Sad, but true: Neither Ron Paul nor any libertarian has chance to win

By David McElroy · October 29, 2011

If you’re a libertarian who still participates in the majoritarian political system, it can only mean that you’re in denial or that you fantasize reality will suddenly change. You’d be better off looking for a genie to grant you three wishes, because voter reality is very stubborn.

I’ve written before about why Ron Paul can’t win, and I’ve also explained why I won’t be voting for him (or anyone else) when it’s time to vote. There’s no other politician in the state political system who I admire as much as Paul, but the simple fact is that the vast majority of people don’t want the policies he favors. As I’ve said a number of times before, most people don’t want individual liberty. It’s a losing platform, even though it’s right.

I’ve worked around politics for more than 20 years, so it’s very easy for me to separate my preferences from my analysis of what’s really going to happen. Most people who work in the business can do the same thing, even if they’re not likely to admit publicly that their favored candidate can’t win. The wisdom of insiders isn’t perfect, but it’s more accurate than you might realize. So let’s take a look at what Republican and Democratic insiders are saying about the Republican candidates they believe have the best and worst chances of winning the GOP nomination.

Among Republican insiders, Paul’s chances are rated as eighth out of the eight candidates tested. He comes in just below Michele Bachmann. Even John Huntsman has twice the score of Paul. It’s simple. People with knowledge of the process and how voters usually behave don’t think Paul has any chance. And they’re right.

(For the record, the insiders overwhelmingly expect Mitt Romney to win the GOP nomination, even though many of them don’t prefer him. Democratic Party insiders also choose Romney as the likely Republican nominee.)

If you choose to work for Ron Paul this year, just do me one favor. I won’t try to talk you out of it, but I’m begging you to do both of us a favor when the nomination is settled and decided. After you wake up to the reality that it’s not Paul — and that the Republican nominee is one flavor or other of the usual statists — will you please consider that maybe it’s time to give up on the political system? Will you consider that maybe people don’t want the same things we want — and that you’re never going to talk them into changing their minds?

We want individual freedom. We might disagree on the specifics of what it might look like on some issues, but we generally agree on the direction. The vast majority don’t agree with us — and they’re not going to. Continuing to bash your head against a wall by trying to change the world through electoral politics is a dead end if you believe in individual liberty.

Please think about it — especially after you see that the results of this year’s GOP nomination process won’t be much different than the results from 2008 or 2004 or 2000 or…well…you get the idea.

Share on Social Networks

I have no use for the theocratic and repressive government of Iran. The people who run the country are cruel at best and evil at worst. The Iranian people deserve freedom. But I have no personal quarrel with anybody in Iran. While I’m not thrilled about a future Iranian government having nuclear weapons, I’m just as concerned about nukes in the hands of politicians in Israel, Pakistan, India, China and Russia. I’m not even thrilled with the U.S., Britain and France having them, either, because I don’t trust any politicians to be responsible with such terrible weapons. All I can say with certainty is that American taxpayers have no business attacking Iran, especially since we’re being forced to pay for this attack in order to benefit the politicians of Israel — and nobody else. If Middle Eastern countries want to fight among themselves, that’s none of my business. It’s not the business of the U.S. government, either. I have no quarrel with anybody in Iran — and having the government which claims to represent me launch an unprovoked attack against a sovereign country will only make all Americans less safe in the near future. This attack is poorly conceived and morally unjustified. Remember that when the Iranians launch attacks that we will then condemn as “terrorism.” What the U.S. is doing right now looks like terrorism to me. And let’s not forget that the attack is the latest in a long line of unconstitutional wars by various U.S. presidents — who have no legal power to declare war on their own, according to the U.S. Constitution.

A child having a tantrum understands only one thing: Did I get my way or not? He doesn’t understand the issues involved. He doesn’t understand the reasons that went into a decision. He doesn’t understand any of the things that mature and reasonable adults have to understand in order to live healthy lives. By his reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling to strike down his disastrous tariff scheme, Donald Trump shows himself to be — once more — a screaming child having a tantrum. Outside the world of mob bosses who expect to get their way every time, normal adults don’t act this way, but Trump isn’t normal. He’s an angry and vengeful man who has narcissistic personality disorder. And we are in danger as a result. Trump doesn’t understand the legal issues involved in this ruling. He doesn’t understand economics. He doesn’t understand rule of law. He doesn’t understand that he can ever be wrong. All he understands is that he didn’t get his way. And he is now a narcissistic and raging little boy who also happens to hold life-and-death power over most humans on this planet. He’s dangerous — and the system which gives him that power is even more dangerous.

Is it an attempt to blur the gender line between men and women? Or is it some weird tribute to the traditional Scottish kilt? It’s hard to say, but fashion designers keep pushing for men to wear skirts in the last few years. Both men and women in modern fashion seem oddly androgynous, as though it would be offensive for a man to look manly or for a woman to look feminine. A CNN article about the latest fashions from Paris caught my attention Monday and left me wondering about the ugly clothes the designers are hawking. If a man wants to wear a skirt — or a kilt — that’s OK with me, but I’ll stick with a traditional dark suit with a white shirt and tie. (Well, when I’m not wearing t-shirts and sweats, of course.) I always wonder who actually buys the outlandish garb from fashion designers anyway. I would be humiliated to be seen in any of this stuff, but I obviously have no sense of high fashion.

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Related Posts