Ron Paul’s true identity revealed

Ron Paul is a 2012 Republican Presidential candidate with a strong Libertarian leaning philosophy. His dedication to limited federal government, non-intervention abroad, strong protection of our national sovereignty, a belief in protecting our borders, and leaving social/moral issues to the states are the best description of his ideas. He has garnered a large following of enthusiastic voters, many of which were disaffected, and brought them into his movement around the rallying cry “END THE FED”.

Source

The president he most admires:

"I like Grover Cleveland.... He endorsed the foreign policy of nonintervention; he was a gold-standard person. He loved the veto.... One person that I admired – he didn't become president. He was part of the Old Right. That was Robert Taft [former conservative Republican senator from Ohio]."

Why is his mentioning of these two men so important you might ask? Well some people argue that to find what a person really believes you need not look any further than whom he admires. Let me explain why his mentioning of Grover Cleveland and Robert Taft are so important.

Grover Cleveland was President from 1885-1889 and again from 1893-1897. He was the only Democratic President to be elected during the era from 1860-1912. During the period from 1876-1904 existed the ‘Bourbon Democrat’, these were conservative Democrats mostly found in the South and parts of the North who believed strongly in adhering to the messages of Andrew Jackson and Thomas Jefferson. The first prominent use of this name was in the 1870s when the Redeemers arose in the South causing a conservative reaction against Reconstruction, these Redeemers were Bourbon Democrats.

This political label was intended to be an epithet referring to people of old-fashioned and out-of-date views. Nevertheless the name stuck and works today as a classification device in regards to the politics of the post-Civil War era before the Progressive era. These Bourbon Democrats represented business interests in a different way from the more activist and centralizing Republicans. They worked towards the interests of banking and railroads but refused to subsidize them and protect them from competition as the Republicans did. Its core economic idea was laissez-faire capitalism that opposed the protectionist policies of the GOP.

Another core concept was anti-imperialism; they refused to maintain a large standing army and did not believe in intervention abroad, this included US expansion westward. The gold standard is what they are often remembered for as they fought to their inevitable death defending it against the populist impulses of the rural Western farmer oriented Democrats who believed in bimetallism (i.e. William Jennings Bryan). They deeply opposed the spoils system endorsed by many Republicans where whenever a party wins office they give government jobs to their voters, instead the Bourbons supported the Civil Service Reform which required giving government jobs based on merit not voting.

This faction of the Democratic Party held control from 1876-1896 when the populism of William Jennings Bryan seized control of the party with his ‘Cross of Gold’ speech and changing the party towards its more modern understanding. It was moved from a laissez-faire states’ rights party to a liberal federal interventionist party that resulted in Woodrow Wilson implementing many liberal/populist programs and most notably the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt. However the Bourbons in one last attempt at taking back the party nominated Alton B. Parker in 1904, a first class candidate, but he lost miserably to Theodore Roosevelt in the general election finishing off the Bourbons.

Now the other man, Robert Taft, is also interesting for Ron Paul to admire because he was known as “Mr. Republican”. A Senator for Ohio from 1939-1953 Robert Taft was also the leader of the ‘Old Right’ and ran for President in 1940, 1948, and 1952. The last was his best showing where he would have won the party nomination had it not been for Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. and Thomas Dewey claiming that many of his Southern delegates were stolen from Eisenhower. They had the party approve the transfer of all Georgia and Texas delegates to the Eisenhower camp giving him the majority and ending Taft’s run for the Presidency.

While in the Senate Taft was leader of the ‘Conservative Coalition’ of anti-New Deal Democrats and Republicans. He also believed it was necessary to not just stop the New Deal, which his coalition did after gaining a lot of seats in 1938, but also to reverse many of the programs implemented. This led him to attack deficit spending, farm subsidies, bureaucracy, the NLRB, and the nationalized health insurance but he broke from conservative orthodoxy in supporting public housing and the Social Security program. Overall he can be categorized as a ‘Libertarian Conservative’.

Even though he is remembered most for opposing the New Deal it was the non-interventionism that he spoke in favor of that garnered a lot of attention in the 1930s. Taft did not support US intervention into European affairs even when WWII broke out he opposed giving weapons and ammunition to Great Britain. But when Pearl Harbor was attacked he voted in favor of a Declaration of War against Japan. And it was with this non-interventionism that he angered the Wall Street backed part of his party the most.

Taft even opposed the Nuremberg Trials as victor’s justice, condemning them entirely and leading to a mention in John F. Kennedy’s book ‘Profiles in Courage’ where he applauded Taft’s stand in the face of enormous criticism. One more important issue regarding Taft was his involvement in the creation of the Taft-Hartley Labor Act, seen by most labor unions even to this day as the greatest set back in labor authority in this nation, separating us from European growth of unionism. And finally Taft criticized NATO as provocative to the Soviets, an issue which is generally regarded as one of the fundamental concepts leading to the death of the ‘Old Right’ to the National Review Neo-conservatism because they opposed fighting the Cold War.

“I have never felt that we should send American soldiers to the Continent of Asia, which, of course, included China proper and Indo-China, simply because we are so outnumbered in fighting a land war on the Continent of Asia that it would bring about complete exhaustion even if we were able to win. ... So today, as since 1947 in Europe and 1950 in Asia, we are really trying to arm the world against Communist Russia, or at least furnish all the assistance which can be of use to them in opposing Communism.

Is this policy of uniting the free world against Communism in time of peace going to be a practical long-term policy? I have always been a skeptic on the subject of the military practicability of NATO. ... I have always felt that we should not attempt to fight Russia on the ground on the Continent of Europe any more than we should attempt to fight China on the Continent of Asia.”

Source

So, Ron Paul, the Bourbon Democrat and Old Right Republican; somehow I already knew this even without him telling me.

The title of this thread made me think you were going to explain how Ron Paul is secretly illuminati and has been keeping a steady voting record for 30 years just to fool everyone. I'm glad to see this wasn't the case.

I thought this was very well written and informative. I do believe Ron is the last chance America has in fixing itself before it's too late, if it isn't too late already.

S&F

I also thought this was going to be a hit piece but was pleasantly surprised.

There is only one small part that I think is innacurate:

The gold standard is what they are often remembered for as they fought to their inevitable death defending it against the populist impulses of the rural Western farmer oriented Democrats who believed in bimetallism

These gentlemen did not fight against bimetallism. they in fact were in favor of it and during the Cleveland term there was bimetals and silver was the standard for a while however gold was always the standard all were measured against.

That proves nothing?

What are you trying to imply about Ron Paul?

Ron Paul's true identity is: Ron Paul. He is himself, and that is why, unfortunately, Ron Paul will never be President. He doesn't smile enough; he isn't politically correct enough; he doesn't shake enough hands; he doesn't practice spin-doctoring enough; he doesn't try hard enough to appeal to those with deep pockets... and, in short, he just isn't enough of a politician.

reply to post by unworldly


Sounds like he is not a sellout and he may actually care about the US and the people.

for Ron Paul.

I like Ron Paul, I think he would make an absolute great president. But unfortunetely he has little to no support. What will happen to him is the the same thing that happened to Hoover *President before WW2 Roosevelt*.

He had great Ideas, He knew what needed to be done, but he inherited a Depression, little to no support and the people quickly turned on him.

Thats his future... In order for him to succeed as a President, the country would need to be in shambles as Roosevelt inherited.

History has proven this over and over again, and it shall be proven right again.

Fox