prerogative.

I also wish Justin Raimondo, himself openly gay, wouldn't be so hostile towards the "DC" Libertarians. On the other hand, the characterization of Lew Rockwell as one of the worst people to ever set foot in North America is equally absurd, if not asinine.

I certainly hope Ron Paul, one of the most honorable statesmen of the twentieth century, will bring the two groups together. It brings tears to my eyes to read about the success and the positive response he is eliciting and so richly deserves.

Joseph Booth

Kenosha, WI

To which "Trotsky/Lenin" split is Mr. Hayes referring? The one in the first decade of the twentieth century, when Trotsky favored reconciliation between the Bolshevik and Menshevik wings of the Russian Social Democratic Party, while Lenin led the Bolsheviks into eventually forming a seperate party altogether? This split was of course healed in 1917 in the run up to the October Revolution when Trotsky and the circle around him joined the Bolshevik Party.

Lenin and Trotsky became close comrades in leading the Bolsheviks and the Russian workers and peasants to victory in the revolution and the civil war that followed, so perhaps you were thinking of the never-healed rift between the supporters of Trotsky and those of Stalin? Eighty years on, and there are still Stalinists and Maoists justifying Trotsky's exile, the purges and the murders of the old Bolsheviks, Trotskyists or not.

The "Kumbaya Moment" that libertarians are enjoying right now around Ron Paul lies between the reconcilliation enjoyed by Lenin and Trotsky and the touchy, sometimes hostile and fundamentally unresolved (and, in the proper circumstances, possibly dangerous) relations between Trotskyists and Stalinists, of whatever variety, today. Given the fact that Paul's candidacy will probably not change the long-term relationship between the paleo-libertarians and the cosmo-libertarians, I'd say you probably would have been better off comparing their split to the Trotsky/Stalin split than the fully healed Trotsky/Lenin split.

Charles Alexander

Albany, NY

"...a radical vision of a stripped-down state (though, oddly, one that still forces pregnancy)..." I think I know what you mean, but your unusual choice of phrase has me visualizing childless female citizens being rounded up and sent to state-run insemination centers. Needless to say, this is not part of Ron Paul's vision.

And even what I think you mean misrepresents Dr. Paul's position, which is that this difficult issue, in accordance with the US Constitution, is not in the jurisdiction of the federal government.

Tom Harvey

San Diego, CA