Pros and Cons of seeking GOP "acceptance"Submitted by pigsfromagun on Sat, 01/28/2012 - 14:37
We've all seen it all over the talk shows and other media outlets: The GOP establishment has made it clear that they will not allow Ron Paul to get the GOP nomination, and they consistently hint at "bringing him into the fold" in some way - mainly through giving him a speaking engagement at the RNC. I do not know the Paul campaign's plans in this regard (or even if they have plans yet), but I have deep concerns about heading in this direction if given the opportunity.
As I see it, the only potential "pro" is that the GOP establishment may become more symbolically "friendly" to Ron Paul and his platform, and may adopt some of his ideas into the party platform. It's also mentioned that it could somehow lay groundwork for Rand Paul to operate with more influence in the GOP in the future.
On the "con" side, I see many potential drawbacks.
First, given that I do not trust the GOP establishment one bit, I see this as an effort to politely snuff out the enthusiasm that has been generated for Paul's Constitutional policies. If they decide to offer him conciliatory acknowledgement, it only means they will sort of "officially" adopt some of the rhetoric. There will be no commitments to any real policy change. For instance, we would be trading "Audit the Fed" for "use tough rhetoric against Fed policy in order to court libertarian-leaning voters." They get to essentially buy some of Paul's voters, without actually making any real commitment to Constitutional ideas. Make no mistake, this would not lead to any substantive change in the GOP directions on foreign policy, economic/monetary policy, or social policy.
Second, Paul would get to make a high-profile speech, but the party leaders would have to "approve" the speech before he makes it. I don't think I need to go into great detail about why that's a horrible idea.
Third, the GOP would require him in exchange for the speaking engagement to hand over a mailing list of his donors. Again, the negatives here speak for themselves. And I, for one, will not be happy about my information being given to those crooks.
Fourth, it would essentially require Dr. Paul to endorse the Republican nominee. As a longtime supporter of Dr. Paul's, I want to make it known right now that I WILL NOT BE HAPPY TO SEE THAT. It would be the ultimate, demeaning admission of defeat. I think that I and most other Paul supporters would see this as a betrayal, and it would not bode well for the future of our organizations. It would take all of the integrity and soul out of all the hard work we've all done for so long.
If Dr. Paul doesn't get the nomination, the only course of action that would be acceptable to me would be for him to make it abundantly clear that he and his supporters DO NOT accept the GOP platform, their candidates, or their agenda. Our movement has been steadily growing, and it is precisely because we fight the GOP establishment. If we allow ourselves to be "folded into" the mainstream, it will kill the appeal of our movement for potential new supporters. We need to continue to be seen as a clear alternative to both the GOP and Democrat establishments, not as a GOP electoral "asset".
I, for one, would prefer a third-party run over anything else. We all know the GOP will not pursue any of our goals, no matter how much energy they devote to adopting certain aspects of the rhetoric. The GOP does not deserve our endorsement. If Dr. Paul makes a third-party run, it will undoubtedly hurt the GOP in this year's election in a major way, and that is what they deserve.
Ron Paul and his supporters admit defeat and endorse a candidate who we know will start preemptive wars, support crony capitalist policies, refuse to tackle the budget deficit, etc? I THINK NOT.
If Dr. Paul does not get the nomination, we need to continue to go our own way, confidently and without compromise. This is the only way our support will continue to grow, and the only hope we have of taking our country back.