Selling Reagan: The Unconscionable Hypocrisy of Ron Paul
Idealism and politics do not mix well. The most principled politicians are obliged by the nature of governing real human beings in an imperfect world to practice the craft of statesmanship and the virtue of prudence. This non-utopian reality does not sell well in any election cycle, certainly not in one following a great conservative uprising. The grass-roots repudiation of neo-socialism was to have birthed a true “son or daughter of Buckley.” Though the field does offer several competent statesmen capable of governing the nation, generalized disappointment provokes poignant longing for the great Ronald Reagan.
The memory of the now-divinized Reagan, posthumously purged of the scars of pragmatic political give and take, conjures such nostalgia for “Morning in America” that even the Golfing Marxist and his courtesans have sought legitimacy by laying rhetorical wreaths on the Gipper’s tomb. Understandable. Pardonable.
It would, however, be not only impolitic, but certifiable madness for any candidate to claim to be the reincarnation or vicar of Ronald Reagan. The unworthy and those only slightly touched dare only the alchemy of drawing attention to some likeness between their own ideology and record and that of the great Midas.
Only the ersatz-Republican Rochester’s Wife has climbed on the electoral battlements and actually claimed for himself the title of “He Who Stood with Reagan.” In early September of 2011 Congressman Ron Paul sought to discredit Governor Rick Perry with an ad called Trust vs. Rick Perry:
Pictures of Reagan scroll. The ubiquitous Political Ad Man Voice says, “Reagan was also called extreme and unelectable.” Pictures of a young Paul with Reagan fill the screen. We are told Paul was one of only four Republican congressmen to endorse Reagan. The lesson concludes:
Rick Perry helped Al Gore’s campaign to undo the Reagan Revolution. Now America must choose who to elect; Al Gore’s Texas Cheerleader or the one who stood with Reagan.
Is this true? Is Ron Paul really “The One Who Stood with Reagan”?
Ron Paul told the late and very great William F. Buckley Jr. on Firing Line in 1987:
(Libertarians did poorly in the 1984 elections because) it was the height of the Reagan euphoria. We were at the height of the spending and the deficits and everybody believed that prosperity was here forever. I didn’t run in 1984 because I thought Reagan would be very popular, but I think that now it’s over and he’s much more exposed and the “conservatism” of the Reagan administration is much more exposed now than in 1984.
It is unconscionable and indicative of malicious duplicity for a man who condemned Reagan’s presidential record to now use this beloved president’s image to win votes, claiming that he, Ron Paul, has the solutions Reagan and his Republican followers eschewed.
In 2008, now-Senator Rand Paul stumped for his father in New Hampshire and told voters what his father really thought about Ronald Reagan:
We fast forward to 1980, to the Reagan Revolution, Reagan wins in a landslide. Did we get some good things? Yeah, we did, we got lower marginal tax rates. What happens when you get lower marginal tax rates, the revenues actually went up, so the supply-siders were right. What happened to the deficit? The deficit went through the roof under Reagan.
So how long did it take Ron Paul to figure out the guy he liked, endorsed, campaigned for, who campaigned for him? The very first budget. Ron Paul voted “no” against the very first Reagan budget. Everyone lauded the Reagan budget. It was $100,000,000 in debt, that’s three times worse than Carter’s worst budget…how much guts does it take to vote “no” against a popular Republican president? He was the only one, I think…only a handful. He continued that throughout the 80s. He was disappointed that the Revolution never really came to its fruition.
In the attack ad, Paul claims that Rick Perry should not be president because the Perry-backed Gore was trying to derail this same revolution.
Rand continues:
In 1994 we have another so-called revolution, the Republican Revolution where they take over the House and the Senate and we think good things were coming again, all the things that Reagan had promised, but never did…they all ran on the same platform and what happened? The Republicans got in power and got sick with power and within a few months we had transportation bills that were much worse than any the Democrats had ever given us. The Democrats had put 400 earmarks on the Transportation Bill, the Republicans put down four thousand.
Ron Paul really thinks Reagan was a sell-out. Paul campaign speeches insisted that Reagan was not a good president, but an opportunist who grew government and advanced the American empire. Our democracy defends Ron Paul’s right to assert these opinions, and people who agree with Paul, who are swayed by his substantiation of such claims, are welcome to vote for him.
What should be of serious, rational, and conscientious concern for voters is Ron Paul’s fundamental lack of integrity, clearly seen in his hypocritical use of Ronald Reagan to win the votes of unsuspecting conservatives who do love and honor Reagan’s memory and legacy.
When Ron Paul previewed and approved the attack ad against Rick Perry, he knew he was selling a lie. Voters should know that Ron Paul, who has a sneering and sour disdain for their Reagan “fake conservatism,” does not possess the intellectual honesty to try to win the election based on his actual belief that Reagan destroyed the conservative revolution. Instead, he paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to create an electorally lucrative myth that he is the “Man Who Stood With Reagan.”
His hypocrisy reveals him to be a Brutus who has, since his initial repudiation of Reagan, never rhetorically stood with this most revered statesman except to stab him in the back.
Not having seen these interviews I can’t say for certain, but I don’t see anything in Ron Pauls words that make me think “sneering disdain” Ron Paul may have been disapointed in The Gipper for compromising more than he thought necessary, or promoting a foreign policy that he disagreed with. Hell i disagree with alot of people I endorse or vote for. I’m not asking for 100% agreement, and I’m guessing neither was Ron Paul. I’ve also been disapointed in leaders whose policies I thought too concilliatory, but that doesn’t mean I look at them with “sneering disdain” This article is just another of a long line of vicious attacks on Ron Paul from the institutional right. Its too bad too, as much as Libertarians and Conservatives disagree on foreign policy and social issues. We at least agree on fiscal restraint and free market capitalism, and thats the important stuff. We should be uniting together to marginalize the creeping socialism being pressed by the Democrat party, not smearing each other with mean spirited attacks.
jacob, when playing the role as a paul appologist, you ought to practice what you preach! Did I not just post a reply in another article where you go about distorting and vilifying Santorum?
When all else fails, and facts damn your position, we get the profound philisophy of the great Rodney King and “can’t we all just get along?”
I have come to accept that there is little reasoning that can be done with a paul supporter. Facts be damned.
I kinda figure it can be attributed to prolonged Thc exposure to the neurological center of the brain, since it seems the strongest of the paul supporters are the legalize weed crowd.
Should have taken Clinton’s advice and not inhaled.
You must be confusing me for someone far less informed. I am no Paulbot. I am a Libertarian. I have now and always have believed in the primacy of the individual. I have deep reservations about anyone who believe that the federal government should be a platform to promote ethics and values. The federal government is there to secure liberty for every individual, nothing more. Social cons would do well to remember that. As I said in response to your post, if Santorum is the candidate, I will vote for him, but not without deep reservations. Again, disagreement is part of the process. I did not attack him by misrepresenting him. I pointed out that based on his own writing that is how he feels.
Also the only anger and lack of logical thinking on this thread seems to be coming from you. I was presenting an argument against the type of vitriolic assault I see coming from the social conservative set towards libertarians. I’ve been a life long libertarian, and I get along well with all of my social con friends. We have some great back and forth arguments with the agreement that we share a common goal of fiscal sanity and personal freedom. The conservative pundits don’t seem to share the same sort of view, and seemed threatened by anyone who is not a doctrinal, toe the line conservative. Do I see the same sort of rabid clinging to ideaology from Paulbots? Of course, but the depth of anger seems far more intense on the more social conservative side. I’ve made this same argument on libertarian sites with mostly positive results. Occasionally, there is someone like you who calls me a goose stepping neo con, because of my stances on national defense, but its easy to ignore.
caveat- you and a-hole
You want govt to protect you but you don’t want it to promote ethics or values, that’s quite odd.
Ron Paul made it clear that the reason he left the Republican Party was because of Ronald Reagan and the money Reagan spent on defense.
He now wants to wrap himself in the mantle of Reagan, when convenient, reserving the right to condemn Reagan, again when convenient, to attack his political enemies.
Such raw political hypocrisy may be acceptable to you, it is not to many other people.
Are you serious? Have you listened to every single Republican candidate? Every single one of them says they are a “Reagan Republican” Mitt Romney says he’s a “Reagan Republican” Obama said he’s a “Reagan Democrat” Every one wants the mantle of the next coming of Reagan. So its all good when everyone else and their dog is a “Reagan Republican”, but when its someone you don’t like its hypocrisy. Come off it.
Reagan was a terrible president and human being. If you think Obama is an empty suit, imagine a 70 year old actor as president. That was Reagan. Harumph I say! The ruskies laughed their asses off at the US for having this “actor” of a president who destroyed our economy and wasted trillions of dollars. Not to mention he was so scared of commies he got into bed with the Iranians to sell weapons to vile, murderous contras in Latin America. Great? I think not!
a-hole (only partially correct title, I would add moronic, idiotic, or perhaps just plain dumb to your title).
Your ignorance of facts, or downright lying, speaks for itself in words I will not add to.
Iignorance of what facts? He was a s- President. He was a liar, he turned a blind eye to unconscionable acts committed in Latin America. He spent and spent and spent. It’s funny that you admit he needed to spend; Obama supporters say the same thing. Are you a closet Obama supporter?
Were you opposed to Soviet support of the Castro and the Sandinistas on the grounds that they shouldn’t have been interfering in Nicaraguan affairs? What’s good for the goose after all…
Were you opposed to Soviet support of Castro and the Sandinistas on the grounds that the Soviets shouldn’t be interfering in Latin American affairs? What’s good for the goose after all…
FTFM
What do the soviets have to do with my point? But to answer your question Fidel wanted the soviets help.
If you oppose American interference in other countries’ affairs (particularly if said countries asked us to be there), you should also oppose other countries’ interference in other countries’ affairs.
The world isn’t as simple and Manichean as you make it, a-hole.
Come now,
Straw man much, Armando? Even if I agree, when did I say the U.S. Shouldn’t interfere? And second, I mentioned that the Cubans wanted help. Sometimes there are these things called alliances, duh!
I take offense to that. Although I disagree with Reagan on social issues, he did more for this country as president than any since him. Especially in articulating and promoting the fiscal values, and small government approach that is the backbone of the conservative and libertarian philosophy.
What alternate reality have you been living in, Resident, and why did you choose now to visit the real world? Shouldn’t you go back on your medication? I was an adult in the 70′sa and 80′s…I know what kind of President Reagan was–the best. Obama could be well described as the Anti-Reagan,tearing down everything worthwhile that Americans like Reagan have built.
Yeah Gorby was laughing his A-hole off at Reykjavic. When it comes to vile and murderous in Latin America your choices are many. I’d go with the Cotras again Today. I sure wish someone would come along to destroy the economy like it was in the 80s again. I’m going to send Scott Walker some money now.
Apparently this ‘alternate reality/going off of medication’ thing is catching…
Resident…Are you residential?
Carter 1980, The prime rate 23%
Reagan 1986, the prime rate 12% and dropping…
Just for the record; the Ruskies and the rest of the despots feared Reagan tremendously. If you don’t think so, ask the Iranians what they were thinking on the day of his first inauguration. Ask the Ruskies what they were thinking at the end of his second term when their government was no more.
What does the President have to do with the Prime Rate?
Reagan was a President. Like every President he had to deal with Congress to get the things he wanted. In order to get our military rebuilt and lower tax rates, Reagan had to let Tip O’Neil and his guys spend and spend. I didn’t always care for it and often wished Reagan put more effort into fighting wasteful spending.
Reagan is by far the best President of my lifetime and the only one I would consider conservative. But he wasn’t perfect.
And Rand Paul is right about the Republicans in the 90′s – and they got even worse in the 00′s. They have destroyed their brand over the past couple of decades.
Well said. Reagan was not perfect, but only progressives think that there are any perfect people. Perfect people and unicorns. He did the best job he could, given the situation he was put in. He will stand in American history and of this countries greatest presidents, and being an actor didn’t hurt. It allowed him to articulate his message to the public in a way most presidents have not been able to do.
Replace Reagan with Obama and progressive with conservative and you sound like a hypocrite. Of course you know that Obama is bad just as Reagan was awful.
Well said.
I was a Scoop Jackson democrat in the 70′s and 80′s. Like someone has said about being liberal when you are young…and get more conservative as you age – I’m 64 and have followed that somewhat predictable path. Granted – a shorter path for a ‘Jackson democrat’. Jackson would be a republican if he were still alive today. By 1990 I was a fully fledged conservative – not to be mistaken for a republican thank you very much.
As much as I wanted to dislike Reagan every time I saw him on tv I could not help be be bolstered in my belief that things could be better – and with him would be better. His words make me feel good – I felt he was honest about what he said I didn’t vote for him in 80 – but due to my disgust with Carter’s feckless handling of Iran I withheld my vote for Carter. The next time I withheld a vote for POTUS was the last time I will ever do that again – in 2008. That is not a winning strategy.
You still believe that oft repeated myth about being liberal young and then magically becoming conservative later in life? It’s an old wives tale. There are no studies to square that myth with reality. But you probably weren’t all that liberal to begin with.
Well, you may finally be right about something. If you’re foolish and ignorant enough to buy the leftist line as a sprout, you may not be capable of recognizing the truth as you grow older (not up, of course). You seem to be an example of this.
I could resort to a straw man argument in the same way you did by stating: well if you believe the conservative sprout that America does no wrong and the decline of our nation is because of a lack of Christian values. But I wont resort to such idiocy. Instead I will give you a simple argument– there are millions of people that are still liberals in their old age, it would be quite arrogant of you to think they are all crazy or towing the lefist sprout.
Conservatives are the ones that believe in the perfect savior lord jeebus. Pot, kettle?
Perhaps you should take a few moments to wipe the spittle off your monitor. Do you need help taking your meds?
More flawed logic a-hole. All roosters are chickens, but not all chickens are roosters. Not all Conservatives are Christian.
No, but all Christians are conservative. To use Ann coulter logic. Most conservatives are violently religious so it seems odd such pronouncements are coming from conservatives.
Also remember that at this point in history, Democrats had the House and Senate for around 40 years. There was no way Reagan could gain leverage against that other than to wrangle with budget which he did to some degree and to get what he wanted. It wasn’t until 1994 that Repubs finally gained control of one of the branches of Congress. It’s easy to think what he should have done based on what we have going now, it’s not so easy when history shows he had more against him during that time.
One of the reasons for the Iran-Contra mess is that democrats voted to cut off funding for Latin America ventures after we had sold them on our support. Basically kind of like telling your buddy you plan to come over and help him with some work on his house then leave him to do it on his own.
hypocrisy of ran paul…………….. my best friend’s sister-in-law makes $81 an hour on the computer. She has been fired for 9 months but last month her income was $8170 just working on the computer for a few hours. Here’s the site to read more… m a k e c a s h 4 . com
ran paul…………… my roomate’s sister-in-law makes $69 an hour on the computer. She has been out of a job for 7 months but last month her paycheck was $7578 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this site… m a k e c a s h 4 . com
Frankly, this messianic worship of Presidents is vomit inducing; especially when the Presidents suck, like Reagan and Obama.
I’ll bet even an A-hole has some hero worship in there somewhere. I’m a big fan of George Washington myself. Who would it be for you? Noam Chomsky maybe?
Nah, I’m more of a Stalin and Mao guy, personally.
Yeah, because mass murderers are really cool, eh? You lefties always claim those opposed to you are violent, while you’re responsible for the greatest atrocities the world has ever seen. And you don’t even recognize the hypocrisy of your claims. Well, given that you believe in you totalitarian preachings, recognition of reality isn’t something the rest of us expect from you.
I guess sarcasm is lost on you.
It’s interesting that you ascribe all the worlds great atrocities to lefties. Even the ones before lefty was coined? I would be interested in knowing who exactly comprises these lefties. Would you care to define your terms first? To me, it sounds like you dont know how to debate so you invent some phantasm to be angry with and then use ad hominem. Prove me wrong.
A-hole, the term “Left” derived from the seating arrangement at the 1789 Estates General, where the more radical participants sat to the King’s left, predating Stalin and Mao by more than a century.
What’s your game, exactly?
What’s your point Armando? You act as if that information discredits the point I was making — my point remains. Plus you know damn well the meaning of the word changed over that time period so you are really just embarrassing yourself and not helping Doug. I mean his logic is beyond stupid.
You have a point?
The fact is that Ron Paul endorsed Reagan, another fact is that even Reagan is not beyond criticism.
Or is Pajamas now a Reagan cult facility ?
That was pretty much my point. The article is using the fact that Ron Paul criticized The Gipper as proof of “sneering disdain” so if I criticize one of my social con friends for thinking the federal government has a place in legislating morality, then I am looking at them with “sneering disdain” as well, rather than just disagreeing with a friend about the role of government in social values.
What should be of serious, rational, and conscientious concern for voters is Ron Paul’s fundamental lack of integrity, ….
Lack of integrity seems to be a standard feature of the politicians we witness today.
Unfortunately it seems that the average voter seems incapable of choosing better.
Context, context, context. The writer must be deliberately attempting to create new history. Not as cleverly as she thinks. Ron Paul does ” eschew Ron Reagans’s positions. Paul said he became upset when Reagan didn’t try to keep some campaign promises inculding shrinking the federal government and spending both of which Reagan promised and did not do. Reagan was the best president in my time. Still, Paul is right that there were campaign promises that led to a Paul endorsement that Reagan didn’t even try to fulfill. Because of political reality? Probably so. Nevertheless, this atricle twists the facts and omits important context.
Dear Mr. Mahoney,
I hope you are well. I am the author of this article and I would like to thank you for taking the trouble to read it and having the kindness to share your ideas concerning what I wrote. I would like to tell you that I was not trying to distort reality on purpose. This would be a very sad use of time and brain power. I have no objection at all to Ron Paul or any other person objecting to what may very well have been failures on the part of Ronald Reagan to live up to his own goals. A president is a flawed human being and is often prevented by the constraints of reality or his own deficiencies from doing all that can be done for the common good. The point I was trying to make is that Ron Paul is seeking votes on the basis that he is “the one who stood with Reagan.” Never in the ad does he state that his orignal support for Reagan evaporated when he thought the president was not faithful to campaign promises or the Reagan Revolution. I have only heard Ron Paul speak of how Reagan fell short of restoring America. If he believes this, why would he use images of himself with Reagan to pander for votes? Where were the voice overs insisting that Reagan was a sell-out? It is not the changing of his opinion that is objectionable, but the selling of Ronald Reagan to get votes that is hypocritical.
With much respect,
Jeanette Pryor
The Reagan Republican would have been Sarah Palin, also declared to be unelectable, only this time the label stuck.
Perhaps things have to get worse before they get better.
The “obnoxious” and accusatory tone in this article, as well as its hypothesis, makes it risible. It is just another spurious attempt to black out Ron Paul, and deflect voters from the critical topics at stake.
Paul is the best chance we have for returning to our Constitutional Republic, to sanity, freedom, prosperity, and peace. Instead of sniping, think big; think long-term.
The only hypocrisy I see here is an author on the supposedly responsible PJM that doesn’t have the patience to listing to a 1 minute advertisement close enough to hear what it says. The ad is 100% accurate in every respect. “Idiot in a hurry” indeed.
The ad states that Ron Paul was one of only 4 congressmen to “stand with Reagan” in supporting Reagans bid for president because he believed in the message of smaller government, lower taxes and so on. The ad also states that Rick Perry actively campaigned on behalf of Gore, whose espoused policy was exactly the opposite of Reagan’s.
The ad didn’t describe how Rick Perry has flip-flopped on his political aspirations and endorsements to change his supposed ideology 180 degrees to match those of Reagans *espoused* ideology. Only that Rick Perry had claimed to be a Reagan Republican, even though he actively endorsed his opposition.
The ad did NOT say that Ron Paul supported every decision Reagan ever made. It didn’t mention anything having to do with Ron Paul *after* endorsing Reagan’s campaign. The ad also doesn’t describe the relationship Ron Paul had in choosing Reagan’s socks in the morning, or what they preferred to eat for breakfast. Should he have included a statement to that effect? The only hypocrite here is Ms. Pryor, who chose to misrepresent Ron Paul’s statements based on her own clear bias.