Hillary's populism seems to know no bounds and like Ron Paul her appeal to disappointed and fearful Americans is increasing. Ron Paul is still in the race but going nowhere but Hillary is increasingly flying the populist flag for him. Ron Paul's libertarian message has a strange appeal for Americans; driving across North Carolina and Pennsylvania over the past few weeks it is Ron Paul flags and banners you see everywhere rather than Obama or Hillary signs. Yesterday he held a "Freedom Rally" at an Indiana university campus and his book: "The Revolution: A Manifesto" began at No. 1 on Amazon.com's "Hot New Releases in Books."
Hillary is tapping into the same vein of populism, where emotion trumps rational argument every time. She tells us she is going to smash OPEC, something every US President since Carter has failed to accomplish. She is going to obliterate Iran if it attacks Israel. She has even made a unilateral offer of a nuclear shield to protect Saudi Arabia (which provided so many of the September 11 hijackers) and finally she has attacked economists (all of them) who fundamentally disagree with her petrol tax holiday plan: “I’m not going to put in my lot with economists,” or “elite opinion" as she calls it.
And the populist
touch is working like a dream. All across North Carolina and Indiana,
what the elites derisively call LMCs (lower middle class) voters have
flocked to Hillary and Bill. These are the truck drivers who cannot
afford to fill their tanks, the underpaid teachers, the salespeople who
cannot shift their products in a recession and the hurting franchise
owners of strip mall America. They are also mostly white.
As the New York Times
puts it today: "Somehow, a woman who has not regularly filled her own
gasoline tank in well over a decade, who with her husband made $109
million in the last eight years and who vacations with Oscar de la
Renta, has transformed herself into a working-class hero."
All this
from a multimillionaire who grew up in a rich Chicago suburb, went to
private schools and has spent the last 25 years inside a secret service
protected bubble. Hillary does not need to fill her own tank with
petrol but she sure knows how to ham it up for her "just folks"
audiences by narrowly focusing in their concerns.
Here is Obama's response to her populist surge:
(Picture Getty Images)
You're comparing a commie/socilist (Hillary) to Ron Paul? Now I heard it all. The elites support Hillary, Obama, and McCain and despise Dr. Paul. Why the people can't figure this out is beyond me. The multi-billion dollar media empires sure go out of their way to brainwash the public. The elite control both overnment and corporations. They want a dumbed down public who bathe themselves in debt. Then cry for more government which they control too. Either way, they get your money, and control society for their own selfesh pleasure.
Posted by: justin | 07 May 2008 at 12:28 AM
Hillary Clinton is to Ron Paul as George William Frederick is to Thomas Jefferson.
Posted by: Doug | 07 May 2008 at 12:27 AM
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But Hillary Clinton is a poor imitation of Ron Paul because she lacks his credentials, his history and his sincerity. As bad as Obama and McCain are, Clinton is worse. She is ruthless and unrelenting in her pursuit of what she wants. The only candidate worth anything is Ron Paul. And that is becoming more evident as this race goes on. No amount of media insulting or snubbing can change that; the r3VOLution has a life of its own. Go Ron!
Posted by: belle | 07 May 2008 at 12:20 AM
Why don't you try being more objective. Campaign going nowhere zzzzzz
Posted by: Brandon | 07 May 2008 at 12:15 AM
"Ron Paul *is* a populist. That is what libertarianism is all about. It is a simplistic appeal to people's desire for equity amidst the seemingly endless stream of injustices that arise in a highly complex system of almost 6.7 billion people. Rather than attempt to deal with modern complexity, libertarians promise to kill evil government in favor of noble private enterprise."
Libertarians have noticed that you need a more complex system to deal with more complex problems, that is why they favour decentralisation. You have it wrong from the start.
Any person with a brain would know that there are some good people and some bad people in government, and the same goes for private enterprise. However, at least private enterprise cannot legally steal and kill. And a company, in a free market, needs to satisfy its customers to survive. The customers are boss, and the customer doesn't need to wait around for a few years to be able to choose someone else.
"They promise a return to an 18th century simplicity that never existed and that cannot, in fact, exist at any time. Libertarianism proposes that everyone could be counted on to behave to the highest ethical standards *and* be counted on to act rationally *and* the amount of easily accessible resources will always exceed per capita demand."
No, no, no. They do not want to go back to anything, they are simply pointing at some parts of history in which show humans coexisting without an insane number of laws or welfare schemes. If they could look into the future I'm sure they would point to some situations things that work in the future too...
It is pretty sad that obviously intelligent people simply do not give libertarianism a chance because they fall for a middle of the road fallacy.
Just because libertarianism starts from a basic premise does not mean it is simple, it means that more people will be making more decisions---rather than a few people, as part of a monolithic government, making a load of blanket decisions.
It seems so hard to find good critiques of libertarianism, they usually consist of elementary errors.
Posted by: Simon | 07 May 2008 at 12:07 AM
I don't understand how you can compare Hillary to Ron Paul. Ron Paul's campaign is about severely cutting the size of the government and bringing all the troops home immediately. Hillary's is about implementing Socialist Medicine (which has been a total disaster everywhere it has ever been tried), raising taxes, and waging non-stop wars. Ron Paul is actually much closer to Barack Obama (there is significant overlap between their supporters). Paul's strength, like Obama's, is among the young and everybody disgusted by the Neo-Con War on the Middle East and the War on Civil Liberties (although, Ron Paul actually means what he's saying).
Don't be surprised if the Libertarian Party (the party that nominated Paul 20 years ago) catches fire and draws 10-15% in November, if they can get over their latest spat of infighting and nominate somebody credible at their convention. However, I expect Hillary or Obama to be the president and to last only 1 term (let's face it, neither of them are anti-war or pro-civil liberties and neither of them has any clue about how to fix the economy).
Posted by: Brad | 06 May 2008 at 11:38 PM
You seem to be confusing genuine and extremely well deserved popularity with "populism". Dr.(MD) Ron Paul exposes the banking cartel, so this is no ordinary politician.
Posted by: SteveStip | 06 May 2008 at 11:35 PM
The author of the article seems to lack even a dim understanding of Ron Paul and his supporters. Smashing OPEC? Obliterating Iran? What in the wide, wide world of sports is this guy talking about, and how in God's creation is it anything close to what Ron Paul advocates? Good Lord, education must've sunk to a new low if this is what passes for commentary in the U.K.
Posted by: DC | 06 May 2008 at 11:31 PM
Libertarian ==/== Populist
Populist policies are socially conservative and fiscally liberal (meaning yes for social regulation and yes for economic assistance and redistribution over economic freedom)
Libertarian policies are socially liberal and fiscally conservative (meaning no for social regulation and yes for economic freedom over economic assistance and redistribution)
So they're opposites.
Just because you're appealing to the people doesn't mean you're a populist OR a libertarian. That just means you're popular, especially with middle class folks.
Money does not equal politics.
Posted by: jake | 06 May 2008 at 11:30 PM
Ron Paul? A populist? No, no, and no. Ron Paul's campaign was the most policy-driven campaign I have ever seen. Populism is a Left-wing phenomenon in which the candidate or showman bashes the successful as somehow having "exploited" the "poor," and the only way to get back at them is to take all their money. Does that sound like free-market, classical liberalism to you? Or does it sounds like the progressive fascism of the Democrats?
Posted by: Crow | 06 May 2008 at 11:16 PM
Dr. Paul advocates knowledge of the Constitution and our inalienable rights. Jealously conserving those rights is what made Americans different. Hillary Clinton like her Husband will gladly sweep away these rights to "protect" us. No thanks!
God save America!
God bless Dr. Paul!
Posted by: Teflon ron | 06 May 2008 at 10:46 PM
"Populism" is just another name for unbridled democracy, something that Ron Paul has warned us against, indeed the Founders also had a less than favorable view of democracy because it allows for the politicians to pander to the majority vote, as such it leaves a minority with little more than contingent freedom based upon various classifications of freedom.
Hillary, like McCain or Obama are simply playing the same entrenchment game that their strong-hold Party power-brokers have the play; if either of them are elected I can guarantee that by 2012 we will all look back as realize that they did nothing to change the way this crumbling government works. They will simply continue with the Status Quo with a few new splashes of paint on it to make people think they have actually accomplished something of note.
Each of them are Interventionist, a policy that hasn't worked or helped provide this security since prior to the McKinley Administration. For the last 110 years this country has intervened in the internal affairs of over 200 countries; in fact, it might surprise people to know that the U.S. has been intervening, in one way or another, in Iraq for the last 87 years. If such a policy worked you would think we would see far better results around the world, but it not only doesn't work, but it has drastically morphed our world in ways that we don't seem to be able to grasp, ways that have not benefited either our country or the other countries in the world.
Hillary, is, like McCain and Obama, nothing but a wolf in sheep's clothing. She, like the others, will continue their systematic rape of this country and its people. Ron Paul was the only REAL CHOICE offered to the voters of this country and they have yet to realize that fact, by 2012 they will realize it when everything that Dr. Paul said will happen happens.
Posted by: Republicae | 06 May 2008 at 10:22 PM
C'mon, people. Don't give the guy such a hard time. Granted, he should of put a lot more thought and research into his poorly choosen comparison with Hillery and Ron Paul, but it doesn't necessarily mean he is writing with malicious intent. All you freedom lovers also should understand that Fabian Socialism is apart of Britsh history, and having spoke with some Britons, they're Socialist ideas are benevolent at heart, even if I personally do not agree with it -- hence the possibility why the author puts a positive spin on Hillery.
The sad truth is that Hillery, Obama, and McCain will be the death knell of American society if any of them become President. Even worse is the fact that Ron Paul has been marginalized, illegally denied fair coverage, and has a campaign which failed to make people understand that "winding down" is not synonymous with "quitting" the race. Read about how Abraham Lincoln won and you'll see how Ron Paul still has a chance; slim as it may be.
Anyway, please cheer for us my brothers and sisters in Europe. Our government is turning into a Corporate-Fascist Global Police State, and us Americans need to remember what Freedom is and to let it ring once again. To be the beacon of Peace and Prosperity we once were.
Posted by: DJ | 06 May 2008 at 10:16 PM
Seriously, these comments before me say it all.
Tanto-
I'm from the UK and I see it this way: It is the DUTY of ALL people worldwide who love freedom, peace and the fair rule of law to support Ron Paul.
Yes indeed Europe and most of the world infact are also on a steady decline like the US, so we should do all we can to get this HERO for liberty elected as POTUS, in the US, the most powerful country on earth, as a role model for the world to follow in these murky times.
I, and many Europeans ENVY you Americans, you have a REAL DEAL, honest, uncorrupted candidate for the people standing for election, and most of us have never even seen one of them with a viable shot for winning our entire lives!
I pray that you do the right thing, vote for the right man, rather than the slickest talker with the whitest teeth.
Hell, if he wins and turns the US around, I'll emigrate there to escape the coming tyranny here in London! MANY people here have learnt to mistrust the government and their BS, especially in media: like this poor piece of reporting & the BBC (Blatent Bullsh*t Channel).
We see dark times ahead.
The Tories are coming! The Tories are coming! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!
RON PAUL 2008!!!
Posted by: Kensei85 | 06 May 2008 at 10:06 PM
Mr. Doyle, methinks you're attempting to garner page clicks by sullying Ron Paul's good name. Congressman Paul is about as far from populism as one can get - he favors *limiting democracy* to protect the rights of the minority. I'm not sure if you've actually seen Congressman Paul speak, but if you have, I'm surprised you come away with the idea that he speaks with "emotion trumps rational argument every time." In fact, Congressman Paul consistently comes under fire for, well, telling the truth, devoid of emotion. The populist li(n)e is that the attacks of 9/11 sprung from a deep-seated Islamofascist hatred of freedom, while Paul rationally suggests that our belligerent foreign policy might have something to do with it. The populist li(n)e is that the government can print all the money the US will ever need, while Paul points out that we're spending our way into bankruptcy. The populist li(n)e is that the US has to stay in Iraq to save face, or to secure democracy, or to root out al-Qaeda, Paul points out that we should make the unfortunate decision to abandon the policies that got us there in the first place. You call Hillary Paulian in her rejection of economists, but which other candidate quoted economists in the debates, much less Austrian economists? Which other candidate has, well, a philosophy? You can call Ron Paul a lot of things, but you can't call him a populist. Poorly written article, Mr. Doyle, with questionable details, trite analysis, and a thoroughly sophistic conclusion. Please consider writing well.
Posted by: joey | 06 May 2008 at 10:04 PM
Ron Paul *is* a populist. That is what libertarianism is all about. It is a simplistic appeal to people's desire for equity amidst the seemingly endless stream of injustices that arise in a highly complex system of almost 6.7 billion people. Rather than attempt to deal with modern complexity, libertarians promise to kill evil government in favor of noble private enterprise. They promise a return to an 18th century simplicity that never existed and that cannot, in fact, exist at any time. Libertarianism proposes that everyone could be counted on to behave to the highest ethical standards *and* be counted on to act rationally *and* the amount of easily accessible resources will always exceed per capita demand.
Fat chance.
Likewise, Clinton is making wild promises to provide equity using simplistic solutions that she fully knows cannot work. It is true that the color of her populist pony is different than Paul's, but they both are still riding populist ponies trying to reach the same destination. The real difference is that Paul may not realize his policies would be disastrous; Clinton knows that hers would be. But it is traditional politics that gets the incompetent and the grease bags elected all too often. It is the politics that got Bush Jr. elected. It demonstrates the inadequacy of a democratic model designed when square rigged ships were high-tech.
Posted by: OldStone50 | 06 May 2008 at 09:52 PM
Ron Paul is a strict fiscal conservative and firm supporter of individual liberty, these ideas appeal to all Americans. Hillary is just talking, but Ron Paul will follow up on his ideas with real action, you can count on that!! I still think the media has no clue what is about to be unleashed over the next year as the Revolution takes hold!! Buy the book.
Posted by: Stephen | 06 May 2008 at 09:15 PM
Ron Paul is not about emotional decision making: he is about doing the RIGHT THINGS.
He is different from other politicians who base their decisions on whatever is popular and can help get them elected.
Hillary may be acting "populist" but Ron Paul sure is not.
Does this reporter actually not know the difference between populism and libertarianism?? Apparently not.
Obviously this report doesn't have a friggin CLUE about Ron Paul's policies. Obliterate Iran?? What a ridiculously uninformed article.
Posted by: David Rink | 06 May 2008 at 09:11 PM
Ron Paul is not about emotional decision making: he is about doing the RIGHT THINGS.
He is different from other politicians who base their decisions on whatever is popular and can help get them elected.
Hillary may be acting "populist" but Ron Paul sure is not.
Does this reporter actually not know the difference between populism and libertarianism?? Apparently not.
Obviously this report doesn't have a friggin CLUE about Ron Paul's policies. Obliterate Iran?? What a ridiculously uninformed article.
Posted by: David Rink | 06 May 2008 at 09:08 PM
Ludicrous. The Clinton and Paul camps have no overlap whatsoever. Doyle is an embarrassment to your reporting team.
Posted by: charleshope | 06 May 2008 at 08:48 PM
Memo to the Independent:
Provide your journalists with access to a dictionary. "populist" doesn't mean what he apparently thinks it means.
Posted by: Frank N Stein | 06 May 2008 at 08:42 PM
Wow, I guess everyone has pretty much summed it up for me. About the only thing I can add is Leonard needs to watch America Freedom to Fascism, Fiat Empire and Votergate. Probably wouldn't hurt to check out Zeitgeist too. When your done with this little education I predict you will be embarrassed with your current level of knowledge of the world around you. Cheers.
Posted by: Jack D. | 06 May 2008 at 08:36 PM
My goodness! What a stupid liar you are! Ron Paul's polices have NOTHING to do with attacking Iran or "smashing OPEC" or any other big government nonsense you are trying to pass off as "libertarian"!
Posted by: Tell the truth! | 06 May 2008 at 08:21 PM
It's rather funny how the "Post a comment" sections of articles about Ron Paul are so much more thoughtful and relevant than what the supposed journalist are writing.
Maybe there is hope after all.
Posted by: James Orleans | 06 May 2008 at 08:21 PM
I have read a lot of nonsense this cycle about Ron Paul, but this takes the cake. There is ZERO is common between Hillary and Ron Paul. If anything, Ron Paul is the anti-Hillary - anti-tax, anti-bigger-government, anti-nanny-state, anti-spending.
Honestly, Mr. Doyle, your complete incomprehension of such basic differences in political philosophy is breathtaking.
Posted by: Speaker73 | 06 May 2008 at 08:19 PM
Momma always said, "Stupid is as stupid does". -- Forrest Gump
Posted by: Eloy Gonzalez II | 06 May 2008 at 07:26 PM
Wow! I can't believe what I just read. Please do yourself a favor Mr. Leonard Doyle and stop covering the 2008 Presidential campaign because you clearly have no understanding of what is actually going on and what Ron Paul's message is all about.
Posted by: Ron Burgandy | 06 May 2008 at 07:02 PM
Uhh, Why is anyone surprised that someone who is touting Hillary has no Idea what Ron Paul stands for. I know this guy isn't in the US, but he sure belongs here. He is a perfect fit for our mostly asleep population.
On a positive note. I really think America is in the stage, right after you get woken up from a deep sleep. The lights are on but it takes a little while before you actually start processing things. Ron Paul and the Revolution is your mom waking you up when your going to be late for school. Our current Government and power structure is the nightmare you have been having all night long. America is waking up, and when it fully comes to, I would not want to be the target of its anger.
Posted by: Matt | 06 May 2008 at 07:00 PM
www.TrueWorldHistory.info
Posted by: TrueWorldHistory.info | 06 May 2008 at 06:59 PM
And they told me British are quite intelligent?
Not in this case...
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
Bless you Dr. Paul for educating us about Freedom, Prosperity and Peace.
In my eyes, you've ALREADY WON!
Posted by: Leonardo | 06 May 2008 at 06:58 PM
Ron Paul is the answer to America's problems and also to the countries in which America is involved with. If we elect Ron Paul, other countries will see us as a respectful nation but if we don't than we're not any better than the Hollywood image we've given to the world.
Ron Paul for President 2008
Posted by: Joseph | 06 May 2008 at 06:13 PM
In case you haven't surmised it yet. The supporters of Ron Paul find it extremely offensive to even put Hitlery in the same category as Ron Paul.
They are polar opposites when it comes to stances on issues. Hitlery stands for big government fascism/communism. Ron Paul stands for free markets, low taxes.
Comparing the two is like comparing Hitler to Ghandi in supporters minds.
Posted by: thomasj | 06 May 2008 at 06:13 PM
Are you really covering the USA election? As other posters have pointed out, there is NO! relationship between the messages of Clinton and Ron Paul what-so-ever. Perhaps a knowledge of the history of southern politics would help you understand Clinton's appeal among Dems in NC. Perhaps an understanding of the US constitution and Ron Paul's would help in your coverage of the election.
Posted by: G Best | 06 May 2008 at 06:11 PM
Mr. Doyle: You could work for Fox News! Your that good!
You are fairly uniformed on one side, and balanced by your bias on the other.
"Truth is treason in the empire of lies" - Ron Paul
Posted by: Chad | 06 May 2008 at 05:57 PM
What? Who wrote this? What reality are you in? Are you even engaged in what is going on? I let this one sentence make my case at how poor this article is:
"Hillary is tapping into the same vein of populism, where emotion trumps rational argument every time."
Ron Paul is waking fat lazy Americans up and telling harsh truths. Hillary is a lack of substance bimbo looking for attention.
Get all you Ron Paul news here:
http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com/
Posted by: Karl | 06 May 2008 at 05:52 PM
There's only one thing I can say about this, which has been said before, but not like this: American populism is what Obama and Hillary are after (pandering), and American prosperity is what Ron Paul has been after during his entire campaign (education). Americans are waking up.
Posted by: Nickalis Tower | 06 May 2008 at 05:30 PM
Comparing the feigned populism of Hillary "Rich people, god bless us" Clinton, with Paul's truly revolutionary grassroots campaign is rather insulting to the overlooked congressman, whose policies are possibly the embodiment of rationalism over emotion.
Unashamedly propelled by the same media whose corporate interests (or astonishing incompetence - you decide) plague fair and balanced reporting, it is Clinton who is in the race but going nowhere.
Ron Paul's ideas on the other hand, with little fanfare, are becoming increasingly embraced by a large number of Americans - who are suffering the results of the same disasterous foreign, economic & domestic policies that Hillary herself seeks to continue.
The only change Americans will see with multi-millionaire Clinton or McCain is the pennies in their bank accounts.
And a bunch of other reasons to be fearful & dissapointed.
Posted by: Daniel F | 06 May 2008 at 05:27 PM
Hillary cried the day after the IOWA when the polls suggested she wasn't emotional enough. That's who Hillary is, a politician who will do ANYTHING to get elected. Ron Paul, However, is HONEST and does not flip flop just to get elected. He will say the truth even if he knows he'll get booed (like he did at the Spanish debate and many many other debates.)
Posted by: Farid | 06 May 2008 at 05:25 PM
You people in the european union have your heads so far up your 'arses' there's no longer hope any hope for you. So piss off with the populism bullshit, please. You've got no credibility on this. Just go on blindly enjoying your tiny little homes and vanishing freedoms. Slaves.
Posted by: Tanto | 06 May 2008 at 05:24 PM
"Hillary is tapping into the same vein of populism, where emotion trumps rational argument every time."
It always seemed to be the opposite for Ron Paul: argument trumps emotion every time.
Posted by: Richard | 06 May 2008 at 05:22 PM
Don't try to create an association between Paul and Clinton. She is a demagogue and a socialist.
Populism and popularity are two different things:
Paul is popular because he tells the truth.
Clinton is a populist because she tries to appeal to the masses by bribing and telling them what they want to hear.
Mr Doyle: Journalism is reporting the facts not publishing propaganda for your favorite candidate. This article has no journalistic value.
Posted by: John Galt | 06 May 2008 at 05:16 PM
Hell, I'm not even American so no fear here but there is a VAST difference between the two. Ron Paul has come up with the perfect solutions for the USA's economic problems however most of your population is too stupid to actually know anything about what hes talking about...its a crying shame. Hillaries just a corporate whore who will abandon any promises once she gets her hands on some power.
Posted by: Greg | 06 May 2008 at 05:07 PM
There's a vast difference under the hood of the two candidates, however. Ron Paul's "populism" encourages education, while Hillary Clinton's populism is rooted in ignorance. Both might start from fear (to be fair), but the journey and the destination are extremely different.
Posted by: Tesh | 06 May 2008 at 04:55 PM