Ron Paul is certainly the most hypocritical candidate of all, and certainly not a liberal (much less libertarian).
I expressed favorable views towards this candidate in my article review of Ron Paul’s message, but that’s not why I support him.
Ron Paul is not a liberal because he is against the first and foremost liberal concept, individual responsibility. He is for individual irresponsibility, which is simply a prolongation of the collective irresponsibility doctrine imposed by the anti-American socialists during the last forty years.
Although it is a certain improvement, I believe we can do better than this.
Although he promotes some liberal concepts, Ron Paul is not a liberal as he is simply recycling the socialist doctrine in order for it to fit in our current economic situation. Exactly the same as Obama with his Obamacare.
He is only giving out another miracle pill to magically “fix everything”. Now that the socialists have run out of options to justify the downfall of our economy, the mindless masses turn to a libertarian solution. But it is exactly the same doctrine.
Now I’m not denying that Ron Paul has some liberal tendencies sometimes, the problem is that most people believe he is popular because of his liberalism.
I would say that he is popular in spite of his liberalism.
Let’s compare two liberal candidates : Ron Paul and Newt Gringrich (although he has a conservative view on some social issues).
One man is a real liberal, he is more ethnocentrist than his opponents and somewhat resembles a little more the liberals in Europe and Asia which are also nationalists. That man is Newt Gringrich.
Newt Gringrich has a decent liberal and patriotic program, and speaks in the interest of the USA.
He is obviously unpopular, because the anti-American media and public opinion wants nothing to do with patriotism and ethnocentrism, they want the magic “miracle” pill, that would allow them to conserve a decent life quality while continuing down the road of trade deficits.
The other man, Ron Paul, is simply trying to surf on the public opinion, which is of course favorable to ethnomasochism and anti-Americanism.
He basically just recycled the socialist-hippie-citizen-of-the-world speech into a freedom-hippie-citizen-of-the-world speech.
Instead of saying that our trade deficit was acceptable because the government can tax the rich and borrow money from other countries in order to maintain a decent life quality for the masses (socialist approach), he is saying our trade deficit is acceptable because (???).
Anyway, regardless of the reasons, this goes against the first and foremost liberal concept : individual responsibility.
Eluding the facts concerning ethnomasochim, anti-Americanism and such fallacies as foreign films for example is also not a liberal solution.
Sure some of his views are liberal, but those aren’t the views that made him popular in the media and public opinion. What made him popular was the ethnomasochism and anti-Americanism.
It’s almost like he copied Newt’s program, but took out what wouldn’t please the masses. The reality in other words.
It’s like trying a new diet but intentionally stripping out what is not appealing.
Like buying a new abs program, not following correct bodybuilding guidelines, and still hoping to get a six pack.
In other words, a magic pill society. Unfortunately, that is not reality. Newt Gringrich is closer to real liberalism than Ron Paul will ever be, simply because he is accepting the real problems, unlike Ron Paul who is constantly in denial of reality.