A perfect analogy for Ron Paul supporters

Well, this ought to bring the Paulistas out of the woodwork ...

Catching up on life over at Eschaton this morning, I suddenly thought of the analogy that I believe perfectly describes the supporters -- mostly young, in my experience, mostly idealistic, and generally unwilling to see the whole picture -- of Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, whom I've described a number of times as a "faux libertarian."

In a comment thread yesterday afternoon on a post about Paul's remarkable fundraising day, the Paulistas arrived late but argued vehemently on behalf of Their Guy. There were comments like this:

What I see in Paul's position on abortion is that it is an issue for the states to determine, not the feds. If a state wants euthanasia or medical marijuana or abortion, it is not for the Federal govt to interfere. Better than 85% of Americans are pro-choice, so making abortion illegal is just not going to happen on a state level anyhow. Paul's position on a lot of issues has nothing to do with personal feelings but rather the Constitutional basis that the Federal govt is not authorized to get involved in these items. As for being anti-abortion, I know lots of people who are pro-choice but still personally consider abortion a horrible solution except under the most extreme condtions. But they also believe in an individual's right to make their own medical decisions about their own body, which is exactly what an abortion is -- a private medical decision.

He is also for the Social Security lockbox so the govt can't borrow the money to blow on wars and other shenanigans.
Ensley | 11.05.07 - 4:21 pm

[...]

It is not Iraq alone that explain the Ron Paul phenom. It is his promise to disembowel the federal government and all its corruption, which includes Iraq as a larrge subelement. DC needs to tumble hard, including the MSM which suckles to the corporate power that is entrenched there along with the marionette whore politician class. The press will never adequately cover Ron Paul because his success means less DC money and GE loses contracts.
improper | 11.05.07 - 4:37 pm

[...]

you don't get it.

ron paul's constituency is those citizens who recognize that the bushit invasion of iraq is a war crime...and it doesn't deserve the support of the usa.

our support for ron paul is saying that we denounce the usg for invading iraq,afghanistan,and planning the invasion of iran.

and then there is that little issue of the secret police[irs, dea, et alia] that ron paul professes to disable[if not eliminate]. don't you want that to happen? if not, why not?

are you one of those who wants to continue to incarcerate those who use cannabis? if so, doesn't that make you just another fascist bastid?

and then, for another day, let us discuss the legal basis for individual income taxation. and the powers that the irs has invested upon itself to incarcerate opponents of the fiction that the state has any claim to any percentage of an individual's income.
albertchampion | Homepage | 11.05.07 - 10:29 pm

[...]

Ron Paul's popularity is an outpouring of rage towards all the Democrats and Republicans and the mass media who support this endless, murderous war.

It is shameful that no Democratic frontrunner is saying: this war is illegal, illegitimate, immoral. It's taken a Republican to do that. That's why I support Ron Paul, although I disagree with almost every one of his other positions. Ending this mass murder is more important than putting a Democrat in office.
frizzled | 11.06.07 - 12:38 am

It's that last one in particular that really gets me. The commenter believes that Ron Paul -- who is not a frontrunner, although the Paulistas would love to will it so -- is the only candidate advocating an end to the illegal war, and so "although [the commenter disagrees] with almost every one of his other positions," the commenter supports Paul. Talk about short-sighted!

Dennis Kucinich has been vocal about his opposition to the war. Why would anyone who purports to be a Democrat, or who disagrees with Ron Paul on everything except the war, support Paul rather than Kucinich? Clearly each, objectively speaking, has about the same chance at winning his party's nomination, so why not sign on with the candidate who shares your views on the war and then some?

But I digress ... for the analogy that best describes the Paul supporters is the fable of the Blind Men and the Elephant.

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, “Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ’tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he;
“ ‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

Moral:

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

I was a Howard Dean supporter in 2003 and 2004. I understand the viral marketing and "netroots" feel of the Paul campaign. But Paul supporters see only the thing that turns them on: anti-war, pro-drug legalization, anti-government, whatever it may be. And they ignore the rest of Paul's positions because they are, in short, inconvenient truths.

Paulistas, wake up: Ron Paul is, politically, the worst kind of deceiver. He tries to be all things to all people, but ultimately, he's a Republican. Indeed, he truly is ... an elephant.

(h/t to Chicago Dyke, whose comment got me thinking ...)

UPDATE (9:46 am 11/6/07): Well, that didn't take long.

They write e-mails:

I am not young, not idealistic and not narrow-minded. But I do recognized foolishness when I see it. Your piece is just that--oh and totally irrelevant. Work harder; write something worth reading.

I responded:

Ah, the Paulistas come out of the woodwork. I knew it would happen.

I didn't say all supporters were young, idealistic, and narrow-minded. Just most. But maybe I should have mentioned something about reading comprehension.

If you don't like what I wrote, then don't read any more. More people agree with me than with you, that's all I'm saying. Also, continue to stick to ad hominem attacks and avoid facts - that way, you can believe you win every argument.

Good luck with your Pyrrhic victories.

Sheesh.

UPDATE (12:16 pm 12/15/07): Okay, it took a month, but today the Paulistas finally are finding this post, thanks to Reddit. So, welcome!

Hey, Paulistas, you might like to see my response to your responses. It's new today.

Have fun stormin' the castle!