Dear Editor:
Re: “Ron Paul’s no ‘real’ Republican” Ben Duffy, Ed/Op, Nov 7, 2007
Ben Duffy claims that Ron Paul supporters (who have managed to break the fundraising record for Republicans with over $4 million in one day) are like a cult. It’s difficult to understand, though, how Paul’s supporters resemble a cult any more than Clinton supporters, or Romney supporters, or even Huckabee supporters. Duffy goes on to complain that there are genuine supporters of Ron Paul, and “one’s who don’t know a thing about him.”
Again, I must ask: how is this different from any other candidate’s supporters? I can’t count how many Clinton supporters I know that are oblivious to the fact that she voted for the Patriot Act and for its reauthorization, coupled with the onslaught of Guiliani supporters who are ignorant of his true stance on abortion. Most eligible voters in this country know very little of the candidates they’ve chosen to endorse. Painting vigorous Ron Paul supporters into an insulting box just because you disagree with them is not how to win the debate.
Duffy argues, in opposition to most Paul fans, that “[t]he invasion [of Iraq] was justified, the fight to secure Iraq is winnable, and the consequences of leaving the job unfinished are dire.” Sure, if by “justified” you mean that Congress never declared war and that our reasons for going in have been conclusively falsified. Naturally I agree, if by “winnable” you mean hopeless. No contest, as long as by “dire consequences” you’re referring to the more than 800 American soldiers that die there every year while we stubbornly persist in a lost war.
Duffy goes on to applaud Tucker Carlson’s supposed assessment of the genuine dissent of most Americans regarding a Ron Paul vision of America. Of course, he managed to leave out the fact that Tucker has admitted to voting for Paul in 1988 when he ran for president as a libertarian and is a self-professed fan of him, giving him plenty of airtime on his MSNBC show “Tucker.”
While I agree with Duffy that a Reagan-Paul comparison is ludicrous, given that their actual views on the role of government (particularly on foreign policy) differ significantly, I think it is important to point out that Reagan was famous for his libertarian rhetoric. It is precisely that limited government language that struck a cord with Americans all over, suggesting that the bulk of Paul supporters, regardless of what Duffy claims, are not ignorant to the actual, applied implications of what has been called the “Ron Paul Revolution,” but rather they are informed intellectuals who see our modern government for all its flaws and recognize that liberty has become a muffled priority within the two major parties.
Duffy’s warning in his conclusion that another lecture by a Ron Paul supporter and he’s “going to vomit.” Well I’m warning him to get out his Tums.
John Glaser UMass student
