Ron Paul has a key primary today in North Carolina, and it is not the presidential primary. Paul has been spending the last four months or so of his campaign to support “pro-liberty” candidates for federal, state and local offices. One of them, B.J. Lawson, is going to see if he can get out of the republican primary.
Lawson seems to hold positions similar to Paul - which is much of the GOP platform (albeit more strictly adhered to and interpreted) as well as an opposition to the current interventionism of the Bush Administration. From his website:
National security is critical, and we need a strong national defense. We also need to stand in support of our troops who answer their country’s call to duty, both when they are deployed and when they return as veterans.
As your Congressman, I will insist that we use deadly force in self-defense, and that we only go to war with a Congressional Declaration of War as specified in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. I will resist any attempts to declare preemptive war . As any sheriff knows, “If you start a fight, you lose your rights [to self defense]”.
I will work to keep our nation secure with an economic offense and strong military defense, instead of an economic defense and military offense…
With respect to the Middle East, we can, and must, be a force for stability in the region. We cannot rely on unilateral, preemptive military force to bring “democracy” to unstable countries. Furthermore, democracy shouldn’t even be the goal. Democracy is simply tyranny of the majority. Instead, countries need to be encouraged to build representative governments that protect individuals with the rule of law.
This is a key difference in that Lawson supports the conservative “constitutional war” view rather than the libertarian “anti-war” view. I would suggest that Ron Paul is more the latter, while many of the Ron Paul republicans are somewhere between.
Lawson also takes a more moderate position than Paul on the Federal Reserve:
Constitutional money is gold and silver, not a debt-backed paper currency. There’s no need to disrupt the current system, however, and we don’t need to “fix” our existing paper dollars to some amount of gold or silver. We just need to give those paper dollars some honest competition by again allowing gold and silver currency in addition to Federal Reserve Notes.
Paul has advocated this policy in debates but he has also been publicly supportive of Austrian economics and the abolition of the Fed. Lawson espouses a more careful tone.
Candidates like BJ Lawson and the other Ron Paul republicans, indicate that Paul’s candidacy has awakened a long dormant section of the republican party - a segment that wants to advocate conservatism by conservative means - rather than the current method of conservatism by statist means.
Hopefully he gets the nomination.
Frankly, I do not detect any real difference between the positions of Paul and Lawson and other Ron Paul Republicans, Libertarians etc. Paul is for a constitutional war, a war once attacked as retaliation, the Christian just war theory. He is NO pacifist, he does reject the pre-emptive strike.
Paul has also indicated that one cannot get rid of the Federal Reserve in a short time and that the gold standard cannot be introduced overnight. He has said he would legalize gold and silver as legal tender, as in the constitution, as an “intermediary” stage that could bring some stability to the USD. You have to move away from fiat-money, not by “going back to a gold standard”, but by moving progessively into the future by looking at a commodity based back currency for instance that would restrict the amount of money that can be printed and would help combat inflation. Not all RP Republicans would spell it out in so many words, also as they are not really specialists or has the experience of Paul.
Stephan hit this out of the park. To say Lawson’s views are different than Pauls, then state Lawson’s views, is to unwittingly admit a lack of knowledge of Paul’s platform. They are identical, as far as I see them, and I have been following Paul since 2000.
Actually, Paul is against nationbuilding, but says if we go to war it should be Constitutionally declared, in part because then there is a finite enemy and end point, so it doesn’t drag on forever.
However, the competing currency is Paul’s brainchild, he even has a bill in Congress to allow competing currency, and has said that is what he would want to do immediately to keep the dollar sound. Most media just doesn’t give him time to explain his ‘first steps.’
Thank you for being more thorough on the topic.
Stefan,
I think there are subtle differences. Ron Paul has been thoroughly schooled in Austrian economics and hold more ideologically pure positions. The Ron Paul republicans are running to get elected, and have not expressed the kind of radical (relative to the mainstream) tone that Paul has. Of course, it could also be that Paul’s presence has made these ideas seem less radical, and thus the other candidates appear less extreme.
I look forward to the day when Ron Paul has more like-minded legislators in Capitol Hill, who can look to him for education and guidance on the issues, and most importantly, vote the way he does to restrict the statist leglisation coming from both sides of the aisle over the past 16 years.
I left my name misspelled.
Go Ron Paul! He’s not out of the race. A vote for Ron Paul in the general election will send a signal that we (Ron Paul Americans) are at least 1 million strong, and growing.
Frankly, anyone running for office that is anywhere near Ron Paul’s platform would get my vote.
The Mayan calendar ends in December 2012. Perhaps the Mayans foresaw this presidential election and recognized that if McCain or Clinton won, they would likely do something that would end the world as we know it. Or maybe they knew that 2012 would be the year America would end its corporate serfdom and truly become the land of opportunity.
Nickalis,
We do not allow people to comment who cannot spell their own names.
Deeply disturbing this is.
Nickalis, pay no attention to Colin. I don’t.
Voted for Paul today. God bless him.
Yeah, when I went down to caucus for Ron Paul, there was some guy campaigning for some local office. He was wearing a Ron Paul button. He was really trying to sell himself. I honestly couldn’t tell if he was a genuine Ron Paul guy or if he was just trying to capitalize on the large RP support. Rather than explaining his positions he just came up to everyone, introduced himself, and asked whether we would wear one his stickers. I was thinking, “Dude, I don’t know anything about you. Why would I want to wear one of your stickers? Get outta my face!” He must have just retired from being a used car salesman. I tried to be polite, but I basically gave him the cold shoulder. I am generally distrustful of politicians. In fact, Ron Paul is the only politician (if you prefer that term for him) that I have trusted in recent memory. You gotta hand it to steadfast and principled people like him, but these bandwagon used car salesman guys can go take a hike!
I’m not inclined to repeat unverified rumor, but my sense is that Lawson has run a more visible and active campaign than his opponent, neocon Cho, and Lawson’s campaign materials are very handsomely done. I voted for him, of course, and his campaign postcard is on the refrigerator. (I also contributed.)
What a strange election. For the first time in my life of 57 years I was able to vote for two candidates that I support almost 100%, both of whom were running on a major party ticket. (I’m pro-choice, so not 100%, although the Paul rationale is at least rational.) That and voting against some idiotic new tax proposal referendum made me actually smile as I fed my ballot into the counting machine.
The GOP is infested with ex-democrats (neoconservatives) and only it’s demise this fall will restore it, to it’s original platform. Juan McWar is Bob Dole of 08…if you want to do something about it, join the r3VOLution before it’s too late.
“I’m pro-choice, so not 100%, although the Paul rationale is at least rational.”
I wonder if you wouldn’t mind clarifying this.
Oh, nevermind. I read it wrong.
This IS a big day for Ron Paul. If he can help 10 or 15 Congressmen get elected, he will increase his power in Congress substantially. As far as I can tell, I think that this possibility exists and it is a good one. Whether people agree with his views or not, I think that we will see RP’s type of thinking begin to grow from here on.
Elijah is due just prior to the coming of Christ. Is he masquarding as Ron Paul? or is it just one of his helpers? Remember Elijah challenged the worshipers of Baal in the fire contest. He poured water on where his fire was coming to burn up the sacrifice. Encouaging them to dance and call out. sorta like Hillary and Obama. Ron Moss
Time and time again the government tries to fix problems that they actually created by getting involved. Free markets work. Government doesn’t.
Since the FED loans the money to the government at interest and they have a monopoly on creating our money, where does the government get the money to pay the interest? Answer….by borrowing more money from the FED which sinks us deeper and deeper in debt as a nation, we can never get out of and that’s why our dollar is worth nothing. Since 1913 they have had to print more and more money just to cover the interest on money borrowed.
The FED system does not need to exist AND the government can manage and print money interest free….the treasury is responsible for our money not a private bank.
Is that the actual Ron Paul?
“Is that the actual Ron Paul?”
I think he has bigger fish to fry today.
Going off what you posted, there are actually no differences in their respective positions whatsoever.
Paul does not want to abolish the Fed. That is a total misinterpretation. He has repeatedly said in interviews that he probably could not get a political coalition, even if he were elected president, in favour of totally destroying the banking cartel, so he would instead favour F.A. Hayek’s competing currencies approach. That is the exact same approach of Lawson.
Secondly, there is no such thing as being “anti-war”. Everyone is pro-war when it comes to national defence. You’re talking as if Ron Paul is a pacifist - he’s not. He is a strict constitutionalist, which means he won’t go to war unless it’s declared properly by Congress. Nothing anti-war about it. In fact, he introduced a bill seeking to force Congress to declare war against Iraq in 2003, rather than going to war based on UN resolutions. He ended up voting against his own bill (for obvious reasons) but that shows he’s a constitutionalist like Lawson.
“Paul does not want to abolish the Fed. That is a total misinterpretation. He has repeatedly said in interviews that he probably could not get a political coalition, even if he were elected president, in favour of totally destroying the banking cartel, so he would instead favour F.A. Hayek’s competing currencies approach. That is the exact same approach of Lawson.”
Being a Constitutionalist, I think Paul is conservative in his approach to presidential power. That does not, however, mean that he would not abolish the Fed if he could. I believe he definitely would if he could muster the support.
Lawson crushed the Neo-Con party hack 3 to 1.