Questions, comments or a tip? Let us know.
The Panama Virus of Ron Paulitics
By Chas Carey
PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 20, 2007
In China, where information does not come freely or easily, the banana crop suffered from a supposed “Panama virus” outbreak this past spring. People stopped buying bananas en masse, resulting in a huge fallout in the fresh-fruit market. The news, spread initially through text messages and Internet discussion, single-handedly crippled an entire crop yield. The catch? The “Panama virus” isn’t real, only a rumor spread about a fungal infection that tainted some Chinese banana trees earlier in the year. By the time the Chinese government traced the rumor back to an amateur translator in Hainan who’d misread an English news story, word had spread too effectively to be discounted, even in a country with ostensibly rigid media control.
This brushfire-style spread of information is making its way into American politics during the current presidential campaign. A lot of disaffected constituents from all walks of life are looking for candidates to represent them on their push-button issues, and the most popular recipient of these voters has been Representative Ron Paul. Paul is a five-term Congressman from Texas’s 14th District, a retired obstetrician/gynecologist and registered Republican who ran on the Libertarian Party’s ticket for president in 1988. He’s running again this year, and while he polls fairly low nationally and only has anything above a blip of support in New Hampshire and Nevada, his supporters have nevertheless built a rowdy and disjointed volunteer campaign that raised over $4 million on Nov. 5. I find that kind of grassroots support and his extremely vocal team of supporters admirable, especially in the cynical political environment where “I don’t care” is the default position. Nonetheless, Paul himself is a “Panama virus” of a candidate: frenzied support and the spread of information in the absence of serious reporting has caused people to ignore the facts and put faith in a fictional ideal. Paul first made news early this year by advocating complete a complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq and a generally noninterventionist platform. In a country so fatigued by war coverage and embittered by candidates discussing six- or 12-month draw-down plans, it garnered a committed fan base. Add to that the various libertarian-leaning groups who have an axe to grind with the Internal Revenue Service or feel nervous about the Federal Reserve, and you’ve got a fairly complex network of one-or-two-issue voters who are probably overjoyed to find a candidate that speaks something close to their language.
But in throwing their support behind their candidate, and having their faith as “outsiders” only reconfirmed by the media’s focus on more alluring news stories, they turn a willfully ignorant eye on just who it is they’re supporting, and why. Sure, Ron Paul opposes the war in Iraq and would try to abolish the Internal Revenue Code. But he also is overwhelmingly opposed to gay rights, would like to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, wrote articles about the War on Christmas as it relates to our fraying moral values, and has been curiously silent about a federal bill he proposed stating that life begins at conception, despite his adamant “states’ rights” position. Like the “Panama virus,” Paul does not entirely fit the perception as described by his supporters. Moreover, when journalists discuss only a very limited view of his positions and experience, it only amplifies the qualities that the informers want to propagate in their discourse.
Again, I find the network of support for a 72-year-old Congressman who didn’t own a computer until 1997 to be profoundly heartening in many respects. People are finding the candidate themselves and spreading their ideas about that candidate in relation to their own ideas, garnering further support. They raised over $4 million for him in a single day. That says something about the immense power the voters still retain in a representative democracy that’s so often skeptical of our electoral system. And no one ever said that you had to vote for either a candidate whose views you agreed with 100 percent or no candidate at all. But willful ignorance of a candidate’s policy for the sake of supporting some cause over no cause is as dangerous as voter apathy. If you find it in your heart to reconcile Paul’s political background with the issues that you find most important, by all means, vote for him. But don’t pretend other issues aren’t there.
I try to keep civil about American politics, since it’s such a filthy business. Young punks on soapboxes talking trash about a particular subject or candidate are the political equivalent of scuffing your feet in the middle of a sandstorm. Yet after seeing the posters for the Ron Paul brigades that sporadically pop up around campus, I can’t help but feel disheartened. If those supporters put the time and effort they’re now spending on advertising into a careful understanding of what it was that made them want to vote for Ron Paul beyond a general disaffection with “politics as usual,” he could wind up as a catalyst for something more than a “Panama virus” candidacy: a genuine renewal of policy discussion.
Article Tools:
View Comments ( 26)
Post a Comment
From what you have reported, Ron Paul sounds real good. Thanks.
This is a perfect example of how the New Left attempts to intimidate and own the civil rights movement. Ron Paul isn't opposed to Gay civil rights, he is opposed to gay special rights. However, New Left writers, such as demonstrated here, are more than willing to smear anyone who will not submit to their Left-wing agenda by labeling them a homophobe. Can thuggish accusations of racism and anti-Semitism be far behind? Undoubtedly such ridiculousness will surface as soon as Paul's momentum indicates it is necessary in their view. Fortunately, the American people finally seem to be recognizing such ad homonym political methods for what they are. These bullies and fear mongers can only cry "wolf" so many times; their credibility is spent.
I would assert that Ron Paul supporters in general are much more aware of his positions than are the supporters for any other candidate. That is why his supporters are so "frenzied". To suggest otherwise is naive at best...
What a waste of webspace...
I am a Ron Paul Republican that knows all of Dr. Paul's stands. It is you who are ignorant of his views...not us.
Ron Paul is not opposed to "gay rights." He supports individual rights -- people have the right to live their lives as they see fit without interference from the government, as long as they don't violate anyone else's rights. How does that philosophy do any harm to gays? Gays are individuals, are they not? Under a Paul administration, everyone, including gays, would have greater freedom to live their lives without interference from the federal government.
As far as abolishing the Department of Education, that's not such a radical notion. Ronald Reagan campaigned on just that platform -- although at the time it was called the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. What Paul wants to do is to decentralize education away from the federal government and put it under the control of local communities. Is that such a bad thing?
As far as abortion, again, Ron Paul would ideally move that to the state's jurisdiction. As an ob/gyn, he does understand that, scientifically and legally, human life truly does begin at conception. As he has pointed out many times in the campaign, if he, as a physician, did any harm to an unborn child, he could be sued or charged with a crime. If you don't define human life as beginning with conception, then any other definition is purely arbitrary. Is a 3-month old fetus a human? Why or why not? What about 6 months? What about up until the moment of birth? Or why not allow infanticide? If a fetus is not a human life, just prior to birth, why does it suddenly become a human life one second after birth?
Whether you agree with Ron Paul or not on when life begins, as president Ron Paul would have no power to do anything about abortion. That would be up to the states. Our legal system is contradictory on abortion. On the one hand, if someone intentionally kills a fetus, say for example, by kicking a mother in the stomach (this has happened), then he is charged with murder. If a doctor intentionally kills a fetus, then he's paid lots of money. Dr. Paul's law proposed law would have clarified when life actually begins.
You condemn Dr. Paul because he's written about the "War on Christmas." The point of those writings is that the federal government has no business dictating to people how they celebrate Christmas. What Paul has criticized in his writings about the "War on Christmas," is the open hostility that some in the federal government show to those who celebrate Christmas. Under a Paul administration, this official hostility would be eliminated, and all people would be allowed to worship freely (or not worship at all), without interference from the federal government. Why do you find that objectionable?
What happened to all the comments?
Ron Paul still lies about the 9/11 inside job though. What could one somewhat honest man do vs. a Congress paid for by AIPAC to do its bidding? Nothing much...
"If those supporters put the time and effort they’re now spending on advertising into a careful understanding of what it was that made them want to vote for Ron Paul beyond a general disaffection with “politics as usual,”
I am retired at 65, registered republican, rarely have voted for a republican,but Ron Paul is on Republican I fully intend to vote for, even if I have to write in his name on the ballot. I don't know where you get your information but it seems in error to me. I have never found folks more knowledgeable (as a group) about their candidate than Ron Paul supporters. The more I read and learn about how this man thinks and acts as a representative in Congress the more impressed I am. What is it that really bothers you? Is your pet candidate not doing well? Are you living in fear and afraid not to follow the status quo? Here we have a candidate who truly represents what he speaks, and his record is available to read from, as well as information about why he has supported/not supported various positions and proposals. He has exibited wisdom beyone his peers in many instances. You need to improve on your homework, not us.
Good afternoon Chas,
Can't say I liked the article, but loved the 17 comments educating you about RON PAUL. No need for me to pile on. Thanks for mentioning him, even if not in a kind light, because any press is good press, especially when his supporters can make better arguements in retalliation. If you are afraid on Ron Paul, then perhaps its better to ignore him, like the main stream media... he might just go away. NOT
Ron Paul is going to make things happen. As long as people believe in the constitution and the concept of America then Ron Paul will succeed. Hell we might even get the national polls to take a stab at being accurate through accurate methodology. It looks like Ron Paul more accurately is at about 30 to 33 percent(counting those who DONT have landlines,dems and indies who have switched over and reps who didn’t vote last time)….which explains why the mainstream FCC govt run media is shaking in their boots at the prospect of a constitutional govt and giving misleading restricted demographic polling numbers. Its embarassing to see so many news agencies make up pure nonsense to mislead people. Ron Paul is going to win. The bigger the media offensive against him the stronger the chance of him being president.
American Revolution 2.0 is going to shock the world, there’s simply no doubt about it.
ps- Other polls indicate Ron Paul is already at 18% in NH
www.ronpaul2008.com
Well, many have beat me to the punch about defending Dr. Ron Paul using FACT so I don't have to be bothered doing it myself.
I will use this place instead to voice my 100% support for Dr. Ron Paul. People are waking up, oddly enough, some of that is helped by ignorant articles like this one. Lots of words? Yes. Lots of meaningful content? No! Ripe with misinformation and full blown biased ignorance instead.
Primaries are almost apon us, the time at which afterwards we can all sit back and laugh about how wrong these self proclaimed so-called expert pundits have been in their shallow political analysis.
Thank you for helping to boost my support of this great man named Dr. Ron Paul.
Long live the Republic!
I disagree with Dr. Paul on a number of issues
but they are far outweighed by the fact
that we finally have an option who hasn't sold out
to the special interest groups.
Dr. Paul votes AGAINST any amendments banning gay unions.
Dr. Paul will allow the States to decide how to handle such issues.
If you live in Texas and need an abortion, you can just drive over to New Mexico.
Follow up on the new Zogby poll that has Paul as the winner:
http://truthseeds.org/2007/11/...
that's... a blind-bio push poll. not a scientific poll asking about the candidates.
you're proving the article's point. "do you want a candidate that wants out of the war? yes? how about a candidate with views on these issues? well, shoot, then you must like ron paul!"
whoops.
The summary of this piece is: "If Ron Paul supporters truly knew what their candidate stood for, they would not support him"
The fact of the matter, is that his supporter DO know what he stands for. That is why we are willing to spend 5 hours on a Sunday afternoon standing out in the rain, or making and placing signs all over the city. Other candidates can't pay for that kind of support, and yet we do it freely, asking nothing in return.
there's a fallacy in that argument. "we know what he stands for, otherwise we wouldn't work so hard."
plenty of people work for candidates/parties they know little-to-nothing about on the basis of one or two issues. most of john kerry's young volunteers were on the "fuck bush" brigade. the fact that paul's supporters do it so fervently doesn't mean they fully know/understand what he believes, only that they've found a cause that, for whatever reason, they're willing to work hard for.
Let me rephrase it for your black and white logic:
We Know And Understand What He Stands For; That Is Why We Work So Hard !!!
Ron Paul supporters are not The easily led as others may imply. they are those who evaluate holistically and then make judgment. Rather it would be anomalous to find one that did not have a firm grasp as to why they support him.
I Vote For The Virtuous, I Vote For Ron Paul !!!
It is so delightful and practical to have the Internet, so that when journalists don't do their homework, knowledgeable people can set the record straight!
I've met quite a number of other Ron Paul supporters, and I'd say that overall, they are quite knowledgeable about his consistent, sensible, Constitutional positions. In fact, I think this is exactly why we support him so fervently -- he makes sense!
Please stop spreading this myth that the supporters of Dr. Paul are ignorant of his positions. See the comments above to prove to yourself that that just isn't true. Not only are his supporters knowledgeable, they can point you to specific places where he has clearly stated his positions on the very stands you misconstrue. Perhaps you should ask his supporters first, and then write a more informed piece.
Don't you just love when the anti-Paulers try to make a point and that point end up describing themselves!
But in throwing their support behind their candidate, and having their faith as “outsiders” only reconfirmed by the media’s focus on more alluring news stories, they turn a willfully ignorant eye on just who it is they’re supporting, and why. Sure, Ron Paul opposes the war in Iraq and would try to abolish the Internal Revenue Code. But he also is overwhelmingly opposed to gay rights, would like to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, wrote articles about the War on Christmas as it relates to our fraying moral values, and has been curiously silent about a federal bill he proposed stating that life begins at conception, despite his adamant “states’ rights” position.
It is the author that is turning an willfully ignorant eye on just who it is he's opposing, and why!
1) But (Ron Paul) also is overwhelmingly opposed to gay rights...
What the author doesn't want to tell you is that Paul is "overwhelmingly opposed" to giving special rights to ANY collective group. Gays, straights, blacks, whites, yellows, tall, short, beutiful, ugly, you name it. Civil rights belong to one collective, Americans.
2) ...would like to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education...
Uh, YEAH! The federal government has no business or authority to control how states conduct education. Every state has a Dept of Education, and there is absolutly no reason what so ever why we needed to add a new level of bureaucracy at the federal level under Carter in 1979. It is unconstitutional, unnecessary federal bureaucratic intrusion into state affairs. It allows the federal government to do stupid things like No Child Left Behind.
3) ...wrote articles about the War on Christmas as it relates to our fraying moral values...
Am I the only one who said huuuuuuuuuuuuuh?? The inference exactly is what?
4) and has been curiously silent about a federal bill he proposed stating that life begins at conception
Is it Ron Paul who is silient or the author who is ignorant? A simple check of The Google brings up this
Being Pro-Life Is Necessary to Defend Liberty by Congressman Ron Paul, Copyright 1981
http://www.l4l.org/library/bep...
Evidence of over 26 years of speaking out on the topic which the author chose to ignore.
My response:
If the author put the time and effort he is now spending on misinforming into a careful understanding of what it was that made him want to be an anti-Pauler beyond a general love of “politics as usual,” he could wind up as a catalyst for something more than “Panama virus” journalism: a genuine renewal of policy discussion.
You allege that Ron Paul is anti-gay rights, but as a gay man, I find that Ron Paul is a very refreshing change of pace in the GOP, which has traditionally been virulently homophobic. Ron Paul believes that gays should be allowed to openly serve in the military, that DADT should be used for the privacy of the soldier, not for the dismissal of openly gay servicemen as it is used today.
When Google's Vice President, Elliot Schrage asked Ron Paul, "So issues like Gay Marriage, you'd be supportive of that?"
"I'm supportive of *all* voluntary associations [gay or straight or transgendered], and people can call it whatever they want [domestic partnership/civil union/marriage/gay marriage]" - at about the 12 minute mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Ron Paul is someone who voted against a Federal Ban on gay marriage, but often the example used is the Gay Adoptions in DC bill, which he voted against because it used Federal tax revenues. Given his stances, I'd say it is very difficult to find an anti-war Republican who is pro-gay rights, and pro low taxes.
If gay rights, low taxes and peace are important to you, Ron Paul is your candidate.
Get rid of the Department of Education!! How dare he! hahaha We only have the lowest test scores of any country in the world why would you want to change that. We need more people to get paid 100K a year to sit around and come up with courses like "positive action" and stop keeping score in games and dont grade papers with red ink. That is why our education system is 134th best in the world.
CHAS CAREY wrote: "He’s running again this year, and while he polls fairly low nationally and only has anything above a blip of support in New Hampshire and Nevada."
I wanted to add this recent clip from News Week on ABC which contradicts your statement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Also a recent poll is expected to have Paul winning in a nationwide blind poll.
CHAS CAREY wrote: "the absence of serious reporting has caused people to ignore the facts."
That is an interesting sentence, especially after reading what comes next in your report.
CHAS CAREY: "But he also is overwhelmingly opposed to gay rights, would like to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education."
First, I am not sure where you are getting your reporting "facts" from, maybe from Wiki without any further investigation, however, they are incorrect and/or your conclusions are inaccurate. Here is why:
1. On "GAY RIGHTS." Here is his answer(s) a) Opposes a Constitutional Amendment that would define Marriage between a man and woman, and b) Believes everyone has the right to do what they want to do, including marry, regardless of their sex. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... Listen to the latter and I am sure you will find what you wrote about Paul opposing Gay Rights quite the contrary.
2. On Department of Education. His stance is two-fold. a) He doesn't believe the Constitution authorizes such Department and/or that the Federal Government has any business dealing with it. b) He thinks that the Dept of Education has been a disaster and ruined the education system.
3
So if you do some more research you may have come to different conclusions. Either you follow the Constitution or not. If you want to change it, Ron Paul believes you need to amend it, not disobey it. It’s really that simple, but what he personally believes is separate from what he think the US Constitution authorizes the Federal Gov to do. Do not mix the two.
I don't understand why you would think that Ron Paul supporters have no idea what he stands for. Just go to YouTube and watch the look at the number of people whom have viewed Dr. Paul's speechs. For most speeches the number of views is in the hundreds of thousands and some have been seen 2 million times.
I would say that the opposite is in fact true. The support that Dr. Paul gets is BECAUSE the Web 2.0 Internet allows direct access to historical video archives. For the first time, (Mr. Dean didn't have YouTube yet), citizens can hear the messages of all candidates uninterrupted and uninterpreted by talking heads.
Dr. Paul's position on special rights for individuals is based on the fundamental principal that all of us are equal and that we are free to think whatever we want - even hateful things. Homosexuals would be much better off if the constitutional required mandate that no law abridge the right of free association.
In mine and Dr. Paul's America, that would get the government completely out of the marriage business all together. That is all marriage contracts would be private. Dr. Paul's policies are good for everyone whom loves their freedom.
BTW, let me answer the "what about the children" question. Support for children under state laws has nothing to do with whether or not the parents are married already. It is highly unlikely this will change.
"Paul is a five-term Congressman from Texas’s 14th District"
Actually he's a 10 term congressman
"He’s running again this year, and while he polls fairly low nationally and only has anything above a blip of support in New Hampshire and Nevada,"
Actually in the latest polls in NH
"Meanwhile, the percentage of support for Paul grew from 4 percent to 8 percent, putting him fourth among the GOP contenders in the Granite State."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI...
"but he also is overwhelmingly opposed to gay rights"
Actually that is incorrect as well. When he was interviewed by the ultra-conservative rag the "American View " he stated that
http://theamericanview.com/ind...
Is homosexuality a sin?
Paul says he’s “not as judgmental about that probably because of my medical background. I don’t see it in [such] simplistic terms. I think it’s a complex issue to think it’s a sin or other problems with the way people are born. It’s too complex to give an answer as simple as that [that homosexuality is a sin.]”
Does he believe God says homosexuality is a sin?
“Well, I believe a lot of people understand it that way but I think everybody is God’s child, too, so, you know, I have trouble with that.”
"would like to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education"
And that is bad why??? You state that it weould be bad but do not back up the statement with any facts...
":wrote articles about the War on Christmas"
Beiing American means tolerance to opposing views ... writing articles about what you believe is American .. but hasd he introduced legislature or any other form of injunction against those not believing in X-mas????
Ron has stated about his belief in god
http://theamericanview.com/ind...
I’d rather my views and my convictions and my faith be shown by my actions rather than [by] what I say… also, the part in the bible about not showing off… we’re instructed to pray quietly …[and] not to play big fanfare. I’m trying to strike something in between there; where I’m not bashful and ashamed of it, at the same time I don’t want to look like others who …look to get votes because they were willing to say and do something in public.
The fact that he has not brought this up in any rallys or debates in this holiday season disproves the stance you are trying to paint on him.
If you do not like Ron Paul then just say you don't but if your going to attack on specific positions, then please do due diligence and have facts backing up your statements
wrote articles about the War on Christmas
Post new comment