The Cult of Paul
Successful politics is the blending of principle and pragmatism. Too much of either one or the other will always result in failure and setback. If you refuse to compromise in order to maintain ideological purity of principle, you will not win elections, and wind up consigning yourself to the minority fringe. If you too willingly sacrifice principle for the sake of winning elections, your principles will have little or no influence on policy, and your overall aims will be thwarted.
When the history of the 2012 Republican election cycle is written, the story it will tell is of two camps, one devoted uncompromisingly to principle, the other to simply winning, and whether or not we prevail in November will depend largely on whether those two camps can come together and find some middle-ground. For the sake of simplicity, we’ll call these two groups the Romney and the Not-Romney camps. The Romney camp says sure, our candidate may not be very solid on any principles, particularly conservative principles, but he has the best chance of winning. The Not-Romney camp says Romney is untrustworthy, cannot be counted on to fight-for and defend any of our principles, and is thus unacceptable. But there is a third element trying to force its way into play, coming from the outer-edge of the Not-Romney camp, that being the Ron Paul supporters.
A cult of personality arises when an individual displaces the principles and ideas behind a political group. It usually is a deliberately cultivated agenda, but can grow spontaneously as well, as has been the case with Ron Paul, who has become the center of his own cult of personality. The evidence for this is overwhelming. Anyone who has been to CPAC over the past couple years will recall, usually with disgust, the behavior of the legion of Paul supporters who keep to themselves, heckle other candidates and their supporters, are rude and derisive toward those outside their group, and make a big show of all leaving the room together after their people finish speaking. Ask them if they will vote for the Republican nominee if it’s not Paul, and they will usually admit they will not. And heaven forbid should you try to engage them in discussion or debate, as they invariably will treat it as an opportunity to sermonize, and will often dismiss you with a trite line like “well I guess you just don’t like the truth!” when you disagree or point-out a flaw in their arguments.
For Paul supporters, this election cycle has ceased being about what is best for America, and has become all about getting their candidate into office, by hook or crook. They absurdly rationalize this attitude by telling us that putting anyone else on the Republican ticket would be just as bad as Obama. For them, it’s “Paul or nothing.” They have utterly discarded the pragmatic element required for successful politics, but they are not going to allow that to stop them. Ron Paul has been disdainful of the Republican Party throughout his career, but his supporters are trying to hijack that party on behalf of their candidate, and they have a plan for accomplishing that goal. The following is an email received by a friend of mine a few days ago:
From: Massachusetts Ron Paul Supporters <maronpaulsupporters@gmail.com>
To: undisclosed <XXXXX@XXXX.XXX>
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2012 4:58 PM
Subject: Massachusetts Ron Paul Supporters ALERT
Hello fellow liberty activists!
I am sending out batch emails that have been collected at Tea Party, Audit the Fed, and other Liberty events across the commonwealth in an effort to help elect Dr. Ron Paul in the upcoming Presidential Primary. If you support Ron Paul and will be voting for him in the upcoming primary then we URGENTLY need your help!
Ron Paul grassroots activists are organizing folks like you to help Dr. Ron Paul win delegates and have a shot to win the Republican Nomination at the Republican National Convention in August 2012. If you would like to learn more and get involved then please read the attached FAQ regarding the delegate process and fill out our Help elect Liberty Delegates Sign Up Sheet
Although Independents can vote in the Primary on March 6th, by Republican Party rules, in order to participate in the Republican Caucus (in late April, Early May 2012) and elect Liberty Delegates, you MUST register as Republican by February 15th.
The Caucus is usually on a Saturday morning in your congressional district, and takes about an hour. PLEASE step up for the hour it takes to vote for a Liberty delegate!
Delegate FAQ pdf attached.
Soon after filling the sign sheet we will contact you again with more details.
Thanks
Brad Wyatt
Bob Dwyer – 508-930-xxxx
The email includes a link to a sign-up sheet, which also explains how this scheme will work. Erick Erickson does a great job of explaining it over at RedState:
A prominent friend told me some weeks ago that he noticed an odd thing. In his state, several people who have been successful in getting themselves known as very probably Mitt Romney delegates for the Republican National Convention are also his supporters. And they are not just my friends’ supporters, they are also long time staunch Ron Paul supporters.
Why then would they, long time staunch Ron Paul supporters, align this year with Mitt Romney? He made calls and talked to friends in other states. All of them saw the same thing happening — long time Dr. Paul supporters working to become delegates to the convention pledging to support Mitt Romney and others.
If the field stays fractured at this level, with only a few people, but each getting delegates enough to prevent the front runner from an outright majority, there will be a second vote at the Republican National Convention.
Delegates are only locked in for their candidate during the first vote. After the first vote, they can vote for whoever they want. So if Mitt Romney is unable to clear an outright majority on the first ballot, suddenly he could see some of his delegates turn on him — turn and go back to Ron Paul.
It is an ingenious strategy premised on a convention where no one gets majority support early. It plays well to a primary calendar where the delegates are first awarded proportionally. Who knows if it is a campaign strategy or just his volunteers, but the Paul campaign has been active now for four years trying to take over local parties.
It may pay off if the GOP doesn’t unite around a candidate soon.
So in a nutshell, Paul supporters are trying to pass themselves off as delegates for other candidates so they can hijack the nomination for Ron Paul. Can this work? Two things need to happen in order for this plot to succeed. First, there must be a brokered convention, one in which there is no first-ballot majority winner. Second, Paul supporters must successfully pass themselves off as delegates for other candidates in sufficient numbers to eventually give their man a majority at the convention. It seems like a long-shot, but it would be good for local Republican committees across the country to be watchful for these “Manchurian Delegates” nonetheless. More important I think is what this sort of behavior says about Paul supporters. They truly do stand apart from the Republican Party, and we should not count on them for any sort of loyalty. They truly have come to constitute a cult of personality around their candidate, and their only allegiance is to him.
Related Posts
-
Vegetables, Vampires & Ron Paul
Posted on Feb 10, 2012
-
The World’s Gone Mad
Posted on Jan 2, 2012
-
Parting Company with Glenn Beck
Posted on Dec 13, 2011
-
Talking Politics
Posted on Dec 8, 2011
Tags
Share This
We know, with not a shadow of doubt, that liberty is the best—and the most moral—choice for society. We seek to expand human liberty. To defend the individual against the state. To inspire new cooperation between conservatives, libertarians, and all those devoted to this cause, and to bring about a new renaissance of liberty.
Ron Paul supporters follow principles, not a cult of personality. As soon as other candidates start demonstrating principles, they’ll win us over.
I would agree that Ron Paul presents a purer, more crystalline form of (his own brand of) libertarianism. However, that does not mean that other politicians and candidates are bereft of principles.
Moreover—and I truly mean this gently and with respect—there are a fair number of Ron Paul supporters who have made him into something of an avatar. Not all, and not to the degree that, say, Obama supporters did in 2008.But there is some of that in evidence.
It should come as no surprise, since 2008, Ron paul supporter, Peter Schiff has called on Libertarians to infiltrate the GOP
Peter Schiff was Ron Paul’s economic advisor in his 2008 campaign.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ncLTFoTFa8
Peter Schiff is great when it comes to economics and support for limited governance and free markets . . . and, lo and behold, so is Ron Paul.
I do not agree that infiltration should take place, for I believe we are essentially the same ideology, separated by a small number of issues and a larger number of stylistic differences. Alliance, rapprochement, combination, and coordination to defeat statism is what I would like to see.
Latin: MALO PERICULOSAM LIBERTATEM QUAM QUIETUM SERVITIUM
· English: I PREFER LIBERTY WITH DANGER TO PEACE WITH SLAVERY
Same here.
Really a stretch to be calling Paul supporters a cult of personality. And to compare Paul himself to mass murderers is offensive.
You’re advancing this idea that Paul supporters aren’t true Republicans and that they aim to steal the nomination. That may be completely true. But do you think Mitt will head into a brokered convention without a backup plan? Do you think neocons are true Republicans?
Furthermore, should a person reject their principles and vote only to advance the party? And If you reject a panderer(pragmatist) does that automatically make you a cultist? Or does one also have to be anti-social at CPAC?
Kim Jong Il is not, at least so far as I know, a mass-murderer, and you are missing the point. The other three portraits were deliberately picked because they were used specifically for the purpose of establishing the cult of personality of the three leades in question. The fact that two of those leaders also were mass-murderers is incidental, and unrelated to the the greater point.
I’m not “advancing the idea” that Paul supporters aren’t true Republicans, I’m providing evidence that they are in fact not, in their own words no less, and that they are planning to hijack the party for their own purposes. This is not a baseless accusation, and it wasn’t my idea. It is what it is.
I’m confused a bit. You think showing a picture of Ron Paul along side Kim Jong Il, Ma Zedong and Benito Mussolini is incidental and not in fact offensive and inflammatory? You think Ron Paul garners the same type of God like worship as those people even without any type of personal propaganda or mass media sponsorship?
Simply put, the graphic iconization in the current and previous presidential election cycle does not a cult make. Furthermore, it isn’t Paul himself or even his message that attracts his base. Like the Tea Party his base is coming from dissatisfaction of the current GOP establishment(As well as young and disillusioned Democrats) . A GOP establishment that was in fact hi-jacked by neo-conservatives after the 2000 election of Geroge W Bush.
Even further, I find myself wondering about just what type of blog this is. In your “About US” section you write…
“We know, with not a shadow of doubt, that liberty is the best—and the most moral—choice for society. We seek to expand human liberty. To defend the individual against the state. To inspire new cooperation between conservatives, libertarians, and all those devoted to this cause, and to bring about a new renaissance of liberty.”
… yet you write an incredibly derogatory piece about Paul and his supporters likening them to cultist.
How can you support any candidate but Paul while keeping your “About Us” statement authentic?
I”ve already explained the picture Joe, and I cannot help that you don’t get it.
I’ve likewise already explained, while citing examples, why I think Paul and his followers constitute a cult of personality. If you find descriptions of the very real behavior of Paul supporters to be “derogatory” perhaps you should seek to change them at their source, rather than object that people like me point them out.
Your justification for calling Paul’s supporters is anti-social behavior at CPAC, rudeness in discussions, refusal to back another candidate and unsubstantiated claims of dirty tricks ahead if a possible brokered convention.
Wouldn’t that make loyal supporters of any candidate cultist as well?
Calling Paul supporters a cult of personality for those reasons is not apt.
And I believe I do “get” the picture. Picturing Paul with fascist dictators and using the word ‘cult’ to describe his supporters can only be seen as an attempt to demonize.
I dunno, I don’t see a lot of proof of your premise. I do know this: I’ve been a lifelong republican; donated to the RNC and republican candidates but joined the actual party and learned about the delegate process during the last presidential election. I didn’t run for national delegate because I couldn’t afford it but I’ve participated in all the other conventions at the state level and down.
We newcomers, young and old, were welcomed with open arms. That is, until they found out whom we supported. Then, the parties did everything they could to get rid of us including changing the rules in the back room, conveniently losing paperwork for previously confirmed delegates (who had paid for the privilege!), allowing people not on the agenda to speak and call us everything but a child of God, threatening us with arrest, and 4 of my friends who were national delegates–4 very conservative middle-aged women–had their books, brochures, buttons, etc. confiscated, and their every move was watched.
The “big tent” party really isn’t a big tent at all and if I’ve learned any one thing, party politics rivals the mafia for corruption and dirty tricks. Maybe those pretending to support another candidate are simply playing by the same corrupt rules. It doesn’t make it right by any stretch, but I sure can see how it could happen.
CULT OF PRAGMATISM vs PRINCIPLES – that is what this author, Greg Conterio is part of!
As far as the article regarding blending of principles and pragmatism – I have a real problem with that. Especially with the thought process of pragmatism – “The ends justify the means” – such as in “By any means possible” which is the selling out of of principles in my view.
That is THE REASON why I hold Ron Paul in high esteem, because he doesn’t sell out his principles when it comes to adhering and upholding his sacred oath of office.
I am an Independent because the Republican Party establishment sold out its principles and adherence to the U.S. Constitution years ago. I now consider myself an Independent CONSTITIONALIST and will remain so as long as the GOP remains pragmatic on the Rule of Law and its principles.
Too many in the GOP consider their oath of office and the constitution an anomaly and treat their oath as just something to get past and then ignore their sacred covenant. It’s all a game to them. A game I don’t care to be a party of.
….this theory of Ron Paul supporters passing themselves off as delegates for other candidates so they can hijack the nomination in case of a brokered convention…..are you hearing yourself here?
The whole “Manchurian Paulbot” thing is kinda far out, even for a Paul supporter like myself. Any way, why should there be compromise for a neo-con over a Liberal. That’s just throwing in the towel when Liberty is right there for the taking. You make less of self determinism in the name of lesser of two evils.
Yeah, and if we were just talking about Paul’s approach to economics and size of government, he’d be the perfect candidate. Unfortunately, he has a suicidal foreign policy and an inability to tell protagonists from antagonists on the world stage. Not to mention all the weird conspiracy stuff that swirls around him, and the inscrutable anti-Jewish stuff. He is fantastic on some stuff, but utterly awful on some other stuff.
“..are you hearing yourself here?”
Are you implying I’ve made it up, Paul? The email I posted is quite real, and according to other acocunts it represents a nationwide effort. If you find it that unbelievable, you should look into it yourself. And if you are as offended by what it represents as I am (which, as an American, you ought to be!) you should be asking yourself why your favorite candidate and his organization are trying to hijack the nomination.
I didn’t mean to imply you made this up, in fact, it’s quite plausible in theory. I feel you really do believe it to be true no different than I believe true the efforts to stop Ron Paul with media black outs, twisted articles or even candidates like Santorum and Gingrich still in the race when they are not even on upcoming ballots.
Still it’s such a grand scheme, this hijack thing. It really seems quite a stretch for a rowdy bunch who in fact do seem keep to themselves, heckle other candidates and their supporters, are rude and derisive toward those outside their group, and make a big show of all leaving the room together after their people finish speaking.
I’m just pointing out a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Ron Paulites are conspiracy theorists but the Manchurian Delegate rebel alliance is real because there is a cut n pasted email backing up the notion.
Oh please, really ? I am totally offended by the comments made here for Paul supporters. I am a 56 year old woman, who until now, never cared about Politics in the least. Ron Paul made me stand up and take notice. His message is exactly what i believe to be true. He offered hope for America where there was none. To lump us into a category is like saying all Romney, or all Newt supporters are a certain way. I have never been rude to anyone or closed minded. Of course i would like to see Ron Paul win this election, but if it does not become an option ? ANYONE other than Obama, would have to become the option.