Reason Writers Around Town: Brian Doherty At U.S. News and World Report on Why the GOP Should Respect Ron Paul (And His Voters)

I wrote a piece for a U.S. News and World Report debate on whether the GOP should give more respect to Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) today. Excerpt:

The Republican Party has been, rhetorically, the party of limited, constitutional government that respects its citizens' liberties. Ron Paul has been the candidate who energized hundreds of thousands of active, involved, giving young voters to truly get excited about those ideas.

The best thing the GOP could do to guarantee its future and relevance is give Paul—and more important than Paul, his supporters, who are the necessary future of their party—all the respect and attention they can, from speaking slots to actually adopting Paul's vision of a government that lives within its means, has a foreign policy focused on defense rather than running the world, and believes in the liberating energies of free people in a free market.

Also in the mix on that debate, Jamie Chandler, a poli sci professor at Hunter College, agrees with me, and Republican strategist Ford O'Connell thinks it would be a disunifying mistake to let Ron Paul speak at the Republican National Convention in Tampa next week.

My new book, Ron Paul's Revolution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired.

Comments

[sage]

Still with the book, Brian? Your persistence surprises even me. You're going to give the privacy bot a bad name.

[Eduard van Haalen]

"Republican strategist Ford O'Connell thinks it would be a disunifying mistake to let Ron Paul speak at the Republican National Convention"

Rand is already speaking, is anyone advocating that Ron get an extra speaking slot, or is O'Connell simply jacking it for the simple pleasure of getting off some shots at the Pauls in general?

[CE]

How do you produce disunity by reaching out to one of your largest and most vocal factions?

[Eduard van Haalen]

O'Connell says Ron isn't a "team player" and that the purpose of the convention is as an extended "informercial" for Romney and Ryan. Nothing else matters, it seems - at the slightest sign of debate within the ranks of the Republican party the voters would clutch their pearls and re-elect Obama.

Just shut up and wave your Romney sign.

[Eduard van Haalen]

Yes, he used the word "team" - because God knows, supporting the right Team is what's important, and things like issues are just decorative bunting.

[CE]

The Republican Party has been, rhetorically, the party of limited, constitutional government that respects its citizens' liberties.

If by "limited" you mean "not quite as unlimited as what the Democrat party is proposing.

And if by "constitutional government" you mean respecting the Amendments the Democrats want to trash, while ignoring unconstitutional violations of the other Amendments and unconstitutional overreach of presidential power.

And if by "respects its citizens' liberties.... I'm drawing a blank here. When did Republican rhetoric mention that?

[OldMexican]

Re: CE,

When did Republican rhetoric mention that?

It's in the Preamble of their 2012 party platform. Not that you have to believe what they say, of course. They do mention their intention to keep the Empire, under the false purpose of "Defending Our Nation."

[OldMexican]

Stephanie Slade: "Ron Paul served his country in the Air Force, his community as a practicing obstetrician, and his party as a principled if curmudgeonly representative over more than three decades. In the process, he sparked a movement that will long outlast his presence in our nation's capital. Paul deserves some measure of recognition for it."

Yes, but he is also not bought and paid for by the Fed and the big banks. So, he will not be allowed to speak. End of discussion, young lady!

[sacs a main]

Yes, but he is also not bought and paid for by the Fed and the big banks. So, he will not be allowed to speak. End of discussion, young lady!