The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewRon Paul Archive
Good News: Young Americans Want a New Political Party
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Do we need a third major political party? I often joke that I’d be happy if we actually had a second party, as when it comes to the big issues – war, monetary policy, civil liberties – the Republicans and Democrats are more alike than different. Perhaps that’s why a recent NBC News poll has found that nearly two-thirds of young people surveyed do not believe either the Republicans or Democrats are doing a good job and that a third major political party is needed.

I think this is an encouraging sign. I suspect the NBC News poll result reflects the fact that young people are not as easily hoodwinked by the mainstream media and by the two-party duopoly charade in Washington. This generation has grown up with the Internet and the abundance of alternative media that challenges what really is a one-party system in the United States. They have been exposed to many new ideas, including good ones like libertarianism and non-interventionism.

Currently, mainstream politics in the US is all about power – how to get it and how to keep it – and not at all about philosophy or ideology. It is about selling out principles at every turn in order to chalk up another point in the “win” column. On issues like war and spending, it’s incredible how easily the two major parties are able to “compromise.”

A serious effort to create a new political party could be very exciting, but only if that new party is based on real ideas rather than simply the desire for power. Creating a viable third party will not be easy. While there is plenty written in the media about foreign collusion in US elections, the real collusion is between the Republican and Democratic Parties to prevent new parties from joining them on the national stage and the ballot.

Unfortunately the Libertarian Party has failed to live up to what should have been its role as an ideological alternative to Washington’s one-party system. As was quite obvious in the 2016 presidential election, the Libertarians yielded to prevailing attitudes on war, welfare, the Federal Reserve, and more. In believing that winning was more important than standing for something, they ended up achieving neither.

I would still like to have some hope for the Libertarian Party, but to really fill its role as a challenger to our two party system (that is actually a one party system) it would need a major overhaul. It would need to actually embrace the core libertarian principles of non-aggression and non-intervention in the affairs of others.

At the end of my 2008 presidential campaign, I brought together the candidates of the “minor” political parties and proposed that we agree on some basic principles regardless of whether we are libertarians, conservatives, progressives, or greens. Among those was the idea that we should never go to war unless we were directly attacked or threatened, that the Federal Reserve should not be allowed to benefit the rich by creating money out of thin air, and that we should not endorse deficit spending.

If a new party could come together and agree on these basic principles while agreeing to disagree on other, less important priorities, we could begin a formidable movement toward peace and prosperity.

Let us hope that this NBC News survey provides the inspiration to a real pro-peace, pro-prosperity movement in the United States. I have much confidence in the youth of our country!

(Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 26 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Ron, you are a good, principled, honest, and sensible man. I supported you and voted for you in the GOP presidential primaries of 2008 and 2012 and gladly would have voted for you again in the 2016 primaries if you had run. I hope to meet you before one of us shuffles off this mortal coil.

    But I think that you are also terribly naïve and suffering from unwarranted optimism. The new party that many young “Americans” would want, it seems, would be more socialist and more openly perverse and radical in support of the “rights” and privileges of homosexuals, “transsexuals”, and “the undocumented” (illegal aliens who break our law to enter or stay in the USA against our will and without our permission). More unaffordable, debt-financed freebies at the expense of the declining portion of the population that actually pays federal income taxes.

    In other words, many of these young folks who are so disillusioned with the Dems and Repubs, would readily enact new government programs to spend the trillions saved by ending our unnecessary wars and occupations, closing military bases abroad, and ending corporate welfare. Such as “universal single-payer healthcare” and “‘free’ college for all” and welfare benefits for non-citizens (as we have in some respects already, here in California).

    Of course, I know and meet young people who are more like you describe, and I’d love to be proven wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    Here's a possible argument for Ron's approach:

    Framing the Fed as a tool for the rich and a driving force behind inequality is a great way to get young leftists on board, which can be important for political victory (it is also correct, of course). But maybe what should not be emphasized too much is the fact that a strict monetary policy will create strong natural limits on government expansion. Without inflation, the only way the government can get that universal healthcare and free college is by a) raising taxes (very politically unpopular) b) borrowing (less unpopular at the start but economically not as bad as inflation and will probably lead to demands for cuts later, especially if the left can be persuaded to oppose deficit spending) or c) cutting spending elsewhere (no objections to that here!).

    The Hoppean strategy of focusing on immigration and other right-wing talkings points first and foremost only works if you can win on a conservative base alone. The narrowness of Trump's victory and his subsequent difficulties seem to throw doubt on that strategy. However distasteful the left appears, I think it is worth exploring areas of common interest. Abolishing the Fed, ending foreign interventions and ending deficits is something we all want.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Yes, great comment, R.C., and I'm glad your comment is on top to be read first. This is to add to my last comment, though the thread is old: It's not just that the young people are ignorant of the evils of Communism and Socialism with regard to it's design to work against human nature as understood even by kindergarteners. Another reason for the ignorance is that anyone under 35 y/o has been aware of American economics and government completely during these times of crony capitalism.

    Most young people have seen nothing resembling a free market beside, perhaps, a flea market. You can't blame them so much for hating capitalism, since they think that's what the US has now! Yeah, right, if this is capitalism, I'm a monkey's aunt. The real Commies that are embedded throughout US institutions like to keep this narrative going. "See how capitalism is bad? Look at how this country is run. Sign here to help support the coming utopia, just as your useful idiot, I mean, patriotic great-great-grandfather did for the Motherland a century ago.

    We seem to be on a roughly 1-century period with this Commies-out-of-the-woodwork deal - it never goes well, and is usually only ended via an outside power. Who's gonna help America this round, space aliens?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /rpaul/good-news-young-americans-want-a-new-political-party/#comment-2104514
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. The only good libertarian is a Hoppean Snek libertarian, so to speak. Because Hayek von Pinochet did nothing wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. KenH says:

    I must echo the sentiments of poster “Radical Center”. If by young Ron Paul means millenials then most of them just want an American version of Communism because their witless high school teachers and college professors have convinced them it’s sexy. Around 40% want curbs on the first amendment and I’m sure at least that number and possibly more think America is racist, sexist and homophobic and in need of a little reeducation from above.

    There’s a good chance that a third party comprised of these young people would be an SJW party and have narrow appeal.

    People of all ages have been thirsting for an alternative to the Dems and Repubs at least since the early 1990′s when Ross Perot burst on the scene and later when Pat Buchanan ran as a maverick Republican in 1996 before the media sunk his campaign with a 24/7 hate campaign.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Well said, Ken. And I wish I had supported Perot instead of Deep State Bush Senior in 1992, but in my defense I was very young. More evidence that we should have raised the voting age from 21 to 25, not lowered it to 18. But that would now be politically impossible, even more than back in the 60s. And the indoctrination of the young in government schools ("public schools") and universities is far more radical, hateful, and pervasive, hence the soundness of your characterization of any likely new youth party.
    , @Grandpa Charlie

    "People of all ages have been thirsting for an alternative to the Dems and Repubs at least since the early 1990′s when Ross Perot burst on the scene and later when Pat Buchanan ran as a maverick Republican in 1996 before the media sunk his campaign with a 24/7 hate campaign." --- KenH
     
    I think this is a mischaracterization of the political history of the '90s. KenH is confusing that time and Pat Buchanan with today and Donald Trump. There was no great hate campaign against Buchanan: as always, Buchanan was pushing his single-issue culture war and that lost in the primaries to the mainstream candidate, Bob Dole.

    What I recall about 2000 is that, like it or not, the 'pro-life' movement had proved itself to be a political loser for the GOP or anyone else, whilc Dole promising opposition to globalization before the election, was seen shortly after the election (still as Senate leader) certifying the total moral bankruptcy of the GOP, by happily shaking hands with Clinton on the success of NAFTA -- which Dole had shepherded through the Senate. Meanwhile, the real alternative was Ross Perot, whose gallant effort to pull America back from the brink of the abyss of globalization perished on the rocks of corporate media collusion in lockstep support of globalization. Perot's campaign could hardly have been helped by Buchanan whose 'culture-war' extreme anti-abortion position appeared to be calculated to take votes away from Perot, whose position on such matters was tempered by realism. IMO, Buchanan as a "maverick" was a hoax, as became clear when in 2000 he brought the Reform Party down to oblivion in some swamp in Alaska -- which convinced me that he had been cynically acting as an agent of the RNC all along.

    Pat Buchanan was about as much of a "maverick" as has been John McCain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Issac says:

    I’m sure after the amnesty of 30 to 50 million mestizos you’ll have a libertarian party resugent like never before. By g-d the last time I was in South America the amount of entrepreneurial spirit was breathtaking. Not only were public services largely eschewed (I have to assume this was out of principle, based on how widespread their dysfunction was), but I was entreated no less than a dozen times by street vendors and private security, seeking to make better use of any capital I had on my person.

    Hail Flavelas! Hail their People! Hail Victory!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. @KenH
    I must echo the sentiments of poster "Radical Center". If by young Ron Paul means millenials then most of them just want an American version of Communism because their witless high school teachers and college professors have convinced them it's sexy. Around 40% want curbs on the first amendment and I'm sure at least that number and possibly more think America is racist, sexist and homophobic and in need of a little reeducation from above.

    There's a good chance that a third party comprised of these young people would be an SJW party and have narrow appeal.

    People of all ages have been thirsting for an alternative to the Dems and Repubs at least since the early 1990's when Ross Perot burst on the scene and later when Pat Buchanan ran as a maverick Republican in 1996 before the media sunk his campaign with a 24/7 hate campaign.

    Well said, Ken. And I wish I had supported Perot instead of Deep State Bush Senior in 1992, but in my defense I was very young. More evidence that we should have raised the voting age from 21 to 25, not lowered it to 18. But that would now be politically impossible, even more than back in the 60s. And the indoctrination of the young in government schools (“public schools”) and universities is far more radical, hateful, and pervasive, hence the soundness of your characterization of any likely new youth party.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. The bad news is that young Americans are nearly 50% nonwhite and thus predisposed to want lots of government and to tolerate lots of corruption. Oh, and they’re pretty tribal.

    The future will look like Brazil, and Brazil not exactly a hotbed of Paul’s Libertarianism. Though this will make Mr. Paul gasp, someone really should tell him that Libertarianism is only seen with people of NW European decent. It’s a white thing and can only exist in overwhelmingly white countries. Since the United States is quickly losing that status, Libertarianism will die outside of a few think tanks and professors.

    Read More
    • Agree: Grandpa Charlie
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Many libertarians whom I have known, including ME ;) are not primarily of NW Euro background. Plenty of Italian and Slavic Americans who are libertarians, for example.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @KenH
    I must echo the sentiments of poster "Radical Center". If by young Ron Paul means millenials then most of them just want an American version of Communism because their witless high school teachers and college professors have convinced them it's sexy. Around 40% want curbs on the first amendment and I'm sure at least that number and possibly more think America is racist, sexist and homophobic and in need of a little reeducation from above.

    There's a good chance that a third party comprised of these young people would be an SJW party and have narrow appeal.

    People of all ages have been thirsting for an alternative to the Dems and Repubs at least since the early 1990's when Ross Perot burst on the scene and later when Pat Buchanan ran as a maverick Republican in 1996 before the media sunk his campaign with a 24/7 hate campaign.

    “People of all ages have been thirsting for an alternative to the Dems and Repubs at least since the early 1990′s when Ross Perot burst on the scene and later when Pat Buchanan ran as a maverick Republican in 1996 before the media sunk his campaign with a 24/7 hate campaign.” — KenH

    I think this is a mischaracterization of the political history of the ’90s. KenH is confusing that time and Pat Buchanan with today and Donald Trump. There was no great hate campaign against Buchanan: as always, Buchanan was pushing his single-issue culture war and that lost in the primaries to the mainstream candidate, Bob Dole.

    What I recall about 2000 is that, like it or not, the ‘pro-life’ movement had proved itself to be a political loser for the GOP or anyone else, whilc Dole promising opposition to globalization before the election, was seen shortly after the election (still as Senate leader) certifying the total moral bankruptcy of the GOP, by happily shaking hands with Clinton on the success of NAFTA — which Dole had shepherded through the Senate. Meanwhile, the real alternative was Ross Perot, whose gallant effort to pull America back from the brink of the abyss of globalization perished on the rocks of corporate media collusion in lockstep support of globalization. Perot’s campaign could hardly have been helped by Buchanan whose ‘culture-war’ extreme anti-abortion position appeared to be calculated to take votes away from Perot, whose position on such matters was tempered by realism. IMO, Buchanan as a “maverick” was a hoax, as became clear when in 2000 he brought the Reform Party down to oblivion in some swamp in Alaska — which convinced me that he had been cynically acting as an agent of the RNC all along.

    Pat Buchanan was about as much of a “maverick” as has been John McCain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    There was no great hate campaign against Buchanan: as always, Buchanan was pushing his single-issue culture war and that lost in the primaries to the mainstream candidate, Bob Dole.
     
    You must not have watched the news coverage from that time because right after Pat B. won New Hampshire the establishment knives came out and Bob Dole publicly denounced Buchanan's campaign as "intolerant" since he wanted to end affirmative action, deport illegal aliens and bring sanity to our system of legal immigration in addition to ending free trade deals that were beginning to impoverish the working class. His "single issue" platform was far more comprehensive than Bob Dole's "cut taxes and everything will be alright" platform.

    Each night a new Republican heavy would condemn Buchanan. Jack Kemp chimed in, Rush Limbaugh was critical and even House speaker Newt Gingrich piled on.

    Buchanan as a “maverick” was a hoax, as became clear when in 2000 he brought the Reform Party down to oblivion in some swamp in Alaska
     
    Buchanan screwed himself when he virtue signaled by choosing negress Ezola Foster as his running mate. His support among the deplorable Americans evaporated within 24 hours of that betrayal. You can blame Jesse Ventura and even (at that time) centrist Donald Trump for sowing discord in the Reform party.

    Pat Buchanan was about as much of a “maverick” as has been John McCain.
     
    Pat Buchanan - Deport illegals, seal the border, drastically reduce legal immigration, end trade policies that harm the American worker, end affirmative action, end judicial tyranny, foreign police neutrality/avoid war.
    John Mclame - Mass amnesty, keep the border open, maintain high levels of third world legal immigration, more free trade and more wars for Israel, more liberal voting record in the Senate than some Democrats.

    Sure gramps, Buchanan and McCain are almost identical if you say so. Buchanan was a maverick compared to the majority of the Republican party then and now and Trump borrowed heavily from his 1996 platform.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. jtgw says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Ron, you are a good, principled, honest, and sensible man. I supported you and voted for you in the GOP presidential primaries of 2008 and 2012 and gladly would have voted for you again in the 2016 primaries if you had run. I hope to meet you before one of us shuffles off this mortal coil.

    But I think that you are also terribly naïve and suffering from unwarranted optimism. The new party that many young "Americans" would want, it seems, would be more socialist and more openly perverse and radical in support of the "rights" and privileges of homosexuals, "transsexuals", and "the undocumented" (illegal aliens who break our law to enter or stay in the USA against our will and without our permission). More unaffordable, debt-financed freebies at the expense of the declining portion of the population that actually pays federal income taxes.

    In other words, many of these young folks who are so disillusioned with the Dems and Repubs, would readily enact new government programs to spend the trillions saved by ending our unnecessary wars and occupations, closing military bases abroad, and ending corporate welfare. Such as "universal single-payer healthcare" and "'free' college for all" and welfare benefits for non-citizens (as we have in some respects already, here in California).

    Of course, I know and meet young people who are more like you describe, and I'd love to be proven wrong.

    Here’s a possible argument for Ron’s approach:

    Framing the Fed as a tool for the rich and a driving force behind inequality is a great way to get young leftists on board, which can be important for political victory (it is also correct, of course). But maybe what should not be emphasized too much is the fact that a strict monetary policy will create strong natural limits on government expansion. Without inflation, the only way the government can get that universal healthcare and free college is by a) raising taxes (very politically unpopular) b) borrowing (less unpopular at the start but economically not as bad as inflation and will probably lead to demands for cuts later, especially if the left can be persuaded to oppose deficit spending) or c) cutting spending elsewhere (no objections to that here!).

    The Hoppean strategy of focusing on immigration and other right-wing talkings points first and foremost only works if you can win on a conservative base alone. The narrowness of Trump’s victory and his subsequent difficulties seem to throw doubt on that strategy. However distasteful the left appears, I think it is worth exploring areas of common interest. Abolishing the Fed, ending foreign interventions and ending deficits is something we all want.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Most people, certainly most young people, don't give a damn about the federal Reserve, nor do they seem to care about deficit spending.

    On a common front for the popular position of ending our needless wars, though, you are right on the money.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. I want a party with the domestic policy of Bernie Sanders, and the foreign policy of Ron Paul!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. KenH says:
    @Grandpa Charlie

    "People of all ages have been thirsting for an alternative to the Dems and Repubs at least since the early 1990′s when Ross Perot burst on the scene and later when Pat Buchanan ran as a maverick Republican in 1996 before the media sunk his campaign with a 24/7 hate campaign." --- KenH
     
    I think this is a mischaracterization of the political history of the '90s. KenH is confusing that time and Pat Buchanan with today and Donald Trump. There was no great hate campaign against Buchanan: as always, Buchanan was pushing his single-issue culture war and that lost in the primaries to the mainstream candidate, Bob Dole.

    What I recall about 2000 is that, like it or not, the 'pro-life' movement had proved itself to be a political loser for the GOP or anyone else, whilc Dole promising opposition to globalization before the election, was seen shortly after the election (still as Senate leader) certifying the total moral bankruptcy of the GOP, by happily shaking hands with Clinton on the success of NAFTA -- which Dole had shepherded through the Senate. Meanwhile, the real alternative was Ross Perot, whose gallant effort to pull America back from the brink of the abyss of globalization perished on the rocks of corporate media collusion in lockstep support of globalization. Perot's campaign could hardly have been helped by Buchanan whose 'culture-war' extreme anti-abortion position appeared to be calculated to take votes away from Perot, whose position on such matters was tempered by realism. IMO, Buchanan as a "maverick" was a hoax, as became clear when in 2000 he brought the Reform Party down to oblivion in some swamp in Alaska -- which convinced me that he had been cynically acting as an agent of the RNC all along.

    Pat Buchanan was about as much of a "maverick" as has been John McCain.

    There was no great hate campaign against Buchanan: as always, Buchanan was pushing his single-issue culture war and that lost in the primaries to the mainstream candidate, Bob Dole.

    You must not have watched the news coverage from that time because right after Pat B. won New Hampshire the establishment knives came out and Bob Dole publicly denounced Buchanan’s campaign as “intolerant” since he wanted to end affirmative action, deport illegal aliens and bring sanity to our system of legal immigration in addition to ending free trade deals that were beginning to impoverish the working class. His “single issue” platform was far more comprehensive than Bob Dole’s “cut taxes and everything will be alright” platform.

    Each night a new Republican heavy would condemn Buchanan. Jack Kemp chimed in, Rush Limbaugh was critical and even House speaker Newt Gingrich piled on.

    Buchanan as a “maverick” was a hoax, as became clear when in 2000 he brought the Reform Party down to oblivion in some swamp in Alaska

    Buchanan screwed himself when he virtue signaled by choosing negress Ezola Foster as his running mate. His support among the deplorable Americans evaporated within 24 hours of that betrayal. You can blame Jesse Ventura and even (at that time) centrist Donald Trump for sowing discord in the Reform party.

    Pat Buchanan was about as much of a “maverick” as has been John McCain.

    Pat Buchanan – Deport illegals, seal the border, drastically reduce legal immigration, end trade policies that harm the American worker, end affirmative action, end judicial tyranny, foreign police neutrality/avoid war.
    John Mclame – Mass amnesty, keep the border open, maintain high levels of third world legal immigration, more free trade and more wars for Israel, more liberal voting record in the Senate than some Democrats.

    Sure gramps, Buchanan and McCain are almost identical if you say so. Buchanan was a maverick compared to the majority of the Republican party then and now and Trump borrowed heavily from his 1996 platform.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Noah Way says:

    It’s not just young Americans who want another political party, it is a plurality of registered voters and likely a majority of all citizens. But the one party they don’t want is RP’s Libertarian nonsense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. Svigor says:

    Probably best to just kill the GOP and take its stuff.

    They have been exposed to many new ideas, including good ones like libertarianism and non-interventionism.

    And shit that libertardians are blind to, like blood and soil (i.e., real) nationalism, strong borders, race-realism, taking your own side in a fight, etc.

    Libertardians make me wanna take a nap.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Understood. How about "libertarianism for our people"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    The bad news is that young Americans are nearly 50% nonwhite and thus predisposed to want lots of government and to tolerate lots of corruption. Oh, and they're pretty tribal.

    The future will look like Brazil, and Brazil not exactly a hotbed of Paul's Libertarianism. Though this will make Mr. Paul gasp, someone really should tell him that Libertarianism is only seen with people of NW European decent. It's a white thing and can only exist in overwhelmingly white countries. Since the United States is quickly losing that status, Libertarianism will die outside of a few think tanks and professors.

    Many libertarians whom I have known, including ME ;) are not primarily of NW Euro background. Plenty of Italian and Slavic Americans who are libertarians, for example.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Quite true. My apologies for leaving out my fellow European men (sadly, women of any race aren't particularly libertarian).

    I should have just said those of European descent.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @jtgw
    Here's a possible argument for Ron's approach:

    Framing the Fed as a tool for the rich and a driving force behind inequality is a great way to get young leftists on board, which can be important for political victory (it is also correct, of course). But maybe what should not be emphasized too much is the fact that a strict monetary policy will create strong natural limits on government expansion. Without inflation, the only way the government can get that universal healthcare and free college is by a) raising taxes (very politically unpopular) b) borrowing (less unpopular at the start but economically not as bad as inflation and will probably lead to demands for cuts later, especially if the left can be persuaded to oppose deficit spending) or c) cutting spending elsewhere (no objections to that here!).

    The Hoppean strategy of focusing on immigration and other right-wing talkings points first and foremost only works if you can win on a conservative base alone. The narrowness of Trump's victory and his subsequent difficulties seem to throw doubt on that strategy. However distasteful the left appears, I think it is worth exploring areas of common interest. Abolishing the Fed, ending foreign interventions and ending deficits is something we all want.

    Most people, certainly most young people, don’t give a damn about the federal Reserve, nor do they seem to care about deficit spending.

    On a common front for the popular position of ending our needless wars, though, you are right on the money.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @Svigor
    Probably best to just kill the GOP and take its stuff.

    They have been exposed to many new ideas, including good ones like libertarianism and non-interventionism.
     
    And shit that libertardians are blind to, like blood and soil (i.e., real) nationalism, strong borders, race-realism, taking your own side in a fight, etc.

    Libertardians make me wanna take a nap.

    Understood. How about “libertarianism for our people”?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @RadicalCenter
    Many libertarians whom I have known, including ME ;) are not primarily of NW Euro background. Plenty of Italian and Slavic Americans who are libertarians, for example.

    Quite true. My apologies for leaving out my fellow European men (sadly, women of any race aren’t particularly libertarian).

    I should have just said those of European descent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. I love the divil outta Dr Paul, but I agree with the assessment that he’s a bit too sanguine.

    Currently, mainstream politics in the US is all about power – how to get it and how to keep it – and not at all about philosophy or ideology. It is about selling out principles at every turn in order to chalk up another point in the “win” column. On issues like war and spending, it’s incredible how easily the two major parties are able to “compromise.”

    New party or no, that will not change.

    The reason is simply that the country is in thrall to the international money changers and they’ve had us by the throat in a virtual death grip, with their congressional colluders, since at least 1913. Any change for the better will most probably have to come from the outside.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Yep, Jack Squat (sorry, trying to be polite here), I also think Dr. Paul is way too optimistic. However, he did try to spread the word around about the FED, having started up right back then in 1913. As commenters already wrote here, nobody cares. They'd care if they understood the problem with a private bank (OR US Feral Gov't for that matter) creating money, and how inflation is a hidden large tax on wealth that's been around for > 50 years in force.

    American people in general are not smart enough or motivated enough to want to find out anything this detailed. I admit that I can't get through an article explaining exactly how the pieces of paper or computer bits go back and forth from the FED to the Feral Gov't as IOU's, treasury notes, blah, blah in the money-creating process. You don't need to know all those details though, just the basics of HOW we are being screwed and how badly we are. I think Dr. Paul did his best. The American people, as a whole, are going to get what they deserve, for not defending their Constitution.

    Even if there were members of the Lyin' Press who would be on the side of truth (what the 1%'ers?), they are too stupid to understand what's going on, much less explain it. News reporters are some of the stupidest people ever to graduate from college.*

    * oops, left out Education majors. Mea culpa!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. You don’t have to be exceptionally stupid not to see that D’s and R’s have ruined the country. That is a blindness widely shared among the American electorate. If a new generation is getting its eyes open then more power to them. But it’s too late for our absolutely corrupt former Republic to be reformed by electoral politics.

    The blind will be blind sided by the impending collapse of Imperial Washington and the attendant destruction of the domestic economy. After which no one will admit to ever having been a Democrat or a Republican.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. The blind will be blind sided by the impending collapse of Imperial Washington and the attendant destruction of the domestic economy.

    I think you’ve got this sentence written backwards. The impending collapse of Imperial Washington will only happen due to the destruction of the domestic economy. People have not done their jobs in stopping this beast, but the coming economic collapse will take care of it one way or another. It may go the wrong way, toward Communism, as, that’s we’re about at the time in America when they will be crawling out of the woodwork again, and, as written in the great comments here, these young people are extremely ignorant so far as understanding economic systems.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    "I think you’ve got this sentence written backwards."

    Yeah. Really I think the dollar is the chicken AND the egg. When the dollar goes the Empire and the economy turn to dust.

    "... the coming economic collapse will take care of it one way or another."

    People who survive the crash will have an opportunity to build something on the ashes. I wish them well. I have already been here 73 years.

    Go in peace A. E. Newman
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @RadicalCenter
    Ron, you are a good, principled, honest, and sensible man. I supported you and voted for you in the GOP presidential primaries of 2008 and 2012 and gladly would have voted for you again in the 2016 primaries if you had run. I hope to meet you before one of us shuffles off this mortal coil.

    But I think that you are also terribly naïve and suffering from unwarranted optimism. The new party that many young "Americans" would want, it seems, would be more socialist and more openly perverse and radical in support of the "rights" and privileges of homosexuals, "transsexuals", and "the undocumented" (illegal aliens who break our law to enter or stay in the USA against our will and without our permission). More unaffordable, debt-financed freebies at the expense of the declining portion of the population that actually pays federal income taxes.

    In other words, many of these young folks who are so disillusioned with the Dems and Repubs, would readily enact new government programs to spend the trillions saved by ending our unnecessary wars and occupations, closing military bases abroad, and ending corporate welfare. Such as "universal single-payer healthcare" and "'free' college for all" and welfare benefits for non-citizens (as we have in some respects already, here in California).

    Of course, I know and meet young people who are more like you describe, and I'd love to be proven wrong.

    Yes, great comment, R.C., and I’m glad your comment is on top to be read first. This is to add to my last comment, though the thread is old: It’s not just that the young people are ignorant of the evils of Communism and Socialism with regard to it’s design to work against human nature as understood even by kindergarteners. Another reason for the ignorance is that anyone under 35 y/o has been aware of American economics and government completely during these times of crony capitalism.

    Most young people have seen nothing resembling a free market beside, perhaps, a flea market. You can’t blame them so much for hating capitalism, since they think that’s what the US has now! Yeah, right, if this is capitalism, I’m a monkey’s aunt. The real Commies that are embedded throughout US institutions like to keep this narrative going. “See how capitalism is bad? Look at how this country is run. Sign here to help support the coming utopia, just as your useful idiot, I mean, patriotic great-great-grandfather did for the Motherland a century ago.

    We seem to be on a roughly 1-century period with this Commies-out-of-the-woodwork deal – it never goes well, and is usually only ended via an outside power. Who’s gonna help America this round, space aliens?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @jacques sheete
    I love the divil outta Dr Paul, but I agree with the assessment that he's a bit too sanguine.

    Currently, mainstream politics in the US is all about power – how to get it and how to keep it – and not at all about philosophy or ideology. It is about selling out principles at every turn in order to chalk up another point in the “win” column. On issues like war and spending, it’s incredible how easily the two major parties are able to “compromise.”
     
    New party or no, that will not change.

    The reason is simply that the country is in thrall to the international money changers and they've had us by the throat in a virtual death grip, with their congressional colluders, since at least 1913. Any change for the better will most probably have to come from the outside.

    Yep, Jack Squat (sorry, trying to be polite here), I also think Dr. Paul is way too optimistic. However, he did try to spread the word around about the FED, having started up right back then in 1913. As commenters already wrote here, nobody cares. They’d care if they understood the problem with a private bank (OR US Feral Gov’t for that matter) creating money, and how inflation is a hidden large tax on wealth that’s been around for > 50 years in force.

    American people in general are not smart enough or motivated enough to want to find out anything this detailed. I admit that I can’t get through an article explaining exactly how the pieces of paper or computer bits go back and forth from the FED to the Feral Gov’t as IOU’s, treasury notes, blah, blah in the money-creating process. You don’t need to know all those details though, just the basics of HOW we are being screwed and how badly we are. I think Dr. Paul did his best. The American people, as a whole, are going to get what they deserve, for not defending their Constitution.

    Even if there were members of the Lyin’ Press who would be on the side of truth (what the 1%’ers?), they are too stupid to understand what’s going on, much less explain it. News reporters are some of the stupidest people ever to graduate from college.*

    * oops, left out Education majors. Mea culpa!

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    The thing is that the problems of the Fed and inflationary monetary policy are pretty easy to explain: new money benefits those who receive it first at the expense of those who receive it last. This is exactly why counterfeiting is a crime, and indeed fiat currency is just a fancy word for government-approved counterfeiting. But the economics profession are part of the exploitative class for the most part and use their intellect to contrive fancy-sounding arguments in favor of fiat money and central banking which succeed in intimidating those who might otherwise see the problem quite plainly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. jtgw says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    Yep, Jack Squat (sorry, trying to be polite here), I also think Dr. Paul is way too optimistic. However, he did try to spread the word around about the FED, having started up right back then in 1913. As commenters already wrote here, nobody cares. They'd care if they understood the problem with a private bank (OR US Feral Gov't for that matter) creating money, and how inflation is a hidden large tax on wealth that's been around for > 50 years in force.

    American people in general are not smart enough or motivated enough to want to find out anything this detailed. I admit that I can't get through an article explaining exactly how the pieces of paper or computer bits go back and forth from the FED to the Feral Gov't as IOU's, treasury notes, blah, blah in the money-creating process. You don't need to know all those details though, just the basics of HOW we are being screwed and how badly we are. I think Dr. Paul did his best. The American people, as a whole, are going to get what they deserve, for not defending their Constitution.

    Even if there were members of the Lyin' Press who would be on the side of truth (what the 1%'ers?), they are too stupid to understand what's going on, much less explain it. News reporters are some of the stupidest people ever to graduate from college.*

    * oops, left out Education majors. Mea culpa!

    The thing is that the problems of the Fed and inflationary monetary policy are pretty easy to explain: new money benefits those who receive it first at the expense of those who receive it last. This is exactly why counterfeiting is a crime, and indeed fiat currency is just a fancy word for government-approved counterfeiting. But the economics profession are part of the exploitative class for the most part and use their intellect to contrive fancy-sounding arguments in favor of fiat money and central banking which succeed in intimidating those who might otherwise see the problem quite plainly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Yes, you're right, jtgw, that one can explain the gist of it easily, but I think Dr. Paul was too polite of a guy to put this in raw terms. Also, the Lyin' Press was in the way between his words and any kind of decent explanation to readers or viewers. It's not just that deliberate effort by the media at the time to marginalize Dr. Paul, as he is not one of the establishment and wouldn't go along with the path to destruction that we are on. It's also that they are pretty damn stupid, as a rule, as I wrote above.

    I agree completely with your assessment of economists, too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @Achmed E. Newman

    The blind will be blind sided by the impending collapse of Imperial Washington and the attendant destruction of the domestic economy.
     
    I think you've got this sentence written backwards. The impending collapse of Imperial Washington will only happen due to the destruction of the domestic economy. People have not done their jobs in stopping this beast, but the coming economic collapse will take care of it one way or another. It may go the wrong way, toward Communism, as, that's we're about at the time in America when they will be crawling out of the woodwork again, and, as written in the great comments here, these young people are extremely ignorant so far as understanding economic systems.

    “I think you’ve got this sentence written backwards.”

    Yeah. Really I think the dollar is the chicken AND the egg. When the dollar goes the Empire and the economy turn to dust.

    “… the coming economic collapse will take care of it one way or another.”

    People who survive the crash will have an opportunity to build something on the ashes. I wish them well. I have already been here 73 years.

    Go in peace A. E. Newman

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Agreed.

    People who survive the crash will have an opportunity to build something on the ashes.
     
    I hope so, but that's if we haven't been completely communized and globalized before people have gotten their communities together to resist.

    Thanks for the kind reply.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @jtgw
    The thing is that the problems of the Fed and inflationary monetary policy are pretty easy to explain: new money benefits those who receive it first at the expense of those who receive it last. This is exactly why counterfeiting is a crime, and indeed fiat currency is just a fancy word for government-approved counterfeiting. But the economics profession are part of the exploitative class for the most part and use their intellect to contrive fancy-sounding arguments in favor of fiat money and central banking which succeed in intimidating those who might otherwise see the problem quite plainly.

    Yes, you’re right, jtgw, that one can explain the gist of it easily, but I think Dr. Paul was too polite of a guy to put this in raw terms. Also, the Lyin’ Press was in the way between his words and any kind of decent explanation to readers or viewers. It’s not just that deliberate effort by the media at the time to marginalize Dr. Paul, as he is not one of the establishment and wouldn’t go along with the path to destruction that we are on. It’s also that they are pretty damn stupid, as a rule, as I wrote above.

    I agree completely with your assessment of economists, too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    I think Ron was doing the best he could. E.g. kept on talking about needing a "strong dollar" and not "debasing our currency." Those kind of soundbites appeal to people's patriotic instincts and still get the point across.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @WorkingClass
    "I think you’ve got this sentence written backwards."

    Yeah. Really I think the dollar is the chicken AND the egg. When the dollar goes the Empire and the economy turn to dust.

    "... the coming economic collapse will take care of it one way or another."

    People who survive the crash will have an opportunity to build something on the ashes. I wish them well. I have already been here 73 years.

    Go in peace A. E. Newman

    Agreed.

    People who survive the crash will have an opportunity to build something on the ashes.

    I hope so, but that’s if we haven’t been completely communized and globalized before people have gotten their communities together to resist.

    Thanks for the kind reply.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. jtgw says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    Yes, you're right, jtgw, that one can explain the gist of it easily, but I think Dr. Paul was too polite of a guy to put this in raw terms. Also, the Lyin' Press was in the way between his words and any kind of decent explanation to readers or viewers. It's not just that deliberate effort by the media at the time to marginalize Dr. Paul, as he is not one of the establishment and wouldn't go along with the path to destruction that we are on. It's also that they are pretty damn stupid, as a rule, as I wrote above.

    I agree completely with your assessment of economists, too.

    I think Ron was doing the best he could. E.g. kept on talking about needing a “strong dollar” and not “debasing our currency.” Those kind of soundbites appeal to people’s patriotic instincts and still get the point across.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply -


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Ron Paul Comments via RSS