I like Ron Paul, but he’s not winning (and I don’t believe in the system)

By David McElroy · February 7, 2012

The most common email I get lately is about Ron Paul. This is just a small, edited sample. In some cases, expletives have been deleted, too.

Why do you call yourself a Libertarian when you hate Ron Paul and are trying to stop him from winning????!!!!

I’m not a big-L Libertarian — a member of the Libertarian Party — but I’m generally a small-L libertarian. However, I don’t hate Ron Paul. In fact, I like the guy. (He’s my favorite statist.) As I’ve carefully explained, I admire him and I’d be happy if he won. But he can’t win, for reasons that I’ve also outlined. I don’t know how to be more clear than I’ve been.

This is our last chance to take our country back. Ron Paul has to prevail for liberty to win. Even if he doesn’t, we’re educating people and will win another time.

First, your statement presupposes that there was some golden age of freedom until the nasty progressives took over. (Or maybe the social conservatives are your enemy. I don’t know. I’m just guessing.) The truth is that there was more economic freedom a hundred years ago, for the most part, but there was much less freedom in other areas. In terrible fits and stops, there’s been some progress in the area of social freedom, even if I don’t like the methods used to get here at times. (Ask minority groups how much freedom they had in some places 50 years ago.) We weren’t all free in the past. Not 20 years ago. Not 50 years ago. Not a hundred years ago. There’s nothing to “take back.” We’re shooting for something that hasn’t been done before.

Second, there’s no evidence that people are educated in campaigns, at least not in substantial numbers. You can cite your buddy, Steve, or your friend’s sister’s boyfriend, Jim Bob, maybe. (Or maybe even you.) But if you look at the big picture — the number of people who identify with libertarian positions — it’s not really changing. When I got into libertarians politics more than 20 years ago, we were taught that we could educate people and we’d end up with a libertarian world (or at least enough to win elections). It hasn’t happened, and my campaign experience convinces me that it never will happen in enough numbers to matter. Sorry, but I’m being realistic.

I’m not giving up without a fight and if your such a [adjective deleted] [noun deleted] that you won’t fight with us you don’t deserve [noun deleted].

So if people don’t agree with you about how to fight for freedom, they don’t deserve freedom, huh? What if I think you’re wrong in your approach? Are you saying that I have an obligation to fight the way you want me to? Exactly which version of individual freedom do you believe in, my friend?

I don’t have a responsibility to choose your path, just as you don’t have a responsibility to choose mine. I believe your way — that of electing a new bunch of people to run the machinery of the state — is not only doomed to fail, but it’s immoral as well. The problem with the state isn’t that we don’t have the right people running it. The problem is that it exists and has power to control our lives. So in addition to the fact that I don’t believe Ron Paul has a chance in the world of winning — now or ever — I wouldn’t support the system even if he could win. It would still be a dictatorship of the majority.

Why aren’t you talking about the rampant fraud that’s keeping Ron Paul from winning? First the media did their blackout on him because they were afraid of him winning. When that didn’t work, the people doing the polls tried to control them. The honest ones are the online ones cause they’re harder to control. Everytime there’s a web poll, we win it until they delete our votes. Now there’s vote fraud in Nevada big time and I heard he really won Iowa and that was rigged too. I see it all over Facebook so why aren’t you reporting on this?

Before we can talk about this, you’re going to have to take off the tinfoil hat. Yes, seriously. I know that you’re reading bizarro claims such as the one I saw from a Facebook friend today saying that Paul actually won 71 percent of the Nevada vote, but it’s pure conspiracy-theory nonsense with zero foundation in facts.

I’m not reporting the colorful story you’re laying out because I believe it’s an absolutely delusional story. I’m sure you mean well, but you’re lying to yourself to avoid facing the painful truth that other people don’t want the laws (or lack of laws) that you want.

There hasn’t been a media blackout. Paul has gotten lots of coverage, especially considering how little actual support he has and how little actual chance he has of winning. His followers are rabid and committed, but there just aren’t as many of them as you think there are.

I’ve talked before about why straw polls and web “polls” aren’t really polls, but I doubt you’re going to believe me. Regardless, it’s true. Paul doesn’t have the massive amount of support that you believe based on the self-selecting samples on website “polls.”

Last, I haven’t seen any evidence of voter fraud in this election so far. There might be a little. (There usually is some attempt at fraud in an election, even if it’s small.) But even if we believe your conspiracy theory that there’s a location or two where there’s been massive fraud — which I don’t believe yet — it wouldn’t make a difference.

At some point, you have to quit making up excuses and admit that most other people simply don’t agree with you. They don’t support Paul and they’re not going to. You really need to take off the tinfoil hat and start getting into touch with reality. Conspiracy theories just make it harder to deal with reality.

If you have a question for David, drop him a line at davidmcelroy@mac.com. He can’t promise to answer all questions, but he’ll try. He also can’t promise not to make fun of you if the question is especially funny.

Share on Social Networks

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

For four years, Donald Trump’s supporters screamed that everything that went wrong was the fault of Joe Biden. They were sometimes right and they were sometimes delusional. (Anybody who knows me understands that I can’t stand Biden any more than I can stand Trump, just for different reasons.) But for two months, Trump has rampaged through U.S. political life — vandalizing pretty much everything in sight — and the vast majority of his supporters are silent at best. Many watch as he blows up the world economy and they make excuses for him. They’re in absolute denial, even about things that Trump is doing very intentionally. Anybody who understands economics and history knows that tariffs are a terrible idea from a pragmatic point of view. Anybody who values individual freedom knows that tariffs are massive taxes on individuals — and they’re a tool of political control over the ability of people to trade freely. Trump is the antithesis of everything which political conservatives stood for just a few years ago. It’s far past time for people who claim to be conservatives to reclaim the principles and values which they used to claim — and stop this mad man before he can accelerate the day when we experience economic and social collapse. Open your eyes to reality and reject this lying narcissist.

Related Posts