Ron Paul is NOT a Truther

Ron Paul is NOT a Truther
By Dave Nalle - September 9, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Ron Paul has worked very hard through two presidential campaign seasons to cross the line from being the Republican Party’s token libertarian gadfly to emerging as a legitimate leadership figure with a chance of winning the nomination in 2012. In his quest he has been both helped and hindered by his own followers. On the one hand their devotion to Paul and their enthusiasm are amazing, giving him an edge in fundraising and promotion which none of the other Republicans can match. On the other hand, a fraction of those enthusiastic supporters are just plain nuts and their statements and beliefs have been used against Paul by his critics inside his party, in the other party and in the media.

Ron Paul is in no way responsible for the beliefs and delusions of his followers in the same way that Jodie Foster was not responsible for John Hinckley’s attack on Ronald Reagan. It might be different if he encouraged them or deliberately pandered to them, or shared their more radical obsessions, but he has not done that, and has often made very clear where he disagrees with them. Bizarrely they seem oblivious to this and in many cases are convinced that Dr. Paul shares their beliefs no matter how often he clearly states that he does not.

One striking example of this is his relationship with the 9/11 “truth” movement, the tumultuous cabal of conspiracy fanatics who advocate an assortment of bizarre and contradictory theories about the attack on the World Trade Center, each one more implausible than the last. Many Truthers are outspoken Ron Paul supporters and are absolutely convinced that he agrees with their beliefs, despite all evidence to the contrary. When confronted with direct statements disagreeing with them from Dr. Paul their cognitive dissonance kicks in and they translate what he says into something different which fits their delusions.

In a recent discussion a Truther said to me “I watched a video on national TV where he (Ron Paul) renounced the official version of 9/11 and called for more investigation. He even said that he couldn’t rule out an inside job.” Yet when challenged to produce a video of this statement he could not provide a link to one. What he and other truthers progably actually saw was one of several television interviews like the one below:

In these interviews Paul criticizes the 9/11 investigation, but not on the basis that they came up with the wrong explanation for the attacks. What Paul always focuses on in these interviews is his concern that the investigation did not look at root causes of the attacks in our foreign policy or the incompetence of government agencies which failed to prevent the attacks. Nowhere does he ever support any alternative theory on the 9/11 attacks.

That’s a provocative and potentially controversial position for him to take, but it’s decidedly not the same as advocating or in any way supporting any of the popular conspiracy theories. Paul’s views still fall within the political norm and they don’t in any way endorse any alternate interpretation of the basic facts of the events of 9/11.

Because there is this common perception among his own supporters that he holds beliefs which he seems not to, he ends up being asked about it a lot. Those supporters are delusional, so they pretend his answers denying their movement don’t exist and for his part, Paul seems puzzled and annoyed that the rumors persist, as you can hear in this radio interview:



Paul has even rejected 9/11 conspiracy theories in a presidential debate, early in the 2008 election. But in this case, as often happens, when offered an opportunity to speak directly to his supporters and urge them not to continue to promote delusional ideas which hurt his candidacy dy association, his natural inclination to support free thought and free speech lead him into the error of appearing tolerant of their beliefs. Despite having every reason to whack them on the knuckles and send them to bed without dinner, he’s too tolerant and too nice a guy to be firm with them, even if it may well cost him the presidency again in 2012 as it did in 2008.



A lot of this is a function of wilfull denial of reality, a kind of cognitive dissonance where the truthers are absolutely divorced from reality. In this video truthers ask him about the conspiracy and he gives a reasonable and compelling explanation for why their theories are irrational, because the government is too inept to have actually carried out a conspiracy on that grand scale, and that if anything went on it was just a coverup of government incompetence.



Clearly some people get the mssage, but a core group among his followers won’t accept the truth about 9/11 even from a revered leader like Paul. The response you can see on the message thread which goes with the video shows how delusional his truther followers are. One writes “yeah sure.. he can’t say it was a total inside job even though IT WAS. You have to be cautious about these harsh comments.” Another rationalizes away Paul’s statements saying “I think Paul suspects that it was an inside job too, but he doesn’t want to cross that line, for it would completely ruin his presidential aspirations.”

Even though Paul is clearly rejecting the 9/11 conspiracy theories in these statements, that core group of crazy followers can’t accept the possibility that he disagrees with them and they have convinced themselves that Paul, who they revere for his truthfulness, is lying to protect himself and actually agrees with them no matter how many times he denies it.

There’s no question that Ron Paul’s relationship with the truthers, as with other fringe groups, is a mostly one-sided relationship. They like Paul, but he clearly doesn’t like them very much. He finds himself involuntarily saddled with a cadre of fanatical nuts who follow him around and end up associating themselves with his campaign and no matter what he says and does he can’t get rid of them. They don’t realize they’re dragging him down to defeat by tainting hm with their lunacy and he’s too nice a guy to tell them to go to hell.

It’s really a tragic situation and the irony of it is painful. Ron Paul has made his position on this issue very clear, but some people love their delusions more than they respect Paul himself. The behavior of those followers may well cause Paul to come up short in his last and greatest campaign in 2012. After the fact those followers will gather over a beer and blame his defeat on the grand conspiracy they also blame for 9/11, never understanding that it was them and their actions which doomed their hero, because they could not bring themselves to shut up and accept reality and listen to what he was actually telling them.

The current National Review smears Ron Paul by highlighting that his Iowa coordinator, one Drew Ivers, last worked in the presidential campaign of Pat Robertson and before that worked on the campaign of one Rep. John G. Schmitz who was asked to leave the Republican Party by Richard Nixon and later forced out of the John Birch Society because he was too controversial (too controversial for the Birchers?). Cong. Schmitz once said that: "I don't object to Nixon's going to China. I object to his returning here."

The reporter, Kevin Williamson, reports that Dr. Paul still occasionally addresses gatherings of the John Birch Society and quotes the doctor as saying, "The John Birch Society? They are often well-educated, strict Constitutionalists, abhor war, and are hard money people. What's wrong with that?". Um, their dogged support of nutty conspiracy theories.

I anticipate supporting and voting for Ron Paul in what will surely be his last crusade. I think that most of the mainstream is put off by the fact Dr. Paul is a nut magnet. I think they want him to renounce some of his more extreme supporters. But that's just me...

Anyone with followers is likely to have a couple of maniacs, OC. Now, Dr Paul has, as supporters, you me and Stephanie, w hich can't bode well for the man, either.

Seriously, though, you have among those with ideas that are not held by the MTV generation some ridiculous elements, and you are going to have them precisely because a group that is not a "herd" will have sheep wandering off. Politically speaking this is a very good thing. Even if a minority of Ron Paul supporters accept something ridiculous, it shows that this is not a movement of groupthink. The truther movement is ridiculous, by Dr Paul has never endorsed it, and there are plenty of Obama supporters who are truthers as well. One wonders why he isn't called to disavow himself of those people.

I'm not particularly fond of the President who, among other things, started the epic failure known as the war on drugs and completed the process of turning our currency into little more than monopoly money. There were things about Nixon I like and I wouldn't be surprised if history is kinder to the man than his contemporaries, but still....

Say what you will about Paul supporters, but they are a pretty peaceful lot. Nobody is damning anyone to hell. Nobody is threatening to wage yet another war, much less on on their fellow Americans. That's a lot more than can be said for the supporters of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

One of the minefields of politics is the "Did you knew that he still beats his wife" style of accusation. So often the person being told / asked this "information" about a candidate does not bother to ask whether the politician even ever did beat his wife.

I think I see where you are going, here, Zig. It's sort of a "heads I win, tails you lose" kind of thing. If Paul disavows the truthers, he's talking about them nonetheless, and making himself look bad. If Paul ignores the truthers, then he'll be criticized for that, too.

I really like Ron Paul and am seeing him as more and more electable each passing day. That there are a few oddballs about should not cast dark shadows upon much of anybody, unless such people are senior advisors or what not.

The Congressman just keeps saying and doing things I like. Recently he told an interviewer sent by Bill O'Reilly that O'Reilly "isn't much of a journalist". How can you not like a candidate who just speaks his mind like that? lol

I don't think he's a journalist at all. He's a bloviating gas bag who invites "guests" onto his program and then talks over them. I occasionally watch just to shake my head at the nightly train wreck. I don't find him all that conservative. Looking out for the "folks"... Hmmph.

My father hangs on his every word....

I agree with Jimmy that O'Reilly (like many, unfortunately) simply talks over his guests. I notice that with Hannity on the radio as well. These gentlemen may have good ideas, but barking the same thing over and over just strikes me as rude.