Ron Paul’s gradual rise above that field of R-Party evil clowns (in Iowa, at least) got me wondering: What would happen if Paul actually won the presidency?
I think we know that Paul, being a proven man of his word, would attempt to make government smaller, less tyrannical, and more constitutional. But that just brings up other questions.
What, specifically, would he try to do in his first weeks and months as president?
Would the traditional “shadowy forces” arrange a convenient fatal heart attack for him? (“Such a shame, but that’s what happens when you elect such an old man …”)
Would an uncomprehending and resentful Congress, the Supreme Court, and legions of entrenched bureaucrats simply counter everything he tried?
Would the media continue to treat him as a laughable freak, a quirky but ultimately inconsequential whim of a crazed electorate — something to endure for four years before getting back to “serious” governance?
Or maybe you think Paul would become as corrupted in the presidency as all the rest. I don’t. But I also don’t think he’d be able to (or allowed to) accomplish anything that would matter in the long run.
Of course, there are lots of other questions to ask first: Would Paul as the R nominee simply drive voters back to Obama? Who would he choose as his running mate? Etc. And none of the questions I’m asking here really matter.
But even to an anarchist like me, it’s encouraging to watch the rise of the Paulistas, despite the media’s best efforts to pretend Paul doesn’t exist. It means something. About mindset. About real change from the ground up. It means something the Rs and the media don’t dare consider.
So what do you think? What would happen if Ron Paul became president of the U.S.?
If Ron Paul did become President, I think it’ll end up showing how a President can become nothing more than a figurehead for the Powers That Be/s. Such a President used to be called “Lame Duck Presidents” and proves that the President have no real powers if “They” don’t want him to have.
I think killing him off would raise far too many questions and possibly make him into a martyr that cannot be silenced.
I don’t think they’d want him to join Lincoln and Kennedy in that class of respected Martyrs. Makes him too famous.
They’d tell him the real story of JFK’s murder. Then, when he didn’t meekly genuflect, they’d block him, as Jim B said. If it started to look like he was going to make any changes that actually threatened their power, he’d have that heart attack.
How odd. I’ve been up half the night thinking about this. I’m too tired to say much this morning. What’s been rolling through my tiny little mind is that it wouldn’t change anything. Over at Vox Day he’s been running posts about the total lack of any cuts out of this House who was came into power courtesy of the Tea Party. Not much hope for anything other than total chaos, no matter who’s elected.
One thing he could do is issue lots and lots of freedom-oriented executive orders. Most would be stonewalled by the bureaucrats. He might, however, annoy congress enough to strip the presidency of some of its bloated powers.
And what a great bully pulpit! He would be the president (who, in the American civic religion, is semi-divine). Imagine four years of “fireside chats” by a Rothbardian.
It depends…if he has the stones of a, say, Cromwell…or a. Washington…now there’s change you can believe in! Haha!
I’ve been thinking about this, too, and was wondering if he’s read “Hope” by L. Neil Smith. http://www.amazon.com/Hope-Aaron-Zelman/dp/1604502932/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1323951160&sr=1-1 Assuming he even believed completely in the book’s message, I doubt his Presidency would get that far — but it’s a nice fantasy.
I imagine a “heart attack” would occur soon after he took office.
OTOH, if Rick Burner is correct about freedom-oriented executive orders, the mood of the people might be such that stonewalling those orders may be difficult. After all, if he’s elected he would be “the people’s choice”, and “the people” have been noisy lately. We can always HOPE.
It is very real that his intentions would be blocked or ignored. I think that at the very least, one good thing would come from his presidency. Transparency. Not the flip semantic term “transparency” that is so often tossed about these days with newspeak flavor. But a real clarity as to what government really is.
I think Paul would show that the empire has no clothes or would die trying. Either of these possibilities could serve as a clear wake up call to our country’s current state of affairs.
Hmmm … cynicism hasn’t completely tarnished my view of the American populace (they can wake up?).
I have to admit when I saw the Iowa poll, my heart did a little leap, but my hopes have been dashed before (In 2007, we pretty much gave over our lives to the campaign)
I don’t stay on that thrill ride too long anymore.
I’ve been thinking about him lately. I realized that his writings had as much of a profound effect on me as did biblical theology. I’m not deifying him, just saying that he (and others, including you) deeply influenced my way of thinking, and I am grateful to this humble man.
Random, pre-caffeine, mostly cynical thoughts:
I don’t think he’s corruptible. Look at his record, his past. He doesn’t mind standing alone. He is one man who actually has the courage of his convictions. That’s so rare these days. I have seen him in person and talked privately to his wife. They are good folks.
I think they wouldn’t let him be President for long, even if he won.
However, I can dream a little: He would pass an Executive Order to abolish the Fed, and another one to bring the troops home.
My favorite scenario is that he’d get on TV once a week and explain everything he wants to do, why he’s doing it, and what the long-term effects would be.
Of course, it’s a nice dream, but it is not likely to happen.
Maybe after things get really, really bad, and the country is in literal ruins the people might seek out a man like RP, I don’t know. I’m not optimistic about it. But I still support his views and I try to spread the freedom message anyway. Sometimes I think he’s too good for the American people – they don’t deserve him.
I have no idea what is going to happen, but a Gin-grinch Presidency might make to start thinking seriously about becoming an ex-pat.
When good people think that they must use evil (or evil people) to combat evil, all is lost.
“Modern societies have justified their adoption of criminal activities by claiming that such techniques are necessary to combat evil. But the war against evil by the good cannot be won using evil tactics. Evil never yields goodness, and by using these evil practices, the amount of evil in the world increases both in amount and extent. Attempting to save the nation by becoming what you are trying to save the nation from is suicidal.” – Robert Oppenheimer
Be a nice problem to consider wouldn’t it?
The establishment would kill Ron Paul off.
#1 The clever secret agency would make his death paint him as a buffoon.
#2 The Secret Service looks the other way as crazed people on the dole attack him. ( He would need his own security team )
#3 The rich who are on a mega-dole would assassinate him. Leaving him alive causes too much disruption of their trajectory.
99guspuppet
My opinion? Ron Paul is the Republicans excuse for losing the election in 2012. US government has become professional wrestling, the fix is in and most of what we see is smoke and mirrors.
Depends who his vice president is, and what the ultimate makeup of congress is. Not just the #s of each party in power, but the quality of each members character. Even now, if there were true leadership from the president or either part of congress, things would be mighty different. Don’t forget the reason that Dr. Paul has lasted as long as he has is because he is smart and tough. The PE often underestimates those qualities.
He would be co-opted through legislation, gridlock, “scandal” etc. Might find a dead blond in bed with him some morning. If it was a fatal mistake, it would not be a heart-attack, it would be something big, grand, visual, that could be used as an excuse to launch another war, go to open martial law, oppress the few citizens left.
It would be an interesting 4 years. I expect he’d use his Executive powers to ‘do’ as much as he could, but would be fighting the entrenched bureaucrats (this includes Congress) at every turn. I’m still undecided as to whether I’m even going to vote in the 2012 charade. But if anyone can get me to draw that little black line on the ballot it is Paul, who I voted for in 1988 when I was first able to vote for President.
I believe everything but the last prediction would come true (Paul becoming corrupted) all the others would most certainly come true. First, they would simply try and stop everything he wanted to do and the media would holler at any real change and portray it as dangerous and the delusions of a maniac. If that failed to stop him I think some party with skin in the old game would put him on ice for even attempting to bring an ounce of freedom back to the people.
I believe the system, through the Federal Election Commission, is way too corrupt to allow RP to be elected. No matter how many votes he gets. If he became a real threat to the way things are, he either wouldn’t be placed on the ballot at all, or votes for him wouldn’t be counted.
And, I do hope he’s read “Hope” for a blueprint of how a good president could carry out his job.
Not much would change, because institutional momentum is so difficult to alter. He could (probably would) rescind some existing Executive Orders that limit freedom and expand governmental power. However, he could not simply “eliminate the Fed” via Executive Order: that entity is a creation of statute and could only be abolished by statute (although he would be in a position to appoint the new Fed Chairman and some governors, which would be a help). He would undoubtedly veto some of the more egregious bills to come out of Congress, and some of those vetoes might even stick, but if he shut down the government by vetoing whole spending bills the outcry would be such the he’d simply be overridden, even by his own (nominal) party. He would undoubtedly appoint a Cabinet with views similar to his own, which would be a big help, but even so those agencies are populated with career bureaucrats who would stymie most major changes. The most significant effect he could have would be through the appointment of federal judges (especially one or two Supreme Court justices). That would pay dividends in the future, but not immediately.
The bottom line is that while President Paul would slow down the expansion of the federal government, and eliminate some of the worst excesses of the Imperial Presidency, he couldn’t completely reverse it. He would be only a speed bump on the highway to totalitarianism.
I believe he would remain faithful to the Constitution in his actions. This means that he would not do much. He understands that the President is an executor, not a legislator. He would therefore not abuse his position by using inappropriate executive orders. He would only issue them in the sphere of what is constitutionally authorized for the executive branch. That could include bringing the troops home, but it would not include an order ending Obamacare, as it was passed legislatively (although in a very shady way). He would be a huge improvement in that he could revamp the executive departments, which are the very entities that actually rule us now. We are no longer living under elected representation. Those executive agencies simply do what they want to do regardless of legislation in many cases. They are the people that we run up against in our daily activities, obstructing us as we attempt to run our lives. Ron Paul could curtail them dramatically, through their appointments and staffing. That is, until he is assasinated by the higher powers that oversee our government.
In terms of really changing anything by his own direct actions, Ron Paul is more likely to be effective in Congress (especially now that his mostly-like-minded son is serving in the Senate) than he could ever possibly be as president.
Anyone who doubts this should ask why he isn’t yet locked in a forced-labor camp. Presidents can get us into wars pretty much all by themselves…for anything else, they need the active cooperation of Congress. Even with both houses of Congress controlled by the same party as the White House for two years, the current guy accomplished…well, not much, really. And Obama is a lot closer to the mainstream of Democrats than Paul is to the mainstream of Republicans.
The infamous “they” wouldn’t need to kill him. They could just ignore him for four-to-eight years until he went away.
From the bully pulpit, though, he might be able to influence the terms of national debate in a positive direction. It’d take a lot of years, though, for that to have much of an effect in terms of government behavior.
It took over a century for the enemy to break America this badly. We should not expect it to be repaired more quickly than that, even if everything goes our way from now on.
The President is nothing but a corporate executive hired to manage the US profitably for those who own it. Nobody will be allowed a chance to win the Presidency without first having agreed to serve the interests of the people who run the government. Who, we need to start realizing, are by definition the richest and most powerful persons in the governed State.
The best way to rig an election is to ensure that none of the choices functionally differ from each other. Barack Obama is a perfect example: he says a lot of things scripted to make him sound like the Anti-W. But what he does is George W. Bush Bigger, Harder, and Uncut.
And please let go of the illusion of taking “your” government back, if you suffer that delusion. Unless you’re a disenfranchised oligarch, it never was your government. Not here; not anywhere.
I don’t think I have any illusions about taking “their” government back. But I am willing to hold onto a shred of hope.
This will be the last time.
One thing that I can say for sure will happen is that I will go out and get quite drunk, in celebration of the fact that I can still be pleasantly surprised by the American electorate.
Of course, when he doesn’t get elected, I’ll get quite drunk as I toast the fact that the American electorate is just as foolish as I expected.
CROMWELL! OR WASHINGTON! It has come to that.
Wont happens. Elections are rigged right down to the county level.
Lord, what a thought. Wouldn’t it be glorious? At the very least, he could gut the executive branch.
But then the cynic takes over and says…….and i think it was Stalin who said words to this effect:
“Vote? Ha! Let the people vote, let them vote all they want. It does not matter how much they vote, what matters is *who counts the votes*.”
I don’t understand the Cromwell or Washington bit. Cromwell might be seen as a hero to some, but he committed genocidal acts in Ireland and Scotland, massacred catholics, ruled with an iron fist and killed royals with great aplomb. Not someone I would look towards as freedom minded. Washington for all his greatness sent troops to suppress the Whisky Rebellion, caused when his administration passed a tax on goods (whisky) being traded internally within the U.S.
Ron Paul’s strength is the ideas he puts forth.
If all he did weekly was address the American people and the world about freedom and self-responsibility for four years, he’d have more long term affect on this country’s direction than any other president.
No one knows freedom any more. No one thinks like a free person. Ron Paul would teach those who can still learn how to think as a free person.
I define freedom as no government intervention.
he would or should make rand paul vp thats a winning ticket
Ron Paul knows what is at stake, and is ready to accept the consequences with what goes with it. He is a brave person, just like our Claire!
Today (Friday 12/16/11) is the anniversary of The Boston Tea Party. Today would be a good day to visit his 2012 campaign website … remember 4 years ago when he set records?
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/
Let’s flip it around: What would YOU do?
Rules:
– Stay within limits of Presidential power as laid out in the Constitution
– “I’d quit!” was interesting the first time somebody said it, but not helpful now
– Cabinet/Agency Head nominations could be interesting. I’d appoint the ghost of Hunter S. Thompson to run the DEA, and make Stephen Halbrook Attorney General.
– Movement of military forces – POTUS can’t close bases, but he could order every troop in say, Columbia to come home on the next plane.
– Executive Orders to give, or even better, rescind. Ending the multiple opverlapping States of National Emergency would have far-reaching effects, and it totally within POTUS’ power.
For bonus points, write a State of the Union or Inaugural address.
Ron Paul is about the only chance we have. Romney is worse than Obama & Gingrich isn’t much better. If we weren’t comparing Romney to Obama, he’d be called a Liberal. And since he has an R by his name, Congress will aid him in his policies. Gingrich has shown through his actions that he is no friend to Liberty.
TFA303_ Here’s what I would do; from my “platform”.
I don’t think the REPUBLICAN PARTY would allow him the nomination, even if he won the primaries. I seriously think that, if it came to that, they’d ditch their own rules and beclown themselves. The hatred of Paul in some conservative circles and blogs (AoSHQ is a prime example) is deep and visceral, and goes far beyond disagreement on ideas.
Principles I guess …the “people” wanted to coronate Cromwell and Washington …and BOTH those guys said no, I’m going home…to my family, to my farm.
I really respect Ron Paul. He isn’t fearful of standing up for what he believes. I don’t know if I will vote for him. I do not know if he can prevail. It isn’t looking so good right now. Maybe things will pick up.