The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Ron Paul in the Economist

If you haven't read it yet, check it out:

Paul the Apostate

Jul 19th 2007 | LAKE JACKSON, TEXAS
From The Economist print edition
Is this would-be president brave or crazy?

RON PAUL, a libertarian Republican congressman from Texas, likes to say what he thinks. And among the things he thinks is that the census is a violation of privacy. He has opted out of the congressional pension programme. He claims never to have voted for a tax increase, or for an unbalanced budget, or for a congressional pay rise and never to have gone on a congressional junket. He wants to return to the gold standard. Most notably, he strongly opposes the Iraq war and has from the beginning.

Continues Here

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Call Me Superstitious...

...but given I posted this right after it came out, probably buried in a comment, Likkeresh posted it a few days ago on the forum and now Michael posts it as a blog, perhaps it merits another look. Three times a charm, ya know.

Can't find my original post, but I remember first taking issue with the word "apostate" as others have, then noting that the author says:

"It seemed that Mr Paul would be ostracised. But since then he has been vigorously defended by libertarian internet buffs everywhere. (His supporters are diligent correspondents and, having published this article, The Economist expects to hear from them.)

I considered that an invitation from The Economist ...perhaps even goading...for Ron Paulites to respond. Was hoping some would. I'm throwing that out again. Perhaps The Economist encourages "creative discussion." I'm going there now to see if any has taken place.


Letter to the Editor

Note: As I think this is pertinent, took the liberty of reposting Likkeresh's letter to the editor of The Economist and comments on the article as it is such a good example of a letter to the editor.

He said in a forum post entitled:

"Paul Apostate or Modern Day Jefferson"

A Ron Paul supporter, in commenting on Digg regarding the Spartansburg, SC event, noted the recent appearance of an article about Ron Paul in The Economist. This is a publication coming out of the UK which is also available online at:

The article is entitled, "Paul the apostate," and in it the author says, "His supporters are diligent correspondents and, having published this article, The Economist expects to hear from them."

So, I wrote thanking the editor for their coverage and also pointing out the negative connotations of the article's title. The following is what I wrote with the subject heading, "Paul the apostate or Ron Paul, a modern-day Jefferson?"

The Economist
22 July 2007

Dear Sir or Madam:

Your 19 July article concerning Dr. Ron Paul, the “Freedom Candidate” for the U. S. Presidential Election, was balanced, and though lacking in detail, informative. It is unfortunate, however, that you chose the term, “apostate” to characterize Dr. Paul’s principled, constitutional values that he has independently and unwaveringly manifested for his entire 20 years in the U.S. Congress. defines “apostate” as: "a person who forsakes his religion, cause, party, etc.” Historically, the word has been most frequently used in characterizing a person who defects from his previously professed religion, and the term generally carries negative connotations in the sense of betrayal of one's religion or political party.

So, how can Ron Paul be considered an apostate? He certainly has not forsaken his Christian heritage and beliefs. He believes, like Thomas Jefferson, that individual rights are not granted by government, or by the consent of the governed, but are given to us by “our Creator.” He also advocates, outspokenly, for the unborn child as having rights that are no less important to protect than those of its mother.

Has he forsaken or betrayed the Republican Party? No, Dr. Paul has said candidly that the party “has lost its way,” because it has traditionally been a party that upholds conservative rather than neoconservative values. It has been a party that has ended wars, viz., Korea and Viet Nam. It has traditionally been a party of limited government, not the monolithic government that has expanded to even more gargantuan, King-Kong size under the current administration.

Has he forsaken or betrayed the party in being an unflinching advocate of not meddling in the affairs of other countries and not nation building? In the June debate in New Hampshire, Dr. Paul stated: “Bush ran on a platform of a humble foreign policy, no nation-building, not policing the world. Instead we’re spending a trillion dollars a year to maintain the power of our empire around the world. We need that money for education and medical care here.”

So, no, Ron Paul has not forsaken Republicanism, it is the neoconservatives, and those whom they have persuaded with their fear-mongering tactics to follow their dictates, who are guilty of such.

Perhaps you are unaware that Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, Senior Judicial Analyst for Fox News and the youngest life-tenured Superior Court Judge in the history of the State of New Jersey has recently called Ron Paul “the Thomas Jefferson of our day.”

Thus, I submit that a far more accurate title for your article, which would have carried much less subliminal baggage, might have been: “Ron Paul, a modern-day Jefferson?"

Nonetheless, your coverage of the exploding popularity of Dr. Paul’s primary message of Freedom and Liberty is appreciated.

Sincerely yours,


What was odd to me about the

What was odd to me about the Rudy debate thing was that he managed to get a bunch of partisan Republicans (who'd spent 8 years constantly-bitching about it) CHEERING for the Clinton Administration's 8 years of foreign policy of provocations. This guy, WAAAY before 9/11 said

and he was right. Mr. Ahmad just might know a thing or 2 about Islam, whether or not the news media totally ignored him (due IMO to his libertarian views). Anyway, it's weird talking to fans of Rudy's, they seem to live in another world. But I think I've swung a few our way. :) It's also strange that they call the good Doctor "Mr." -- a Journalism 101 level error.

The neo-cons are the apostates

But I remember reading about Arius and his nonsense - the bishops all went along, but the laity were faithful, and the council of Nicea came to their senses.

If the above is beyond you, I will translate:

Ron Paul is the person true to the principles of the Founding Fathers (who held their nose and left slavery in but generally detested the institution, even the slaveowners like Jefferson).

The current GOP oligarchy are the apostates. But the faith is still kept in the Grass Roots and the New Shoots (the youth, some who are too young to do anything but point their parents at Ron Paul's videos).

When things weren't going too bad, or that emergency happened and unity was more important than common sense, they allowed the foolish emperor and his coterie some latitude. And there wasn't much alternative.

(Beware the naked emperor who offers you the shirt off his back - even if his entire cabinet say what a great dresser he is).

But now the average person - the Reagan democrat, the republican concerned about their family, and the person who doesn't vote has a way to give voice to their concerns. For the one thing you cannot say about Ron Paul is that he lacks any honor, integrity, or principles. With everyone else, you don't know how much is a mask or facade, and will simply be another NAFTA/MFN/Empire/Corporatist politician when they swear to uphold the constitution against all enemies. (Aaagh!, if Paul takes his oath seriously, what will he do to Congress and the Courts?).

Back then, it was St. Athanasus, and it was Athanasus contra mundi - Him "against the world". He won.

So will Ron Paul. At least if we are both faithful and express it in deeds and contributions, and hard work.

Those Curtains will be Sheer.

One thing is for sure---The curtains will not cost the taxpayers an arm or a leg, and they will surely be sheer because he does not go for all that secrecy. Thanks for the great article. Keep up the good work and we will all be better off come November 2008. RON PAUL, the next President of the USA.

Dr. Paul 2008

Great Point Cindy!

....and wonderful analogy. In a Ron Paul White House, the administration will look out on the people it represents and listen to them. The people will look in and understand what the administration is all about. The news media will report on the President's truthful State of the Union assessments and the comings and goings of his cabinet will be followed, understood, and applauded. Sheer curtains. I can't wait. Just imagine a return to a world that makes sense. You know, we will all be more productive in such a world. More and more I am seeing, feeling and imagining it as it will be. The more I do that, the more I believe it is going to happen. Negativity and fear dissipate and optimism sets in. To me, it is like setting "location finder" on your automobile. I want to get from point A to point B. Take me there by the most direct path possible. Paradigm shifts are not only possible, they are unstoppable once you plug in the destination you are headed toward! Thanks Cindy.