The Next Generation of Ron Paulites

Jim Antle III at the American Spectator reports on the fundraising prowess of Peter Schiff and wonders about the future of Rand Paul, two up and coming politicians (roughly) in the Ron Paul tradition. This is quite directly so in the case of Rand Paul, the Republican congressman's son. Yet the son seems less faithful to his father's message than Schiff in some respects, as Antle relates:

On Saturday, libertarian financier and commentator Peter Schiff raised more than $200,000 in a 24-hour "money bomb" as he continues to explore a bid for the Republican nomination to run against Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.).

Having now collected more than $790,000 in campaign contributions since mid-July, the Ron Paul Republican Schiff is competitive financially with the frontrunners for the GOP nomination. Former Congressman Rob Simmons raised $754,000 through June 30 while former ambassador Tom Foley has taken in $528,000 since mid-June.

Schiff's fundraising haul wasn't the only reason libertarian-leaning Republicans had to cheer last week. Rand Paul, the ophthalmologist son of the 11-term Texas congressman and former presidential candidate, announced he was going to run for the Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY). As in Schiff's case, the party establishment has other plans -- the heavy favorite for the GOP nomination is Secretary of State Trey Grayson -- but Paul is likely to take after his father when it comes time for his own money bomb later this month….

While Schiff advised Ron Paul's Republican presidential campaign, Rand Paul got his start in politics supporting his father's bids for public office….Paul and Schiff have very different approaches to the GOP. In a speech to the Connecticut Libertarian Party, Schiff openly talked about using it as a vehicle for libertarian ideas because its electoral debacles make it ripe for a takeover. His theory is that a leader-less and idea-less major party could be reshaped faster than a minor party could be made politically viable.

Rand Paul is much more conciliatory toward regular Republicans. Like Grayson, he said he would not run unless Bunning retired….The younger Paul is careful to present his foreign policy views in a way that could appeal to Republicans more hawkish than he. "Defending our Country is the most important function of the federal government," Paul says on his website. "When we are threatened, it is the obligation of our representatives to unleash the full arsenal of power that is granted by and derived from free men and women."…

Do these men have a chance? Several promising Ron Paul Republicans -- and at least one Ron Paul Democrat -- won their primaries in 2008 but went down to defeat. Murray Sabrin finished third in New Jersey's GOP primary last year. Despite their fundraising prowess, some Paulites have found fiat currency also to be of little value at the ballot box.

I first predicted this wave of post-Paul Paulite candidates in my February 2008 Reason magazine cover story on Ron Paul and the Ron Paul Revolution.

Comments

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

The younger Paul is careful to present his foreign policy views in a way that could appeal to Republicans more hawkish than he

Wow. Sounds like the kid has a clue. His father didn't on this very issue, for one.

He might even make it if he keeps this up.

I first predicted this wave of post-Paul Paulite candidates in my February 2008

Well Brian, I didn't believe you. But here's to hoping you're right and I'm wrong.

[hmm]

Might as well ride the pendulum swing back to the "right" or away from the left as it may be. Lets hope that swing is next year and 2012.

[Tulpa]

The Paul family must be pretty quickly going through that $20M that Ron collected under the false pretense that he was running a campaign last year, if they need Rand to start up another campaign/family business this year. I salute their skill at bilking well-intentioned libertarians out of their money, but none of it will be mine this time.

Of course, it will be unfortunate if every worthy libertarian cause gets starved again after the Paul familia takes its slice out of the libertarian donations pie.

[Tulpa]

Despite their fundraising prowess, some Paulites have found fiat currency also to be of little value at the ballot box.

It might help if certain libertarians didn't consider voting a mortal sin, and discourage other libertarians from voting. Yes, I'm looking at you, Doherty.

[huh]

The Paul family must be pretty quickly going through that $20M that Ron collected under the false pretense that he was running a campaign last year, if they need Rand to start up another campaign/family business this year. I salute their skill at bilking well-intentioned libertarians out of their money, but none of it will be mine this time.

what are you talking about willis?

[hmm]

More than a few are upset Paul took contributions and essentially didn't run or ran a pathetic campaign.

Ron Paul isn't the answer. He's a good person to have poking holes and exposing bullshit, but he is not a leader by nature. At least I don't see him as one.

[John Thacker]

But here's to hoping you're right and I'm wrong.

Here's to hoping that they can actually win elections. The performance of libertarian-themed candidates has not been impressed. Granted, a libertarian is more likely to win a primary when the other party has a strong incumbent and the district doesn't look winnable, but still.

Libertarian candidates, even when winning primaries, don't win general elections. The mass of people who tell pollsters that they're libertarian in theory have a huge list of "exceptions" to that principle that cover nearly every hot button issue in politics.

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

His campaign wasn't pathetic. It was suicidal. And he doesn't look like a political leader because he isn't.

That, or maybe it was a Zen campaign and I just didn't get it. Maybe he lost, without loosing. Or is it that he won, without winning?

[BakedPenguin]

It might help if certain libertarians didn't consider voting a mortal sin, and discourage other libertarians from voting. Yes, I'm looking at you, Doherty.

Or anarchists who apparently think the state will wither away. If the only choice is between a (typical) R and a (typical) D, I'd agree that voting is pointless. There were plenty of races where I left blanks on my ballot. But if there's a Libertarian, or some rare R / D who is somewhat worthwhile (e.g. Flake), what is the rationale for not voting? I still don't get it.

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

Here's to hoping that they can actually win elections.

Hey, no fair. Now you're getting all technical on me.

I hear you. But how much of that problem, is that libertarian candidates by and large, insist on incorporating ideas that range from the dumb ("I'll stop the war on drugs if elected" is a dumb campaign pitch) to the utterly insane (Ron Paul marching into the RNC and announcing that the Iraq war is all wrong -- that was pure suicide).

I still wonder, if libertarians could run while keeping their wits about them, if they might not actually start winning.

If libertarians want to win, they'll have to jettison some of the hopeless ventures. You won't get the public to buy into ending the war on drugs for example.

And for cripe's sake don't even try running anarchist platforms. That's sure suicide.

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

People might not think libertarians were lunatics if libertarians didn't act like lunatics or something.

[mark]

I gave $25 to Schiff. Dude speaks the truth!

[mark]

I mean, I'd pay to see this on TV.

[Jason]

@Ebeneezer Scrooge

If they didn't act like lunatics, then they wouldn't be libertarians.

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

I'd pay a lot more to see congress saying this to Obama.

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

Jason,

But they're lovable lunatics.

Well, usually.

[Enyap]

Props to Schiff for keeping his cool, I would have seriously told that douche to shut his fucking whore mouth for a second.

[roo]

i gave $50 to ron paul in summer of 2007. as crazy as it sounds, i think there was a window around december of that year where he had a chance to establish himself as a legitimate contender, but he seemed completely oblivious to the fact and kept trying to run the issue-awareness style campaign.

i don't have anything against rand as it stands, but if he tries watering down the message to make it more palatable i can't say i'm too excited at the prospect. it'd be great if he could get elected even so, but it's hard to be comfortable with the thought of someone who beats around the bush when the general public is watching.

schiff is going to embarrass the movement if he gets elected and we don't see economic apocalypse by the time re-election rolls around. i'm no economist but i've seen other austrians speculate that he has radically overstated the impact of trade imbalance and a shrinking manufacturing sector. he's looked like a genius for the most part so far, but it's not a given that he's not going to fall victim to the nutjob label himself.

[Tom]

Paul's radical views and damaging things from the past would have demolished his campaign if it was considered a threat. He got his message across to millions and started a PAC that is doing very well by libertarian standards with his strategy.

So, I think using the funds in the current manner is prudent, but I can understand if people felt deceived. His NH commercials straight up sucked.

[roy]

voting is stupid. you want to change the world? short some T-bills.

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

but if he tries watering down the message to make it more palatable i can't say i'm too excited at the prospect.

But if he doesn't, he won't get elected. That's not exciting either.

I for one would be happy enough at this point, if we could just get some people in DC that have some economic common sense. But I'm dreaming.

other austrians speculate that he has radically overstated the impact of trade imbalance and a shrinking manufacturing sector

This, however, is very likely true. The trade imbalance will ultimately be solved with the Chinese a) start buying things they need/want from us, or b) they buy other things here like real estate or companies (gee, aren't they already doing that?).

[robc]

I for one would be happy enough at this point, if we could just get some people in DC that have some economic common sense. But I'm dreaming.

This explains, I think, the reason Rand said he wouldnt run against Bunning. In Bunning, you had, at the very least, I guy willing to rant and fight against TARP.

[John Thacker]

I still wonder, if libertarians could run while keeping their wits about them, if they might not actually start winning.

And then to stay in office, they'd have to continue to keep various ideas secret and not mention them or vote for them? So in other words, they'd be no different from the existing members of Congress who have libertarian inclinations on some issues and improve the average.

I'm not sure how to reconcile that advice of yours ("keep the really radical ideas secret and don't run on them") with your statement "if we could just get some people in DC that have some economic common sense."

We do have some people in DC with economic common sense. People like DeMint or Coburn or Flake. There just aren't enough of them, and one of the reasons why there aren't enough is that your (and my) "economic common sense" is also thought of as radical craziness on the order of ending the Drug War by the electorate as a whole too.

All this is just the old argument about incremental changes versus trying to change the public's mind.

[WWJGD]

There were some interesting and unexpected problems in Iowa (I heard about from some Paul workers who helped in the state) and the NH commercials were absolutely terrible.

Paul is a good writer (in before racist newsletters) and an ok speaker. I think he's a great Congressman but he is not "leader" material. One of the best articles about him was Tucker Carlson's piece where he talked about how Paul was an Anti-Obama Anti-Cult of Personality person and couldn't drum up the support that people seemed to think he could.

[ransom147]

BakedPenguin:

you live out AZ way?

[ransom147]

WWJGD:

"Paul is a good writer (in before racist newsletters)"

?

[Griff]

Peter Schiff speaks well, but his investment performance track record speaks otherwise. Perhaps he has better electoral success in this run...I generally concur with a few economic statements of his but he goeth a little overboard on the USA turning into 3rd world currency status in the coming future (trade imbalance, loss of reserve status)..

[robc]

he goeth a little overboard on the USA turning into 3rd world currency status in the coming future

Have you not seen the M0 hockey stick?

[Griff]

Yep, I've seen it. I've also seen statistics showing that banks are keeping reserves north of $700 billion...compared to < $50 billion 12-18 months ago. Does that imply the banking system will always keep that high a reserve level ?? Anything over/above the required reserves is just excess...for another rainy day I suppose.

Schiff has said it'll happen a lot sooner than any other making similar statments

[ransom147]

schiff v dodd = no brainer

even if he's off on his predictions, i prefer him to the keynesian nutcases currently running the show.

if we're gonna stand by and wait for perfect people, we're screwed already.

[Space Fiend]

Living in our bubble, I think it's tough to see where the "mainstream" economic thought is. Lately, I have definitely seen it tipping waaaay more towards Schiff's line of thinking. Just yesterday, I read an article on Forbes titled "America's Zimbabwe Moment" about the Fed needing to end zero percent interest soon, or face hyper-inflation.

Here you are having career financial reporters and so on, who previously had the most exciting nights of their lives when the Fed rate moved up 50 basis points instead of 25, now reporting we are on the precipice of total worldwide collapse.

The reason the US is going to face hyper-inflation soon is simply that we printed up an ass-load of money. We are no different or better than Zimbabwe: we started buying government debt with new dollars, fresh off the presses. That very quickly starts a feedback loop that can be impossible to close. To keep the nearly $1 trillion in excess deposits locked up in the Fed, the Fed will have to continually raise interest rates - raising the amount of funds in those deposits, putting more and more pressure on interest rates. So far, I haven't even seen a real plan for easing this massive amount of cash into the economy, given that it's almost impossible to imagine the economy growing faster then those interest rates will need to.

[Space Fiend]

If I wasn't clear: I was talking about the interest rates on the Fed deposits, which the Fed gave itself authority to grant and set a few months ago.

[Griff]

if memory serves, the FED paying interest on bank reserves had been under discussion for a few years beforehand. And for the record, that's pretty dullard stuff to follow in better times let alone now.

That scenario of hyperinflation spells bad news all around. Unemployment and deflation is the enemy today...but inflation is seemingly around the corner. I'd like to think we're in a time warp back to the late 1970s under Carter / Reagan's first 2 years.

I disagree on one point: US is better than Zimbabwe. There are sufficiently smart & motivated people here to figure this out....or so I'd like to think

[Space Fiend]

Sure there are Griff, Peter Schiff for one.

Here is what we are doing at the moment: The Government is issuing record numbers of Treasuries, which can't all find market buyers. The Federal Reserve "buys" all the excess, and "buys" even more from banks. Of course, everything the Fed buys is bought with Monopoly money. We are printing paper money at an incredible rate to "pay" for all this deficit spending, none of which has any real utility.

Complete recipe for disaster.

[BakedPenguin]

ransom - no, FL.

[dave b.]

I disagree on one point: US is better than Zimbabwe. There are sufficiently smart & motivated people here to figure this out....or so I'd like to think

Yes, the Right People are in charge now. As long as they are smart and motivated, they can repeal the immutable laws of economics!

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

All this is just the old argument about incremental changes versus trying to change the public's mind.

True enough John. Guess I'm in the camp that argues, any shift in the right direction is going to happen gradually.

In fact, that's largely how the left has pulled us to the place we're at today.

[Craig]

Since when is a little known state Secretary of State a "heavy favorite" in a Senate primary? Most of the voters don't even know who is running. Don't feed the Establishment narrative, please.

Schiff is right about taking over an established party versus building up a new one. Most voters are clueless and just punch the label they are familiar with. Turnout in the primaries is laughably low, so a lot fewer votes are needed to get a pro-freedom candidate on the ballot.

I think Rand Paul is also playing it smart, emphasizing his support of national defense. I know a lot of Republicans who said they liked Ron Paul, except for his foreign policy views. Softening that up a little (while still being sensible about it) could be a winning play.

[Craig]

Of course, it will be unfortunate if every worthy libertarian cause gets starved again after the Paul familia takes its slice out of the libertarian donations pie.

It's funny to see a zero-sum game reference on a libertarian site. In case you didn't notice, the Paul campaign didn't just soak up the average annual libertarian donation amount, it raised more money than the typical LP presidential run by one or two orders of magnitude.

If other candidates and issues campaigns provide an equally compelling chance to get pro-liberty ideas a hearing on the national stage, they will be successful in bringing in donations as well.

[ransom147]

Penguin,

the baked and Jeff Flake reference don't add up the way i thought...

dave b. | August 12, 2009, 12:12pm | #

"Yes, the Right People are in charge now. As long as they are smart and motivated, they can repeal the immutable laws of economics!"

"Economics does have great exactitude, but it is a qualitative, not a quantitative exactitude. The economist cannot know the number or size of all the cakes in the world, or when they will be eaten, but he is dead certain that whoever eats his cake no longer has it.

That is more than the Keynesians seem to know. Their theory implies you cannot have your cake until you do eat it. You can spend your way into prosperity. The formulas say so:

Could a nation fanatically addicted to deficit spending pursue such a policy for the rest of our lives and beyond? ? the barrier to this would not be financial. The barrier would be political. (Samuelson, p. 416)

from George Koether - Economics of Oblivion http://mises.org/story/3608

[Craig]

Good luck to Rand Paul and Peter Schiff and all of the other Ron Paul Republicans running for the Senate. A pro-liberty, sound money, anti-empire, incorruptible Congressman in the House of Representatives is barely a nuisance to the Establishment, but a single pro-liberty Senator could have a huge impact on the national debate and policy decisions.

[John Thacker]

a single pro-liberty Senator could have a huge impact on the national debate and policy decisions.

No. He could propose lots of amendments that would be routinely voted down, and finally the majority would limit his time. How would it be any different from Coburn and DeMint's endless amendments?

[Tulpa]

I should have provided a link for the Paul campaign becoming a full-employment program for the family. Here it is.

And that's more or less what he has been doing over the past few months, putting relatives in a slew of key positions and paying them a total of $169,063, according to the latest campaign finance reports.

Paul's granddaughter Valori Pyeatt helps organize fundraising receptions and has been paid $17,157. Another granddaughter, Laura Paul ($2,724), handles orders for Ron Paul merchandise. Grandson Matthew Pyeatt ($3,251) manages Paul's MySpace profile. Daughter Peggy Paul ($2,224) helps with campaign logistics. The candidate's sons Randall and Robert and his daughter Joy Paul LeBlanc have all been paid for campaign travel and for appearing as surrogates at political events.

Who keeps track of all these finances? Paul's brother and daughter, naturally, who have been paid a combined $62,740 to handle the campaign's accounting.

And that pattern has continued with the "Campaign for Liberty", which wound up getting the lion's share of Paul's campaign money.

[Tulpa]

And keep in mind, while he was flying his family members about the country and putting them up in nice hotels with fat per diems, he had volunteers working for free, spending their own money on travel and lodging and sleeping six to a room in drafty New Hampshire houses.

[John C. Randolph]

Tulpa,

Given the figures you're posting, it looks to me like Dr. Paul's family is working for very little compensation. What exactly are you complaining about?

-jcr

[Tostitos]

Ron Paul is a shitty libertarian, I like my abortions and my immigrants very much thank you. Every libertarian candidate I can think of has been a joke, Barr was a phony and Paul is a lunatic who lacks leadership quality and is paranoid about immigrants and sovereignty. Don't get me wrong, I like where Paul is in congress but I think he should stay there. Rand would be okay in the senate. Schiff is someone who actually knows about the economy, I'd love him to replace Dodd but I don't see it happening.

[L4L]

I like my abortions and my immigrants very much thank you

Not every libertarian agrees.

[Tostitos]

I understand that abortion is not really an issue that would necessarily fall under libertarian philosophy either way, but on a practical level abortion has been incredibly important in reducing poverty and crime in our society, not to mention possibility of life is an absurd notion. A destroyed embryo is nothing because nothing came of it, we don't make policy based on "what if". As for immigration, it is a very libertarian principle, xenophobia is so knee jerk and illogical, while I consider libertarians champions of logic and reason.