A Principled Candidate?
Alex Knapp challenges the popular narrative that Ron Paul, whatever else you want to say about him, is a man of principle:
Ron Paul never does the hard, right thing. He always does the easy, opportunistic thing. In the 80s and 90s, that meant publishing paranoid, racist tracts to make money. In the 00s and 10s, that’s been grandiose pontificating, pandering to a liberal crowd desperate for an anti-Bush Republican and grabbing all the pork he can – all the while posing as a statesman that the “system” can’t handle.
Principled politicians, in Knapp’s view, would “do the hard work of enacting their favored principles into law,” recognize that democratic politics involves the long, hard work of process, and deal with the “small steps and the occasional setback in order to play the long game,” none of which, according to Knapp, Paul does.
Contra Knapp, I wouldn’t say that a politician’s failure or refusal to play the game means that the politician isn’t principled. A politician who limits himself to grandstanding, oppositional votes, and rigid adherence to ideology could still be principled, though he would undoubtedly make an ineffective champion of the principles he espouses.
Is Paul principled? I don’t know. I agree with a few of his pontifications, but disagree with most of them. His newsletters are a mark against his character; that’s for sure. He’s not what I’d call a model politician, not even a good one, really. Perhaps he’d do better as a talk radio host.
Comments are closed.
What good are principles that you don’t put into practice?
Not much. I grant you that a politician who claims to hold principles but never or seldom acts in accordance with those principles isn’t really principled. However, I would distinguish this sort of politician from one who claims to have principles but puts them into practice in very foolish, ineffective, imprudent or otherwise lousy ways.
I think there are many questions one can ask.
The first, what one means by being principled. Does it mean having one’s own principles and keeping to them? I think he does it, but I think everyone does that, in reality. The question is what those principles are.
And here, I think principled should mean not just someone who has principles they keep to, but good principles which they put into action. And here, I can’t find Ron Paul to be principled at all.
It is not just that he does the easy thing, but rather, the easy thing connects in line with his “hand’s off” ideology. Everything is hands off. He was hands off with his newsletter, apparently. His ideology draws in the crazies, and they were given a forum. His principles allow for crazies to be given a forum. And since he thinks there is no responsibility outside of a very individualistic viewpoint, it is clear why he thinks he is not guilty of the comments: the people who made them are guilty, he is not. But of course this demonstrates where Ron Paul fails — he fails to have a moral vision, and this of course really comes clear when talking about the common good. He won’t work for it.
If Ron Paul were in office, and if he somehow got Congress to follow his policies, we would see the Darwinian Social Economics really drag so many down. Anyone who is principled would not stand by and let good people suffer if they can do something about it. But his ideology says let people stand and fall on their own.
Ron Paul is the perfect candidate to destroy the US if ever there were one.
Pluralist that I am, I’m willing to call principles I consider to be poor or false “principles” of a kind, but I reserve the right to use sneer quotes and/or judge another person’s “principles” as I see them.
That’s fair enough. I think it’s more whether the person can state what his “principles” are, and also demonstrate his ability, or at least his effort, to live according to what he states, than it is whether we agree with him, that determines what we should designate to be a principle and what we should not so designate. I.e., Ron Paul is a man of principles. But, arguably, both Mitt and Newt are not.
@Henry Karlson
I am in agreement with most of your comment. It depends on how one defines “principled”. Various people believe in different principles. You said “he fails to have a moral vision”. I believe he does have a moral vision but maybe one that is at odds with the common good. He believes that churches, charities, individual citizens and communities should be the ones to help those in need. It seems to me that to some extent our society has abandoned this form of charity in exchange for allowing people to be more reliant on the government. There probably isn’t enough private charity to meet all the poor’s needs but the increase in dependence on government programs and government funded programs has been substantial over the last sixty years or so. Should we, as a society, really be dependent on the government for our needs? Or should we promote individual responsibility along with the common good?
Henry +1 FTW! Congressman Paul rejects entirely the social justice teachings of the Church. His defenders will undoubtedly say that its not government’s job to take care of the community, it’s ours. To them I ask how we take care of the community by ignoring the state, the central institution of the modern world? With love and Merry Christmas.
I entirely agree with everything that Henry says above. I have since yesterday been arguing against the idea that Ron Paul is a worthy candidate for POTUS on FB with an otherwise fairly intelligent individual who somehow sees Ron Paul’s candidacy as a positive thing. I don’t understand it. Any pol who says, in the year 2011, that he: a) would have voted against the Civil Rights Act; and b) has among his heroes MLK Jr. and Rosa Parks, is either an idiot, a panderer, or a cynical rabble rouser. My guess is that in the final analysis, Ron Paul is a little bit of all three.
“Any pol who says, in the year 2011, that he: a) would have voted against the Civil Rights Act; and b) has among his heroes MLK Jr. and Rosa Parks, is either an idiot, a panderer, or a cynical rabble rouser. My guess is that in the final analysis, Ron Paul is a little bit of all three.”
It’s almost a rule of American politics that rightwing politicians will claim as heroes a lifetime later those leftwing activists they despise and dismiss today.
When I first heard about Ron Paul and earmarks four years ago, I was disappointed, until I heard his defense of them. He was simply serving his constituents by bringing back as much money he could that the Federal government taken from them in taxes. This is another reason why nationalists and imperialists, be they of the left or right, oppose Ron Paul.
Accusing Ron Paul of “rigid adherence to ideology” is ridiculous. He’s no libertarian ideologue. He’s on the record numerous times as saying that it would be immoral to cut federal programs that people have become dependent on. He’d make his cuts by abolishing the Empire.
He says many things, but he always works against those federal programs. Look to his position on health care – and look at the result with his former campaign manager dying. What he means by dependent is difficult to understand when he allows friends to die that could have survived with better health care in the nation.
One thing that stands out for me. He takes the earmarks because he says that it’s what is done and so he grabs them up for his state. Yet, he says government is too big, government shouldnt be in the business of earmarking… etc… So I realize that he is a participant in the system we have in place. But isnt that a conflict of principles? The hard thing would be going back to your state and refusing the earmarks and then telling your people why you think it’s wrong, and fight for that. But he doesnt. He states, he is only playing by the rules set up and then admits that he would rather see that money end up back in the hands of the state. It’s very intelligent the way he gets himself out of it. But which is it? I gotta hand it to him though. He is smart because people buy into it. They are ok with his lack of principles because why? They must not believe the system can truly be changed. They like the advantages the system brings to their states. They also like to complain about Big Government while their hands are out for those advantages.
Obamacare is a new program. How could someone already be dependent on it? he was speaking of Medicare, medicaid, and Social Security.
Merry Christmas to all at Vox Nova!
And to you and your family, Teresa.