Article Image
News Link • Casey Research Articles

Doug Casey on Ron Paul

L: Are there any other policy areas that would concern you, issues you know you disagree with Dr. Paul on? Doug: Well, he’s not an anarchist, as was Harry Browne, and he could support a lot more laws than I would, but our visions of how to restore America are probably about 90% the same. We’d be pushing in so much the same direction – less government, fewer laws, fewer regulations, lower taxes, bring the troops home, etc. – it would probably be a long time before our 10% differences would become problematical. And he’d never get that far; he’d have to fight tooth and nail to get any of that 90% of the needed change we agree upon done. But this is entirely an academic discussion. The chances of Ron even being a contender for the nomination of the totally corrupt Republican Party are zero. And if he got it, the chances of his being elected are less than zero – c’mon, this is the same electorate that just put in Obama. And if, through some form of Olympian intervention, he was elected, real change would be impossible. The NSA, the CIA, the FBI, the DoD, and the rest of them are now an empire within the empire. If he ever tried to make serious changes I suspect he’d get a very serious talking-to, much more scary than a small town mayor might get from the Mob. The situation is beyond redemption in my view. L: Okay, but... There’s the Tea Party, The Libertarian Party, even a few genuinely pro-market Republicans out there – all constituencies that might vote for Ron Paul. There are a lot of disillusioned people out there, a good number of whom might vote for an honest man, even if they don’t agree with him about everything. How can you say there’s absolutely no chance he could win? Doug: To start with, about half the population is on the dole – 45 million are on food stamps alone. Worse yet are all the corporate welfare recipients and high-finance fat cats in bed with the government – there are just too many people whose rice bowls would be broken for Ron to get elected. Organized labor would never stand for him, and much of corporate America would actually be on their side. Furthermore, there’s no constituency that would really be for him. The Libertarian Party is a completely ineffectual nonentity, and unworthy of support, as they proved by nominating the Congressman Bob Barr for their last candidate. The Tea Party has no central philosophy, as we’ve discussed before. And that’s not to mention Ron’s own well-publicized libertarian ideas that are easy to paint in a bad light, like his opposition to the War on (Some) Drugs. The stars are just not aligned for Ron. Or they are aligned – all against him. The voters will go for a statist, collectivist fear-monger who promises free lunches.

1 Comments in Response to

Comment by Sam Weathersby
Entered on:

Looks like Casey struck out. 

 If this is the kind of support a candidate can expect, yes, it does make it harder for them to win. I noticed Casey did not have any answers or ideas on how to fix anything., just a left handed way of dismissing the one chance of getting some one in office who would actually do something about the financial mess & the UN-Constitutional fed govt that brought US to it.He lines up very well with the libs & NEOCONs in the 'progressive' movement.

 Ron Paul does have a legit chance of winning. But rather than naysayers, he & the USA need supporting patriots, like these:.

1. Chuck /Baldwin endorses Ron-- A. Link to Debra Melina endorsement in the article.
  Another RP endorsement:   2. Southern Avenger on Ron Paul    3. Why Herman Cain may not be so good.   SamFox





Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: