Thursday, August 18, 2011

Ron Paul Now Rules The Republican Party

Ron Paul, the man who was practically booed off the stage in 2008, now says that the mainstream is "catching up" with him. His second place finish in Ames has been completely ignored by the conservative media (take it away Jon Stewart), and perhaps rightfully so (Paul will not be the Republican nominee), yet it is instructive to notice the libertarian lurch to the right that the Republican Party has made in the past four years.

Rick Perry's recent "gaffe" regarding Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke shows just how close the Republican Party has saddled up to Ron Paul. The WSJ, which now is the Fox News of print journalism, has completely shrugged off Perry's remarks, noting that his basic policy premises are correct even if he didn't say it in the right way. The editorial notes that the real issue is that Rick Perry is for "sound money." Dylan Matthews has compiled a list of quotes from major Republicans revealing a view that most conservatives would have repudiated several years ago.
House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan: "There is nothing more insidious that a country can do to its citizens than debase its currency."

House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp:
"Simply to begin printing more money at this stage I think is a great concern."

Former presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty:
"We need to make sure that we stop the practice of devaluing the dollar. ... When you devalue the dollar, you are devaluing the net value of this country."

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich:
"Pouring out more paper money and increasing the risk of inflation is not a very clever way of trying to solve [our problems]."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Minority Whip Jon Kyl, House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor:
"[Quantitative easing] introduces significant uncertainty regarding the future strength of the dollar and could result both in hard-to-control, long-term inflation and potentially generate artificial asset bubbles that could cause further economic disruptions."

Senate Banking Committee Ranking Member Richard Shelby:
"Long-term interest rates since quantitative easing started have gone up. The object was to make them go down. That hasn't worked. ... The balance sheet of the Federal Reserve is at unprecedented levels."

Sen. Jim DeMint:
"Mr. Bernanke has been one of the chief proponents of the Fed's easy money policy that created the current financial crisis. He ignored asset bubbles, dismissed concerns about the weakness of the dollar, and helped encourage the credit mania that led to the financial panic."
Matthews goes on to note that Mitt Romney is pretty much alone in standing up for Milton Friedman style monetarism.  Matthews notes that many Republicans did as well several years ago. Both Shelby and DeMint were staunch supporters of Bernanke, that is before it became unpopular to do so. Friedman's critique of Keynesian economics and government spending has been the hallmark of conservative economic thinking for the last forty years. Now Ron Paul and his merry band of Austrian economists have done irreparable harm to the economic policies of the Republican Party. This is not a cheery turn. David Frum has nicely documented the history of why Richard Nixon took the United States off of the Bretton Woods system. Ron Paul and Rick Perry (in Perry's case he more than likely does not understand) ignore the reasons why the United States made such a change.

Conservative leaders have chosen an easy route of leaning hard on catch phrases and populist talking points. Instead of leading, they cower to an audience that is fearful and unsure about the future. Blasting the Federal Reserve is an easy thing to do, especially if you don't really understand what it does. Let's just hope that Romney will withstand the pressure of bowing to Ron Paul like so many other Republicans have already done. 

23 comments:

Doug NYC GOP said...

Pablo,

Another interesting post. I liked the Frum article you read as well, since I, like most people, am no expert on monetary policy. Good food for thought.

Two questions for you.

1) Why if Frum so detested by the likes of Limbaugh/Levin et al. Is a David Brooks style " conservative" carbon copy?

2) Do you post at Race 2012 as PabloZed?

Pablo said...

1) Limbaugh/Levin are there to make money. The current mood is libertarian so they are libertarian. Frum is an intellectual who cares more about public policy. Of course, they are going to collide.

2. No, although he makes some good points.

Anonymous said...

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/9915/paultardhu2.jpg

Ohio JOE said...

"Blasting the Federal Reserve is an easy thing to do" Easy or not, it must be done. The Fed needs to be accountable for its actions.

Prior to becoming an anti-establishment person, I too used to think Dr. Paul was nuts (especially on FP.) While he is still a bit too extreme for me, he does not appear nearly as nutty as he once did.

I am not totally on board with Dr. Paul's banking and monetary policies, but given a choice between the two extremes, I prefer Dr. Paul over Mr. Romney. Mr. Romney lack of understand of inflation and his nutty extreme policies on such issues are a bit too much for me even in the general election.

So with Mr. Pawlenty gone, Mrs. Bachmann perhaps soon to be gone and Mrs. Palin perhaps not entering the race, my choice is to either hold my nose and vote for Dr. Paul (a bit too far to the Right) or Mr. Perry who is not far enough to the Right. Oh well, interesting times in deed.

Anonymous said...

OJ, who is this Mitt Romney you keep speaking of? I don't recognize him. He's certainly not the same one I know!

The Mitt Romney I know doesn't have even one 'nutty' or 'extreme' policy.

-Martha

Pablo said...

"Prior to becoming an anti-establishment person, I too used to think Dr. Paul was nuts (especially on FP.) While he is still a bit too extreme for me, he does not appear nearly as nutty as he once did."

Thanks Ohio Joe for proving my point.

"Mr. Romney lack of understand of inflation and his nutty extreme policies on such issues are a bit too much for me even in the general election."

Wow! It is amazing how you can be so wrong. Yet, your viewpoint explains why we might end up with an unelectable nominee.

Pablo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pablo said...

I am being too mean today, I need to take a break.

Anonymous said...

No Pablo, you are not being too mean. You are exactly right, as always, about the inelectbility of the fringe right.

DanL

Anonymous said...

Dan,

I am assuming that Pablo must have said something insulting to or about Ohio Joe. It must have been in the post he removed at 2:24. I am guessing that is why he said that he is being too mean. Don't know what (if anything) he said that would be considered "mean" because I didn't see it. Just an observation.

Anonymous said...

Anon, probably right. I didn't see the comment before it was deleted.

DanL

Anonymous said...

I admit to knowing next to nothing on monetary policy, but I do know that Perry's comments about Bernanke were just simply uncalled for, and I can't imagine why anyone is defending him.

No matter how you feel about the Fed printing more money, our candidates should not be accusing anyone of treason--unless it's true--and should not be talking about roughing anyone up.

Now these people coming to his defense, are throwing in with him! That's a real quick and easy way for the left to make the whole lot of us look unhinged.

Please. Let's not give them any more ammunition than necessary.


-Martha

craigs said...

It's funny about the " Fringe Right " In 1964, I was smack dab in the middle of the " Fringe Right '...and we thought we were the middle. We all knew Goldwater represented the untapped middle and that all we had to do was defeat the far lefties of Rockefeller and Scranton and we'd coast to a November victory as " the folks" would come out from hiding and jump on the bandwagon.Oh, we had polls and " In our hearts we knew we were right!"
Boy.....were we wrong. The folks came out alright and jumped on LBJ's bandwagon. Carrying ONE state does not make you feel like the broad vast center of the country is in your pocket.
I must say this election is eerily similar. We should win. We can win...........but we can also lose big time. Then, the party will fracture and a third party will splinter and the Dems will have a dynasty built on the rubble of the country

CraigS

Right Wingnut said...

Craig,

Just curious...who did you back initially for the GOP nomination in 1979/1980?

Right Wingnut said...

Who did you back in 1975/1976?

Pablo said...

Dan and Anon,

Yes, I deleted the comment because it was insulting to OJ. My apologies to him. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Pablo said...

Interesting questions RW. I am a big fan of George H. W. Bush so I would have backed him in 1980 (had I been born). I am sure that I probably would have backed Ford in 76, but I don't really know him that well. That is nothing against Reagan. Reagan got better as time went along.

Craigs response should be interesting.

Anonymous said...

haha we have some here who say they will vote for ron paul over mitt romney, it clearly shows OJ knows nothing about romney, or is just too upset with palin not getting in the race he wants to take it out on romney and romney supporters here. But then again, I may consider a vote for ron paul over queen palin as he knows a lot more than she does.

craigs said...

RW
I was a SUPER Reagan supporter for both 1976 and 1980. He was my Governor when I lived in San Jose in the late 60's and I got a Dividend check from the State of California because they invested part of my real estate tax in securities that made money. Reagan was fantastic Governor.
This was even when my security company provided security to Jimmy Carter in 1980

CraigS

Right Wingnut said...

Glad to hear you supported Reagan despite all the naysayers constantly saying he couldn't win. I read that they even tried to recruit Ford in early 1980 to prevent him from getting the nomination. I saw a poll that showed Ford crushing Carter, and Reagan losing badly.

craigs said...

RW
Yeah, it was the self same " establishment " in the GOP that wanted to promote a " Co-Presidency".
Reagan told them to shove it.....and they did

CraigS

Anonymous said...

Pablo, I have always suspected that some of the differences that exist between us are differences between theory and experience; now I am certain of it. Theory simply cannot replace experience, no matter how hard you study! Keep at it, you'll get there eventually! LOL!

I was able to vote for Reagan, and I remember the Carter years. The economy was terrible, and the President kept telling us we just needed to wear sweaters and scale back our expectations. I am inclined to believe in the productivity and possibility that exists among the American people, but only when they can function in freedom. Reagan understood that people need freedom to thrive in.

AZ

Anonymous said...

Mitt Romney is pro-mandates, pro-gun-control, pro-choice (depending on the day of the week), and a believer in man-made global warming. While governor, Mass's job growth was 47th in the country. While governor, only 25% of his judicial appointments were conservatives. What makes you even consider him a reasonable candidate?