Update: A Plague of John Galts? More on "The Ron Paul Wars...."

Posted by Damozel | ...to borrow Andrew Sullivan's phrase.   Primate chatter is always going to entail a certain amount of chest-thumping, roaring, shrieking, and jeering.  As a species, we're just basically obnoxious.  And the blogosphere is just primate chatter writ large.

But even by the low standards which prevail on the blogosphere, Paul's supporters often exceed the limits of acceptable tenacity.  It interests me to see certain conservative blogs---even some known for unabashedly spinning all discussion to accord with the blogger's own political agenda---are becoming a bit fed up with the perpetual campaigning of Paul's supporters.  So now the conservative blog RedState has seen fit to ban discussion of  Paul by his "shills," whether in their diaries or their comments.  So exceedingly exasperated did they become that they actually (come closer; it's too shocking to speak aloud so I'll whisper in your ear) accused Paul supporters of being "a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans." [Red State].

That's right, friends, RedState---described by Justin Gardner of the centrist Donklephant as "the conservative version of Daily Kos"---not only banned any discussion of Ron Paul at their website, they pinned the scarlet "L" on their fellow Republicans.   Why?  You can read for yourself: 

Now, I could offer a long-winded explanation for *why* this new policy is being instituted, but I'm guessing that most of you can probably guess. Unless you lack the self-awareness to understand just how annoying, time-consuming, and bandwidth-wasting responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans can be. Which, judging by your comment history, you really don't understand, so allow me to offer an alternate explanation: we are a bunch of fascists and we're upset that you've discovered where we keep the black helicopters, so we're silencing you in an attempt to keep you from warning the rest of your brethren so we can round you all up and send you to re-education camps all at once.

Hey, we're sure *some* of Ron Paul's supporters really are Republicans. They can post at any one of a zillion Ron Paul online forums. Those who have *earned* our respect by contributing usefully for a substantial period of time will be listened to with appropriate respect. Those who have not will have to *earn* that respect by contributing usefully in the other threads... and not mentioning Ron Paul. Given a month of solid contributing, send one of us an email and we'll consider lifting the restriction on your account.

You may now resume your regularly scheduled RedState activities. Everyone but the Ron Paul spammers, that is. You can resume your regularly scheduled activities somewhere else. Attention, Ron Paul Supporters (Life is *REALLY* Not Fair).

I realize that there is a certain irony in "real" Republicans banning people from their site for not being "real Republicans" and I'd like as much as anyone else to be let in on the secret of what Red State thinks a "real" Republican is.  Nevertheless, the Paulites are definitely getting a bad name for themselves around the blogosphere and maybe it's about time they recognized that their tactics aren't working.  Or rather, they are working---just not in the direction the Paulites presumably wish.

Sometimes I can't help feeling that a disproportionately large number of them are that guy (it's usually a guy) who attends your local town meeting with his copy of Atlas Shrugged tucked under his arm and his pen tucked behind his ear.  Let's call him John Galt.  John Galt is the guy who has to be shut down repeatedly by the presiding chair or director because he objects to every single official action of the city or town as aggression by the government against the individual citizen.  His objections cut straight across every line that either political party has marked out in the sand.  A tax to pay for homeless shelters?  He objects.  An ordinance to prevent the homeless from panhandling persons seated in automobiles?  He objects.  An ordinance to prevent dogs from running off leash?  He objects.  A tax to pay for someone to collect the stray dogs and prevent them from mauling children?  He objects. In fact, he appears to object to all taxation as a matter of course (there may well be lines, but I don't know where they lie).

When called to order (or, in his parlance "silenced"), Galt vociferously complains that his rights to free speech and peaceable dissent are being violated -- which, in a way, is true.  On the other hand, if you don't stop him from talking he will keep saying the same things over and over and nothing will ever get done. He'll hijack your meeting.  And while this would serve his purposes quite nicely, it would defeat the will of the majority, who just want to get something done so they can go home.

In his individual incarnation, he actually engenders a certain grudging affection in moderate liberals like me and in a number of moderate Republicans.  Many of us agree with him that there are far too many laws though we don't agree with him that they should all go or agree among ourselves which should go. 

The problem with John Galt is that he can never agree to disagree.  Impelled by the flawless "logic" (shame about those premises) of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism or by his own independently evolved certainties, Galt is prepared to argue his case until you understand, and therefore (more logic!) concede.  If you haven't conceded, it must be because you haven't (yet) understood.  He will go on arguing, arguing, arguing, arguing long past the moment when even Michelle Malkin would have squirted you with her little vitriol-filled water pistols and gone home.  And if you refuse to allow him to convince you, he will resort to taunts and gibes.

The John and Joan Galts don't fit comfortably within either party, so they are constantly casting about for someone to speak for them and this time it's Ron Paul.  RedState would have you believe that Paul is a liberal, but I don't know any Democrat who wants any part of him.  Or, to be more accurate, Ron Paul is to Democrats as Joe Lieberman is to Republicans.   Some Dems admire his courage in daring to dissent from his party's party line but we want no part of him. (I, for example, picture Paul's America as America in the time of Hoover.)

On the other hand, he deserves a chance to persuade the public that he's the right man for the job.  And---as this blog has reported (see the links below)---he has attracted the support of a significant number of disaffected Americans. 

Sadly, some of his "vocal" supporters (there may be others) believe that they can increase his chances of winning by seizing control of every discussion so no one else gets a word in; or by denouncing the people who oppose him (presumably on the theory that they and their friends will be too demoralized as a result to go to the voting booth and vote for someone else).

They don't limit themselves to political sites and they cannot suffer even a mild gibe at Paul's expense to go undenounced.  One remarke by The Manolo  (beloved fashion/celebrity/humor blogger) concerning Ron Paul's cheap suits and bad footwear brought the Paul trolls swarming out of the woodwork.  Eventually Manolo decided enough was enough.

Manolo says, the matter of the disgraceful shoes of Ron Paul lives on, as the Ron Paul supporters have whipped themselves into the heady froth trying to defend the indefensible...Ron Paul’s cheap shoes and his sloppy clothes say that he is not the serious person, that he does not care that the image he projects is of the small town, small time appliance salesman. Yes, this look is perhaps what endears him to his arm-waving and humorless supporters, but it inspires no confidence in the saner and more adult members of society..[Ron Paul’s Disgraceful Shoes, Redux]

I love The Manolo, but I dress just as badly as Ron Paul, so I am not taking sides on this particular issue.   But I wonder what those supporters thought they were achieving?  They certainly didn't do a good job of selling Ron Paul to the masses.  "You're too stupid to vote for Ron Paul" isn't a great campaign slogan. 

To get back to RedState and its ban on discussion of Paul: I don't know what actually happened there, but I think I can probably guess. Certainly the frayed and hysterical tone of the announcement of the ban suggests that the blog administrators  finally just snapped. 

Ed Morissey of Captain's Quarters, from whom I learned of the ban,  thinks it was a mistake.Redstate Bans Ron Paul Supporters.

I'm no Paul supporter by any means. However, Paul's statements can be addressed and rebutted fairly easily, at least those with which I strongly disagree. I don't fear the commenters nor the debate, even if it does grow tiresome at times. It certainly can't be any more tiresome than the S-CHIP debate, or the Iraq War debate, or the FISA debate -- and I'd have less sympathy for opponents on those issues than the people who support Ron Paul.

Having been to the CLC, I disagree with Leon's assumption that these Paul supporters are all or mostly cryptoliberals. Plenty of libertarian-leaning Republicans exist in the party, along with the former Buchananites and isolationists of the GOP. Instead of cutting these people off, it might be better for Redstate to keep engaging them. After all, Paul will not be in the race all that much longer, and we need those voters to stay in the GOP when Paul disappears. There are worse impulses than libertarianism.

Heck, I'd even interview Ron Paul, just to get a chance to challenge him (respectfully) on some of his positions and see how he responds. I put in a request yesterday to do just that, and if we can make it work, we'll have Rep. Paul on the Heading Right Radio show, where listeners can ask their own questions and continue engaging the Paulites. Engagement can be understandably frustrating, but in the end, it forces us to sharpen our own arguments and challenge our own assumptions -- and both are good processes.  Captain's Quarters

Yes indeed.  While I am as weary of the arguments on the Captain's side of the Iraq War debate, the FISA debate, or the S-CHIP debate as he is of the ones on mine, our political system was meant to be a battle of ideas, and the views of Paul and his supporters have a place in the discussion.  After all, there's always the chance that---assuming they can get down from the soapbox and cease the endless tub-thumping---Paul's supporters might have some ideas on how the Republican party can reclaim some of its lost ground and return to its roots.

Michael van der Galien's sympathetic to Red State but well understands the circumstances that led to the ban:

We have written about Ron Paul on several occasions, and although there certainly are / were some Paul supporters who added a lot to the comment sections at this blog, there were sadly also quite some who spammed our comment sections with “go ron go” and that was it. Such commenters add nothing, and I mean nothing, to the debate, which is why I understand Red State’s decision to ban all of them. Having said that, we won’t change this into a ‘no Paul-zone.’ Paul is a phenomenon and to ignore this phenomenon is silly. Furthermore, as said, quite some of the commenters do add something and do have something to interesting to say. Red State Bans Ron Paul Supporters

To which the very first commenter replied:  "Red State is just mad that Ron Paul is the only real conservative among the group of buffoons the GOP has running for 2008."  Right.  That's the way to persuade conservatives who currently support other candidates that Paul is the man for them: call their guy names and imply he is a moron only a moron could love. 

At centrist Donklephant, Justin Gardner was more severe.

So why did they take such heavy handed measures? Were they simply just annoyed? Scared? A little bit of both?..This hurts Redstate a whole hell of a lot more than Ron Paul. And actually, I think this will only embolden his supporters. My guess is that Redstate could get double the amount of talk about Paul now.

But let me offer a different response for Ron Paul supporters. Abandon Redstate. Don’t give them the traffic or the time. Put that effort into getting your guy elected. It’ll be better for everybody, especially Mr. Paul.. Why Did Redstate.com Ban Ron Paul Talk?

Sensible advice for the Paulites.  I wonder if they'll take it?  I have some sensible advice for them myself:  if you really want to garner support for your candidate, don't dis, dismiss, or deride the opposition---yes, and get that scary, fanatical, pod-person glow out of your eyes.  Ordinary Americans aren't looking for an icon; we just want to get on with our lives without having to worry about what the president will get up to next to make them harder, poorer, and more complicated.

When, after all, was the last time you succeeded in insulting someone into changing their mind, retracting a statement, or revising a hypothesis? "

UPDATE. Andrew Sullivan commented:

I don't think I qualify as a Neo-Nazi or a Code Pink activist. Full Wired story here. But here's a simple message to Ron Paul supporters. You're welcome here. The Dish believes in expanding the range of debate among conservatives, not crushing it. And any cursory look at the degenerate state of American conservatism would not lead you to think your problem is too much diversity of opinion. (The Daily Dish)

On this score, Daniel Larison of  Eunomia says:

The ban ironically rewards the Paul supporters, both reasonable and obnoxious, with additional media coverage of our candidate.  It makes more people ask a question that’s very helpful to Paul: “What do Republicans have against Ron Paul?”...

Frankly, I find any post-ban complaining from Paul supporters about censorship a little silly, if only because proper libertarians and conservatives should acknowledge the right of voluntary associations (which is what a community blog is) to govern their memberships as they see fit. 

Good point, this.  There's actually no constitutional right to hold forth at a privately run blog. 

It is government censorship that should exercise us, not the stance of a few community blog mavens.  Nonetheless, a decision taken out of frustration will be seen to have been taken out of fear and a feeling of inferiority.  In the end, the ban is just one sign of the inability of the modern movement to maintain its support for the dreadful policies of the last six years and still have a space for antiwar libertarians and conservatives...These folks run a politics and commentary blog, but they seem to have no grasp on how politically clumsy their move truly is.  There are already millions of people who think that the GOP and the movement are incapable of rationally coping with dissent, and this has just given them another reason to believe it.  The Ban, Revisited

And yet....I still keep coming back round to the point made by at Dyre Portents:

Given that fact that some Ron Paul supporters just comment spam blogs that mention Ron Paul with pro Ron Paul posts I can see where one might get the urge to put a stop to that. However by banning all talk of Ron Paul by new members also cuts out those who genuinely wish to debate his ideas. Whats more troubling is this is a continuation of a trend of GOP members that are tuning and shutting out anyone who doesn't meet their litmus test of what a Republican is (that normally being a social conservative). Its just that kind of divisive behavior that, in part, cost the GOP the majority.

As for Ron Paul supporters you don't need Redstate. What you may need however is to start policing your own. By that I mean letting the spammers know that they aren't helping the cause and if you see a supporter go ballistic on someone call BS on them. (Ron Paul Talk Banned at Redstate)

Yes, because, "Vote for Paul, you inferior morons, or I shall taunt you a second time!" isn't an effective strategy for the Paul campaign.  As for RedState, they've certainly provided an unforgettable demonstration of what it currently means to be a "real" "Republican."

And a word to the Paulites:  "Vote for Ron Paul, you morons, or I shall taunt you a second time!" isn't really an effective strategy if you actually want people to vote for him.

Check out other blogger responses at Memeorandum here

RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTS

Independents and Moderate Republicans: Sign This Letter!

Salon's Helpful Advice for Log Cabin Republicans: The Illustrated Nutshell version

Ron Paul Wins Maryland Straw Poll -- and Major Media Covered it

GOP Debate: Thompson Skips it, Some Candidates Take Swipes, and Ron Paul Wins it

What liberal media?

Comments

[J. Lynne]

"I, for example, picture Paul's America as America in the time of Hoover."

Just yesterday I commented to someone that Paul's campaign sounded like he wanted to put the state of the U.S. back the way it was before Lincoln and the Republicans ever got in office.

I hadn't heard about this RedState ban. Probably because I don't follow any of the "big" blogs; they're all just a bit to snobby for me. However, I must admit, I kind of like the bit of irony and karma about this since every time I've ever gotten into a political discussion on any non-political forum, the Republicans have spammed the heck out of the conversation, usually with rhetoric and name-calling and every once in a while it's nice to see them get some of their own...from some of their own.

I always think of that scene in Galaxy Quest with the little green creatures on the planet that turn on the injured one whenever the Republicans turn on one of their own.

[Janet]

Sensible advice for the anti-Paulites. I wonder if they'll take it? If you really want to garner support for any other republican candidate nominee, don't dis, dismiss, or deride the Paulites---yes, and get that scary, fanatical, war-hawk glow out of your eyes. Ordinary Americans aren't looking for an icon(eg "America's Mayor"); we just want to get on with our lives without having to worry about what the president will get up to next to make them harder, poorer, and more complicated like the non-Pauls are all talking about doing.

[Damozel]

Ha! Well-said, if I do say so myself. But you guys fight it out amongst yourselves. I'll be standing over here on the left.

[Rahn]

Yes perhaps it's time for the "Paulites" to stop giving traffic to closed minded sites. Save your hits for positive pursuits, like your favorite Ron Paul Song or Video. Red State is seeing Red because the Neo-Cons are being exposed for the Socialists spenders and One World Order guys they are, OH well, I'm pretty sure most Paul supporters know they will be ridiculed by mental midgets all over the place. What difference? The publicity of being banned and badmouthed WILL work, it shows the petty nature of the others and drives Nice Rational people to the cause. The level of spirit and commitment by Ron Paul supporters can't even be bought by other campaigns. People want to know why.

[Damozel]

"Mental midgets" sort of illustrates my point....For Paul's supporters to make themselves unpleasant to the opposition isn't going to do him a bit of good. Nice Rational people who Beg to Differ don't appreciate having their intelligence insulted.