Opinion

The passion of Ron Paul’s supporters: an analytical study

Photo of Jamie Weinstein
Jamie Weinstein
Senior Editor
  • See All Articles
  • Send Email
  • Subscribe to RSS
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Bio

      Jamie Weinstein

      Jamie Weinstein is Senior Editor of The Daily Caller. His work has appeared in The Weekly Standard, the New York Daily News and The Washington Examiner, among many other publications. He also worked as the Collegiate Network Journalism Fellow at Roll Call Newspaper and is the winner of the 2011 "Funniest Celebrity in Washington" contest. A regular on Fox News and other cable news outlets, Weinstein received a master’s degree in the history of international relations from the London School of Economics in 2009 and a bachelor's degree in history and government from Cornell University in 2006. He is the author of the political satire, "The Lizard King: The Shocking Inside Account of Obama's True Intergalactic Ambitions by an Anonymous White House Staffer."

Ron Paul’s supporters are “passionate” — and that’s a euphemism for cultish and crazed.

This isn’t, of course, a categorical statement. It’s a general one. I have friends who support Ron Paul, not all of whom are nuts. It also isn’t to say that all of what Paul is advocating is crazy. Some of it is certainly not.

But it is an objective assessment of the emails I have gotten from Paul supporters in response to op-eds I have written criticizing him as compared to the emails I have received from supporters of other presidential contenders after penning op-eds critical of those candidates. There is just no comparison. Paul supporters win in a lunatic landslide.

Let’s run the tape.

In a November column calling the Republican field “truly unimpressive,” I approvingly quoted conservative columnist George Will lambasting Mitt Romney by noting, “Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor.”

I also said that Romney “seems so willing to change his positions on any given issue to suit the political zeitgeist” and that he is “arguably the architect of President Obama’s most derided policy initiative — his health care law.”

Yet, despite the stern critique, I received not a single deranged email from a Romney fanatic, if such a creature exists.

In a column entitled “Newt Gingrich’s blabbering problem,” I called the former House speaker a “blabbermouth” and noted his tendency to engage in “verbal diarrhea,” which I don’t think can be construed as a compliment.

In my writings since November, I have noted the former speaker’s ample personal baggage, his flacking for Freddie Mac and his — in the words of Charles Krauthammer — “socialist” attack on Mitt Romney’s business experience.

I did not receive even a single deranged email from a Gingrich fan in response.

Before former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain dropped out of the presidential race, I said he was “often incomprehensible, simultaneously taking stands on both sides of an issue while steadfastly insisting he is making sense.” I then enumerated several instances where he did just that.

I received precisely zero deranged emails from Cainiacs.

I chided the rest of the GOP field as either not yet meriting mention or not meeting (Rick Perry) the intelligence threshold necessary to be president.

No crazy emails as a result.

But right before Christmas I took on Paul’s foreign policy prescriptions in a provocatively titled column “Ron Paul and the Nazi century.” The article didn’t call Paul a racist or so much as insinuate that he had affinity to Nazi ideology. (Though Paul likes to use language to suggest that Israel is acting like Nazis to the Palestinians, on Iranian-sponsored television no less.)

My column merely pointed out that Ron Paul’s foreign policy would have been utterly disastrous if followed during crucial moments of crises in recent American history, including in the lead-up to World War II where it is far from a stretch to suggest that if implemented it would have led to a Nazi German takeover of Europe.