The Los Angeles Times contrasts Ron Paul with the other presidential candidates:

The basic question posed by the likes of Republicans Herman Cain, Mitt Romney and Rick Perry is: “Would this person do a better job as president than Barack Obama has?”

The basic question posed by Rep. Ron Paul’s candidacy is: “Why do we have a federal government?”

Paul isn’t saying the federal government is wasting every dollar it spends; he’s saying the federal government doesn’t need to do much of what it does. Which gets us back to the existential challenge that Paul poses to Washington. Why is the federal government performing so many functions?

It’s a good question to ask in these cash-strapped times, yet government officials rarely take it seriously. That’s true in part because every program is guarded by a phalanx of interest groups. Rather than trying to redefine government’s role, lawmakers often try to do the same things with fewer dollars.

Paul laid out a detailed vision of government that pushed me to think about what I want from Washington and what would be better left to the states, cities and private industry. I wish his rivals would do the same.

What the LA Times describes as Paul’s “existential challenge” to Washington is actually the very definition of American conservatism—a critique of the modern state.

When even Rush Limbaugh admits (“If we are serious about this, fooling around the margins on all this spending isn’t gonna get it done”) most of the candidates are simply tinkering around the edges, in their economic plans or supposed reforms, this is precisely Republicans just “trying to do the same things with fewer dollars” instead of “trying to redefine government’s role.” When candidates like Romney or Cain defend TARP and downplay or ignore the Fed’s role in the economic crisis, it is because they are looking out for, or a part of, “interests groups” that are invested in a “phalanx” of government programs.

But as the LA Times notes, Paul instead asks “Why is the federal government performing so many functions?”

Why does Paul ask this? Because Ron Paul’s a conservative. This is what conservatives have to ask in order to even be considered a conservative in any traditional American sense. Barry Goldwater asked it. Ronald Reagan asked it. And most of their Republican successors have quit asking it, doing nothing more than tinkering around the edges of big government ever since. (Said Rush of Paul’s $1 trillion real spending cuts budget plan: “Nobody on our side’s ever really seriously proposed it, and Ron Paul’s going to.”)

Barry Goldwater pretty much explained the core philosophy of American conservatism in one paragraph of his famous 1960 book The Conscience of a Conservative:

The turn will come when we entrust the conduct of our affairs to the men who understand that their first duty as public officials is to divest themselves of the power that they have been given. It will come when Americans, in hundreds of communities throughout the nation, decide to put the man in office who is pledged to enforce the Constitution and restore the Republic. Who will proclaim in a campaign speech: ‘I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel the old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.’

Now, among the 2012 Republican presidential candidates—who talks like this? Who thinks likes this? Who votes like this?

few,, being the'constitution' is so popular

Article 1,section 8, first paragraph

Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


general welfare is a part of what congress is for, but people will forever debate what that is,,,,

I think libertarian is a bit different than conservative.

Financially conservative, he may be but not morally, socially conservative.

Libertarianism is almost anarchy.

Anarchy is not a civilized nation.

Ron Paul is not a conservative or a Republican, he is a Libertarian.

Libertarianism is not "almost anarchy". Libertarianism (small l) is a practical realization and application of classical liberalism. Unless of course, but "anarchy" you mean "liberty"-then yes, libertarians are in favor of "anarchy" in that way. The anarchist strain of libertarianism has always been distinct from "plumb-line" libertarianism, though. Mises (a classical liberal and precursor to modern libertarianism) dismissed anarchism altogether, but admired Rothbard's systematic analyses of the various social sciences (history, economics, praxaeology, etc).

IOW, libertarianism is the most civil and rational way a society can organize itself.

You're right that he isn't a conservative by modern standards, though. The paleo-conservatives (in the tradition of Russel Kirk, et al) do agree with him.

A good staunch libertarian is just what this country needs. The guy thinks outside the box and what we will NOT get with him is more of the same. nyone who votes the big named candidate needs their voting rights taken from them, piss and moan abour how screwed up the country is (both sides) then turn right around and send the same people back to office or people of the same mind set.

Lastly, I'd like to refer Ron Paul supporters to a real liberatarian, Dave Nalle, head of the Republican Liberty Caucus, who had this to say about Ron Paul:

[Ron Paul is] an inflexible ideologue who subscribes to a variety of extremist views which would make a terrible basis for national policy. His interpretation of the Constitution is highly selective. He seems not to recognize terms like "public welfare" and "common good" and rejects the long history of constitutional scholarship and jurisprudence on which most law is based. His understanding of the economy is based on fringe economic theories which most serious economists do not consider credible. As for foreign policy, it's an area in which Paul has no experience at all and his foreign policy would basically amount to isolationism which would have disastrous economic and political repercussions.

[Ron Paul supporters] completely overlook Paul's support for the reactionary conspiracy nuts at the John Birch Society and the reprehensible 9/11 Truth movement or the fact that he raises money on white supremacist websites and has the endorsement of racist leaders like former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, White Aryan leader Tom Metzger and Stormfront Fuhrer Don Black.

Read more: http://blogcritics.org/politics/article/a-quick-investigation-into-ron-pauls/page-2/#ixzz1bN0JchIJ

not the same is not necessarily BETTER

Hitler was not quite the same as his predecessor either,,,

Whats your point?

it just troubles me that people vote with the sentiment of just having something thats 'not the same'

instead of having something that will be 'better' or (at the very least) not 'worse'

Nalle is not a "libertarian" of any credibility. He's just a member of the Liberty Caucus (RP is also a member of that caucus, FYI). Nalle is just a game designer and blogger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Nalle). I've never even heard of the guy and I've been involved in libertarian circles for years now.

The entire libertarian community is well aware that Ron is not a racist (even those who seriously disagree with him). The "racist" meme is primarily kept alive by the pseudo-libertarian, objectivist-leaning Reason Magazine.

See also, "What Libertarianism Is" by Stephan Kinsella: http://mises.org/daily/3660

well, he will still be better than the fool that's in there now...

Libertarianism is almost anarchism.

It is pretty damn close to it.

Anarchy is not a civilized social state of being. It is especially bad for our elderly, disabled and young who cannot defend themselves.

and you have no idea idea of what your saying... show me where "Libertarianism is almost anarchism"... your opinion doesn't equal fact

I listen to what the candidates have to say and their party affiliation be damned. From that I make my decision although its a little more difficult with Ron because he gets purposely ignored at the debates but I know enough about the guy and know that he is different in the sense that he is not all big business as usual and that goes a long way with me and I cannot say that about the others running and that includes Obummer.

LOL......a blog! Hell I or anyone can write a blog!

Actually, I am more right here so you show me where it isn't like anarchy.

And we will weight the differences.

Ummm.............Obama promised better and he promised change. Is the unemployment rate 'better' than it was? My cousin in Maryland was president of College Seniors for Obama - and he can now say, "Do you want fries with that order?" in three languages!

Considering that Obama could only do so much, he has attempted the change he promised.

Obama has not failed, the economy wasn't going to get better in one year or 5 anyway.