ABOUT TOM WOODS

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is the New York Times bestselling author of 12 books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and Meltdown (on the financial crisis). A senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Woods has appeared on MSNBC, CNBC, FOX News, FOX Business, C-SPAN, Bloomberg Television, and hundreds of radio programs... (Read More)



The Tom Woods App


What Ron Paul Should Say

26th September 2011      by: Tom Woods     

I would urge a (probably shorter) variant of this:

“We have just experienced one of the worst financial disasters in history. If we think we can prevent a repeat of this by reforming the tax code and repealing a few regulations, we have lost our minds. We need serious, systemic changes, not some talking points from 1982, but that’s all we’re hearing on this stage.

“My supporters are always on my case that I should criticize my opponents more and boast about my record. I prefer to keep the discussion on the level of ideas. But this moment in history is so crucial to our future, and Americans are so uneasy and concerned, that I have no choice. So let me be blunt: I warned of the housing collapse years before it happened, and I have been speaking out against our monetary system — cautioning that it would lead to precisely the kind of collapse we’ve just seen — for decades. My opponents do not even seem interested in figuring out what caused the crisis or trying to make serious repairs to our system. It’s just the same old talking points.

“My fellow Americans, this is serious business. We’re not deciding who’s the most smooth or telegenic. We’re deciding who really understands what’s happening to our economy and knows how to put things right. If you want a president with the credibility and the knowledge to lead our country through this very dangerous moment in history, I am your man.”

Unlearn the Propaganda!

  • Amrita Gill

    brilliant!

  • Redman

    red butt, red butt!  And some wonder why some folks think the Tea Party is redneck central. Hum?  Disagreement with debate is cool; vulgarity and crude speech have no place.  Your salutation falls in the crude speech space, IMHO. ‘Nuff said.

  • http://profiles.google.com/fatlibertarianinokc Fat Libertarian

    I really do wish Rand Paul would have run, instead of Ron.  I love Ron and consider him a hero of mine. But he’s just horrible in these debates.  It’s almost as though he doesn’t care about them.  But, perhaps he’ll “run a good race”.

  • Redman

    This I find repulsive and disgusting; if you should be a persona non grata, what does that say for many of us that strongly follow and support Dr. Paul’s efforts? And what does that say for these ‘powers that be’?  So sorry to hear this; bummer!

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Burke/1596103398 John Burke

    Apologies for the length of this comment.  Hopefully its merits are equal to the time required to read it.

    Tom Woods’ posting is a very worthy contribution toward doing what must be done _if_ Ron Paul is going to win. His suggestions are close to the kind of discourse people are use to hearing from presidential candidates. They also have the added virtues of maintaining REP’s high standards for rhetorical righteous — they are forthright and respectful of reality — as well as being the kind of discourse people crave, but don’t often get, from presidential candidates.  

    Here’s another aspect of REP’s communications challenge. His message is attractive _if_ your libertarian-ish-oriented. Here’s the problem: a lot Republicans really, really don’t like liberty (That’s especially true when it comes to its rotten core of rat-romancing party hacks).  

    Some of these Republicans regard liberty as somehow subversive. Others think its just lame and weak. Still more are simply apathetic — they just want to “win” an election, and don’t think too hard about what comes after. (Together, such attitudes account for the failure of a Reagan-worshipful Republican Party to attain its hero’s libertarian-ish / small government goals.)

    Since REP is running for the _Republican_ presidential nomination, that’s a big problem. The libertarian-ish wing of the Republican Party is well below 50% of likely voters. As we’ve seen, GOPester party hacks will stop at almost nothing to suppress REP’s successes (Their latest gambit — biasing access to voting in straw polls toward establishment-supportive party “regulars”).

    What is to be done?

    Adapting REP’s message to account for the fact he must overcome the skepticism — if not ingrained hostility — of many Republican voters toward him is essential.

    Please Note: “Adapting” his message is _not_ the same as abandoning it. Rather, REP should talk about his beliefs in ways that make them more accessible to his audience of (mostly) either non-libertarians, or even anti-libertarians.

    Some suggestions for adapting REP’s message for non/anti-libertarian Republicans:

    1. Emphasize how liberty can make America strong. Freedom has consequences. Reducing dependency of government makes people stronger. Stronger people make for a stronger nation.

    2. Conversely, emphasize how maintaining America’s role as the world’s policeman has the paradoxical effect of making America weaker. Borrowing money from the Chinese to pay for a world-policing military makes us weaker, and them stronger. In his recent and most excellent speech at St. Anselm College…

    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/301129-1

    …Mark Steyn noted (about 24 minutes into his remarks) that if our current fiscal profligacy persists, America will in but a few years time be paying enough interest to the Chinese to fund their _entire_ military (The fact that Steyn is a noted Neo-Con and Paul-Hater makes using his reasoning here all the more appealing).

    3. Question what “winning” means. Particularly, if you vote for a candidate you _think_ can win, but you _know_ to be lacking the conviction to do what is required to reduce the size of government (like say…the two Georges Bush, or, now, Mitt Romney), then both you, and the country, will _surely_ lose — even _if_ that candidate wins. Such an argument might even be enlivened by references to that great preacher of the gospel of “winning”, the Reverend/Doctor Charlie Sheen.

    Since I’ve both run out of (what I take to be good) ideas — and have said waaaaay more than enough — I’ll leave it at that.

    JB

  • http://tomwoods.com Tom Woods

    All will be revealed someday. I’ll leave it at that.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Kelly/776080400 Michael Kelly

    I think Ron Paul should mention he’s chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology. He conducts hearings on the Federal Reserve to add a level of transparency. He’s running on a platform to phase out the Fed and he should hammer the point home that he’s been actively fighting this treasonous unregulated counterfeiting for years.

  • The Patriot

    Tom, please get this in an e-mail to Mr. Paul ASAP! You are dead on.

    I’m a big fan of Meltdown by the way. Thank you for being a voice of reason.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mitchell-Ryan-Kramb/23206722 Mitchell Ryan Kramb

     Indeed. He also warned him he should perhaps seek other employment before the Congressional session ended. When it reconvened and the bubble had burst, and Greenspan was still there, Paul said to him, ‘I see you did not take my advice.’

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PHIGFCYYI362YTY4GVAWH43P4A Kristin

    Here is what Ron Paul should say:

    “The biggest threat to your individual liberty is a majority of other Americans.  The Constitution was intended to limit the power of the federal government, in other words to limit the power of the majority over individuals.    

    Safeguards were place in the Constitution to contain the federal government.  No direct taxation of individuals was permitted.  States retained powers not delegated to the federal government.  Supreme Court justices were confirmed by Senators answerable to state legislatures.  These safeguards have been removed so that now the federal government answers to whims of a mass democracy.

    If elected, I will veto funding of the Dept. of Education, Dept. of Commerce, Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, Dept. of Labor, Dept. of Agriculture, Dept. of Health and Human Services, Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Transportation, and Dept. of Homeland Security.  

    If elected, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will be transitioned to the several states.

    If elected, I will propose a constitutional amendment that repeals the 16th Amendment and institutes a tax to be paid by the several states in proportion to their population.”

  • Anthony

    Dr. Paul needs to make it clear that both parties support the warfare/welfare state of Wilson and Roosevelt.  The Democrats are as hell bent on empire as ever; the Repubicans don’t want to ditch our rotten system, they just want to find a way to rescue it through greater fiscal responsibility and the like.  In reality, the system is on its last legs.  We should welcome this.  The aim of policy should be to let it come down — like a controlled demolition — and begin putting in place a new system that enshrines freedom, the Constitution, sound money and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

  • neocontrotsky

    Ridiculous!  People like you and lew rockwell have done more to help Ron Paul spread his popularity than just about anyone, especially someone working for his campaign.  You help convert the people into being RP supporters with your online articles, videos, and books.

    My future donations will be to the Revolution Pac instead of his campaign then because I am far more impressed with your ads and style of promoting Paul.  They really blew all the money in 07 horribly, and I don’t think the money is being used anywhere near as effectively as it could this time around.  I wasn’t crazy about appealing to Reagan in that recent ad, but understood it politically because of the GOP base.  However, the latest ad is awful and I feel that my previous donations are being wasted.  As you said on lewrockwell’s blog, why do an ad with veterans without having them point out that Paul is right about foreign policy? 

    And where is the ad that they could literally just rip from youtube showing how in 2001 and 2003 he was specifically saying what would happen to Fannie, Freddie, etc with a Fed created Housing Bubble?  That is the most powerful thing he has going for him in these economic times, and always the thing that shocks people when I show them the videos. 

    The foreign policy issues are the single biggest hurdle he has to clear among GOP voters, so he may as well take it head on instead of that latest feel good ad that will convert no one.  Without converting more to his views on war, he really doesn’t have a chance of doing better than second or third in any of the states because the GOP is full of interventionists.  The economic ad touting his predictions and understanding would make him skyrocket in the polls if done correctly, and it is not as if the Paul campaign is hurting for money!   

  • neocontrotsky

    Let me add that this is no way an attack on Ron Paul, who is the greatest living hero of mine and is beyond reproach for his courage and integrity.  It is, however, an attack on the people running his campaign and in charge of spending the millions we die hard supporters contribute.  Tom Woods having to resort to backdoor channels to communicate with Ron Paul is outrageous!  They honestly should have hired you or at least asked for your advice and input, but it seems the opposite approach was taken.  And on a practical level, not taking on the foreign policy issues or pounding over and over how he was right and everyone else running was wrong about the economy is beyond stupid, regardless of how professional the campaign team supposedly is.

    I can’t wait for the next Revolution Pac Money Bomb day….

  • neocontrotsky

    Exactly.  I had what was basically a public speaking job for several years.  ANY sort of stumbling of the words, pausing, etc was a giant distraction for the people listening and the speaker.  It also takes away credibility that one really knows what they are doing if they stumble over anything. 

  • neocontrotsky

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLm7Sw402xE

    The facts like what take place in this video need to be pounded into every GOP voter’s head.

  • neocontrotsky

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Gfzgxh3ZQ&feature=related

    Ditto for this video.  It shows how right he was on foreign policy and economics while both the democrats and GOP were completely wrong.  He even knew in 07 that Osama was in pakistan!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=25016068 Josh Jeppson

    One day it may be you up on that stage, Tom.  I can only hope.  You should consider running alongside Rand some day…

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1457760294 Robert Fellner

    I agree with your sentiments completely. I’m shocked to learn that Dr. Woods is not welcomed by the campaign. I feel betrayed in a sense. I’ve been working tirelessly for the past 4 years educating myself, reaching out to others, to spread the message of liberty. Dr. Ron Paul represents the best real chance of seeing liberty restored that I can see. The fact that the official campaign is not doing all they can to spread that message is inexcusable. Tom Woods is exactly the guy you want: passionate about liberty, phenomenal public speaker, well-educated, and so forth.

    Quite frankly I am getting disappointed with the campaign. I love Ron Paul and want him to win and will keep fighting for him, but I don’t see how he does if he follows this current political track. A good example of what I am talking about is his appearance on the Daily Show last night. There is no way the average American who sees that will be converted to a Ron Paul supporter. The talking points and presentation in which Ron Paul’s official campaign seems to be running is more tailored to the ears of people who already support Ron Paul.

    The goal of the campaign should be to spread the message and generate supporters from people whom don’t already support him. I don’t see them doing a very good job of that right now. I see the supporters and individuals reaching out to others, but the Ron Paul campaign itself, does not seem to be targeting the people we need to get.

    As such if the campaign is not able or willing to adopt a more coherent and attention-grabbing message, my god they should embrace the Tom Woods of the world like the godsend they are!! Politics is a dirty game. Most voters are rather uniformed. You cannot give them a sound education in economics and history, and convince them to vote for you in a 5 minute (or less) window of time. There’s a reason the most successful politicians have evolved to the non-substance, catch-phrase spewing, robots we see before us today. I, of course, am not suggesting Ron Paul sink to that level, but you have to understand why that method works. They understand how to attract votes. And good god, it’s not by educating them.

    Short, direct, easy to understand messages like the ones RevPac puts together or the comments Tom Woods suggests here as talking points for Ron Paul are exactly what is so desperately needed. I sincerely belive the fate of his candidacy depends on it. I hope they are listening and whatever their reasons for excluding Dr. Woods, they at least follow his lead in attempting to speak to and attract new Ron Paul supporters.

  • neocontrotsky

    Look how much RP has in base support despite idiotic management of his campaign!  Imagine if Tom Woods was in charge of the ads, talking points, etc?

    I agree with your points as well.  I think a perfect example last night on Jon Stewart in response to the free market questions would have been to turn it around and ask why he opposes our picking sides and intervention abroad in foreign affairs.  Then he could have made the point that if there are negative unintended consequences when we intervene abroad that far outweigh the good, that the same logic applies to domestic affairs.  RP actually somewhat did this by bringing up the CIA and pentagon running things, but he did not make it simple and direct enough for the average viewer. The inverse of this argument could be used when meeting with neo-con GOP type interviewers.

    Tom Woods is literally the best possible person I am aware of to create simple talking points for Paul in his interviews, debates, and tv ads.  The fact that he is shut out of influence hurts the cause of liberty far more than anything else.

  • john23

    Dead on.  It’s a little frustrating with Paul, because if Rick Perry or Mitt Floppey had his record…this election would be won by a landslide.  He needs to open up and brag a little bit….call them out on their economic and political stupidity 

  • Ram Koganti

    People fear change and what Dr.Paul is asking for is a lot of it.
    Dr. Paul should explain how Libertarianism is the most compassionate system in the world.
    The whole campaign has to focus on this message that things will get better if you follow this system.
    People can easily point to examples where the communist system did not work.
    But can Dr.Paul and his supporters (including me) point to examples that show that Libertarianism works.

  • http://twitter.com/Kimberly171 Kimberly Thompson

    I do believe it’s a moot point, as Tom has already pointed out that he is unable to communicate due to his association with Revolution Pac. I agree that the campaign managers (or whatever) that are in charge of the recent changes in the accessibility of Dr Paul are aggravating and off-setting, but that’s neither here nor there when we’re talking of keeping in line with laws that could make problems if they aren’t followed. 

    Still, though I have no hope of breaking the normal limit on donations, I’ll look here before anywhere else when I’m ready. I, too, approve of the things I see here, and would rather be supporting them than some other things I see.

  • Anonymous

    “People fear change…” is an almost proverbial truism.  But this year a great many people fear the status quo more.  A statistic and an anecdote to back that up. 
    Rasmussen reports on the percentage of people who believe the country is on the right track. 
    A year ago, it was 32%, today, it is 16%.  Economy-wise, empire-wise, and ethics-wise, our government has sunk to new lows and we’re in uncharted territory.
     Recently our NH call bank has switched tactics.  We’re calling folks up who have concerns about the economy, interrupting whatever they’re doing in the early evening hours.  It surprises me how many are willing to listen to me, and how many are entering into earnest discussions about our economic troubles.  Many are leaning towards Ron Paul, for reasons based on our economic direction.  And it was funny when the Federal Reserve question came up in the Dartmouth debate that all the candidates chuckled, deferring to Dr. Paul to answer first.
    Examples where Liberty works:  The UK and Iceland-Lawsuits control pollution.
    Canada-Private Air Traffic Control.  Germany-No restrictions on vehicle speed or smoking.
    All the above and Denmark & Netherlands-More sensible policies on tolerating pot.



Find me on Google