Jump to navigation
Paul vs LaRouche
Mike Ahlf
A couple weeks back, I questioned whether Ron Paul's claim of being "the taxpayer's best friend" was true. We had a Ron Paul groupie come in to try to change our mind... which meant not providing any substantive info, but just leaving what looked very much like a form letter.
After seeing Ron Paul's followers in action since, I'm starting to wonder what it is about him. I have received some amazing emails from people who hunted down my real-life email address, and started sending me masses of "information." Plus some threats (not to me but about what the future would be like without Ron Paul as President). Plus, a whole lot of "if you dont suport Ron Paul your not a real conservtive"[sic].
One of the parallels I remember from my college days was a table that would get set up every day at UH, operated by a fanatical supporter of a man who pretty much runs a cult: Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouchies are borderline insane. They hang on every word of LaRouche. At the table, they had publications that said he'd predicted things like stock market fluctuations and other events (the quotations could never be sourced and weren't even sourced to their own publications for verification purposes), and they were crazy. One of the more entertaining things at UH was to sit down with them and work out what they were actually thinking, which usually was "LaRouche is my god."
Interestingly, LaRouche supporters and Ron Paul supporters have an interesting number of parallels, even with some differences.
- Both claim to be from an established party (Ron Paul a Republican or Libertarian RINO, LaRouche claims to be a Democrat)
- Both run very much on a cult of personality
- Both make sweeping statements and accumulate people who set up their entire worldview around what the cult leader says.
- Both make claims about things they've said that aren't necessarily verifiable
- Both are complete freaking lunatics
The key difference is that the Republicans have somehow allowed Ron Paul to maintain office, while the Democrats don't have to deal with that.
It is an interesting thing that Ron Paul has been allowed into the televised debates for the Republican nomination. One imagines that it is partly because it allows the rest of the candidates (Guiliani especially) to shoot down a man who, in many ways, is the perfect strawman of the Democrat position on certain issues (9/11 and terrorism for examples).
One imagines that it's also partly because if they didn't, there would be Ron Paul hecklers, just like the Democrats had to throw out a LaRouche heckler from each of their debates back in 2004. It's probably easier to let the loon have a couple minutes on stage, and destroy him, than it is to have to check for hecklers at the door.
[Update]: MSNBC's comment on their poll, where Ron Paul came in dead last?
"Just please stop e-mailing us. Thanks.
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
Observations
/Both make sweeping statements and accumulate people who set up their entire worldview around what the cult leader says./
You're misallocating the source of Paul's support. Very few people are becoming extreme libertarians merely because Paul espouses the virtue of it. Paul's support comes from the fact that he's the only uncompromising libertarian in congress. It's not surprising that they would idolize the man that got elected into office and stood firm on his beliefs. LaRouche's movement is more-or-less built around him. I'd be surprised if it survives him. Paul, on the other hand, is part of a movement that is bigger than himself. He isn't even the leader of it. He just happens to be the closest its ever come to actual government influence. When Paul retires or is voted out, hard-core libertarianism will live on without him just as it lived before libertarians really even knew who he was. The same just can't be said of LaRouche.
Presuming that analysis is accurate (not saying it is or isn't), I find it extremely entertaining that none of his supporters will refer to themselves as libertarians, but instead "constitutional conservatives" or just "real conservatives."
All you need to do is look at his voting record and listen to some interviews done by him to get a feel for him.
Paul is not the "leader" of some movement, as he does not instruct people what to do.
This entire article was false and was done out of political spite. No real reason to bother with this blog anymore, considering the author has no ability for criticial insight.
The "cult of personality" is downright slanderous because Ron Paul never has tried to put his personality as a main issue; he's always remained logical and reasonable, which is why he has a lot of support.
People like you are sent rude emails because you same ridiculous things. You bring it upon yourself.
Ironically, you say the following statement:
"- Both make sweeping statements and accumulate people who set up their entire worldview around what the cult leader says."
Yet you're doing just that with RP supporters.... LOL. PWNED.
I'm a technorati user, by the way.
Mike: Because most of his supporters aren't partisan libertarians :P
Hmmm... "Koren Kaczynski", eh? And so amazingly on the attack.
LaRouche is a lot like Paul. LaRouche's supporters, just like Paul's, will claim they are "spontaneously" supporting and claim it's not about a cult of personality, and that they don't get marching orders.
As for looking at his voting record and listening to some interviews? He's been on the radio where I live. He's one district over from me. So you'll forgive me if I've investigated him quite thoroughly already.
He is, as I put it before, a complete freaking lunatic.
Ah... I think I see a pattern here, too.
http://profile.myspace.com/...
"Korey Kaczynski" - Ron Paul supporter, 20 years old, from Nebraska. Obvious college age. It's no coincidence LaRouche's cult also recruits very heavily from college campuses; there are plenty of gullible young minds there to warp.
From a quick google search, it looks like "Korey Kaczynski" isn't actually a spontaneous Technorati user, but instead a rather low-social-life person who spends time googling Ron Paul and leaving nasty comments/emails to anyone who speaks badly of his cult leader.
<i>As for looking at his voting record and listening to some interviews? He's been on the radio where I live. He's one district over from me. So you'll forgive me if I've investigated him quite thoroughly already.</i>
You're writing on him (on this post and particularly on the last post) does not really reflect a thorough investigation of either Congressman Paul. It reads like someone that has some disagreements with the man or was simply struck the wrong way by something about him and has decided that he must be a nefarious figure that is evil in all ways. Almost Andrew Sullivanesque in that regard, frankly.
There are many fronts on which to criticize the man, but you've been consistently focusing on those things that by any reasonable measure do not apply.
If you want, I'll give a comprehensive listing of issues I have with Ron Paul.
No need. I don't doubt that you can't find plenty of reasons not to like Ron Paul.
I like pork.
I think that America needs some leftist parties.
Add an Observation
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
