Club for Growth: Paul “Opposes Progress”
I’m on a Rep. Ron Paul kick. So be it. Interesting stuff has come out. The latest being the Club for Growth’s white paper. The fiscal conservative group has plenty of nice things to say about Paul, but their problem with him is political reality:
When it comes to limited government, there are few champions as steadfast and principled as Representative Ron Paul. In the House of Representatives, he plays a very useful role constantly challenging the status quo and reminding his colleagues, despite their frequent indifference, that our Constitution was meant to limit the power of government. On taxes, regulation, and political free speech his record is outstanding. While his recent pork votes are troubling, the vast majority of his anti-spending votes reflect a longstanding desire to cut government down to size.
But Ron Paul is a purist, too often at the cost of real accomplishments on free trade, school choice, entitlement reform, and tort reform. It is perfectly legitimate, and in fact vital, that think tanks, free-market groups, and individual members of congress develop and propose idealized solutions. But presidents have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul opposes progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect. In these cases, although for very different reasons, Ron Paul is practically often aligned with the most left-wing Democrats, voting against important, albeit imperfect, pro-growth legislation.
Ron Paul is, undoubtedly, ideologically committed to pro-growth limited government policies. But his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too.
Jason Steck comments,
the Club for Growth analysis reveals the fatal flaw of the Ron Paul candidacy — that it is fundamentally a “cult of the margins” made up of a coalition of antediluvian libertarians, anti-Federal Reserve conspiracy theorists, and recent-arriving fellow travelers attracted by the exotic air of an anti-war Republican. Such a coalition is unlikely to even hold together for long, let alone develop a mass appeal.
The vibe surrounding Paul is he’s the truly anti-war candidate. He wants the troops pulled out of Iraq in 16 months and he’ll cut unconstitutional spending that Democrats and Republicans have endorse for decades. He’s pure and a protest candidate. But in order to break out he’ll need to convince the electorate he’s more than a gadfly. His campaign won’t reach the goal of raising $4 million in October. That’s a sign his financial support has reached a ceiling.
Disclaimer: I work for Friends of Fred Thompson, Inc.
This is a criticism of Ron Paul i completely agree with. His sole determining factor when it comes to legislation seems to be “does the Constitution strictly allow this?” Which is admirable, but that degree of pure idealism doesn’t lend itself well to compromise across the aisle.