Michael Medved really lays it on to Ron Paul in his last column, referring to Paul as “The Mad Doctor”, “The Crotchety Candidate” and “Dr. Demento”, largely because of Ron Paul’s uncompromising Libertarian views.
How would you describe a perennial presidential candidate who insists in a televised debate that government has no more right to interfere with prostitution or heroin than it does to limit the right of the people to “practice their religion and say their prayers”?
The phrase “crackpot” comes immediately to mind—and in any contemporary political dictionary that term would appear alongside a photograph of Congressman Ron Paul.
The Mad Doctor, who proudly consorts with 9/11 Truthers and Holocaust denying neo-Nazis, announced his third race for the nation’s highest office on Friday the Thirteenth (appropriately enough) by declaring that, as President, he never would have authorized a lethal strike against Osama bin Laden. The firestorm over this remark distracted attention from previous controversial comments just eight days before, when he used the first debate of the 2012 race to stake out exclusive territory on the lunatic libertarian fringe.
It gets better, or worse, from there. Any person running for public office must choose a middle course between two extremes. On the one hand, a politician who has no convictions and just shifts with the wind, or the polls, is worthless. A leader ought to have some principles or convictions to guide the decisions he makes. On the other hand, there is such a thing as being consistent and principles to the point of idiocy. I think most would agree that legalizing heroin or prostitution is over that line. Not only do such stands make a candidate unelectable, but it shows a certain unwillingness to consider the real world consequences of political theories and policies, or to do what must be done even if it is against your particular ideology.