Post-election: Third party votes

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate, received 0.9% of the vote nationally, and 2-3.5% in some of the more libertarian states (source here). That isn't anywhere close to all the Ron Paul supporters who swore that they wouldn't vote for Mitt. What happened to them?

This commentator thinks a lot didn't vote for anyone for president. That sounds believable to me, and I don't have time at this point to research it. I invite others to fill in the gaps.

Image: deadlinelive.info

Do libertarians hate America as liberals do?

I was in my car listening to a segment of "Alternative Radio." Morris Berman, a leftist author, was chuckling about how stupid and/or corrupt Americans are. It seems that we have no redeeming features.

I grew up with a lot of America-bashing, but it was all idle talk. Not one of those who blamed the US for horrible situations across the globe ever emigrated to a more moral country. Instead, it was like a liberal parlor game--what outrage has America committed now?

I don't play this game. I'm aware and unafraid to point out the wrong that America has done, but also to point out what it's done right. I also realized that despite the incessant complaints I grew up with, I love this country and there isn't another place I'd rather be. This is my home, for better or worse, for richer or poorer. We have an incredibly rich history (good and bad all mixed up together) and many aspects that make me incredibly proud.

Morris Berman doesn't seem to feel the same way. He bashed just about everything after WWII. Also, the core of Americans is rotten. I didn't catch the details there, but I bet the evidence he presented was probably one-sided.

What's funny is that I hear echoes of this in what libertarians say about the growth and depredations of government. Ron Paul can talk on and on about how America invades other countries and that causes blowback and also the federal government is regulating all this dang stuff. However, when Ron Paul does this, he doesn't sound like a pompous, aging, radical blowhard hypocrite.

There is an important difference--the libertarians don't bash the American people. Dang pompous liberals, please take note.

The origin of Republican screamers

There's been another defection from the conservative media fold. He's not a name I know (Michael Fumento, huh?), but there's coverage by Conor, and the calling out is published by Salon. He's small potatoes compared to David Frum, David Brooks, Chris Buckley, and Bruce Bartlett, so it's not big news.

But the following comment got me wondering:

"Politically, how successful has the 'non-ugly' right been in the past? How likely is it that it would be more successful now? I would suggest that the popularity of the 'ugly right' is a consequence of the past failures of the 'non-ugly right' to gain any ground against the left."

Is this true? Using just my memory (translation: too lazy to research), I'm going to say that non-ugly did work. Reagan didn't call Carter a terrorist and neither did his vice-president. Not even close. Gingrich and the "Contract with  America" didn't ramp up the language that much (if I remember correctly). However, there was a strong uptick with Clinton, but then the GOP suffered for it in 1998.

I think the real change came with Bush. He campaigned as a guy who could work in a bipartisan way, and then he reneged big time even though he'd won fewer votes than Gore. Promises about CO2 vanished faster than CO2. The tax cuts weren't an inclusive piece of work.

And he didn't get punished with electoral losses for it, not in 2002 or 2004. So with Rove driving him toward the permanent Republican majority, he had no reason to back down and he basically never did. Neither did the other conservatives in media. Why should Fox News change when they're making so much money? The same for Limbaugh, Levin, or anyone else who was going loud and nasty. Why change if it's working?

Also, you can't just stop talking if you're in politics or the news business. You have to change to something, and that something better be consistent in tone and message. The Tea Party wasn't  really a change in tone or message, because their message is "we've got all the answers" and their tone is "you're with us or you're traitors." The only Republican who has found an alternative that works is ... Ron Paul. Is there someone else I'm forgetting? Some non-shrill, non-paranoid GOP message out there?

For the conservative tone to change, someone is going to have to be different and successful, but more mainstream GOP than Paul. That's another good reason to hope Romney fails. He's definitely not that new voice. The vacuum his defeat creates gives the new voice a chance to emerge. It might happen, it might not. Let us pray.

 A different animal would be a nice change.

Open thread: What's next for libertarians?

Ron Paul kind of sputtered in this campaign. He was great in the debates, but disappointing at the polls. Although he had a better showing than 2008, his philosophies weren't setting the pace in the primaries. Will libertarians make a difference in this election cycle? What will happen after the election? Your take.

Conservative candidate confusion

With only the four GOP candidate left in the field, the differences among them should be getting clearer. But can you tell which candidate or candidates propose each of these policies:

1. Cut $1trillion from the budget in 2013.
2. Reduce corporate tax rate to 12.5%.
3. Use credit card fraud detection systems to reduce Medicare waste.
4. Allow Medicare recipients to stay on Medicare or sign on with other providers.
5. Streamline our security services to meet new challenges.
6. Open up offshore drilling.
7. Cut 10% of the federal workforce.
8. End nation building.
9. Allow alternative currencies to circulate.
10. Reduce corporate tax rate to 17.5%.
11. Reduce corporate tax rate to 25%.
12. Roll discretionary non-defense spending back to 2008 levels.
13. Roll all discretionary spending to back to 2007 levels.
14. Let young workers opt out of Social Security.
15. Will not allow Iran to build nuclear weapons.

I know it's important to get an understanding of the character, personality, and history of a person running for president. That's fine and reasonable. But we also need to talk about the direction the person intends to take the country, so policy proposals are critical. I want to know what the candidate's plans are for: the tax system, the budget, major government programs, defense, and foreign relations.

There hasn't been enough discussion and differentiation between the candidates on these issues, except, of course, for Ron Paul. He, at least, has more clearly staked out his policies. When I wrote up the list above, I was able to add his proposals (#1, 8, 9, and 13) from memory because he's been very clear in the debates and campaign appearances.

With the other candidates, it's not as clear. Who wants to do want with Medicare? What are the candidates planning to cut from the budget, how much, and how soon? What parts of the military are they planning to expand, and what will they cut? These are specific questions that each candidate should be answering now as he makes the case for why he should be nominated and elected.

I viewed the second Florida debate again with an eye to substantial communication about issues. Ron Paul, as usual, spent a fair amount of his time on his policy proposals. The others wasted most of their time. Santorum was fairly clear on his tax policy and timeframe for closing the deficit, though he neglected talking about specific cuts.

Gingrich talked about his two-speed tax policy (regular or 15%) but ignored the direct question of what effect it would have on someone like Romney. Gingrich's plans for closing the deficit remain all in his mind, not laid out for examination.

Now I know their Cuba policies, which is important to much of the Florida electorate, but not to me. Regarding my top concerns, I learned very little. However, Romney did directly put out an attack ad claiming Gingrich ... Oh, forget it!

This is quite a waste of a campaign if you care about each candidate's plan for governance, and that's what you'll vote on. Are Republicans satisfied with this?

Which proposes a 15% corporate income tax?

Sources: Gingrich,  Paul, Santorum, Romney websites, plus some statements in debates.

Extra: An honest assessment of their personalities by a libertarian, non-crazy blogger.

If you like Ron Paul...

...I think you'll like this interview with Alan Simpson. The same truth-telling, some self-effacement (so pleasant on a high-Newt day like today). Enjoy!

Bipartisans in the Race

Hunstsman is a bipartisan, or at least was when he worked in the Obama administration as ambassador to China. Ron Paul doesn't seem to believe in partisan politics, his ideals put him above all that. Obama tried to be bipartisan, but we have to forgive him if he believes it was a vain attempt. Republicans have not only spurned his bipartisanship, they have accused him of being a socialist, Marxist, anti-American, a Muslim terrorist, the most polarizing politician in America. He hasn't gotten any love or respect for his real efforts.

********************************************

I wrote that on November 17th. If anything, it's become more significant and poignant since then. Romney has upped his trashing of Obama, and Gingrich has upped his trashing of everyone. I didn't see any glimmers of bipartisanship during the Christmas recess, even though Congress will have to take up the continuation of the Social Security tax cuts. Oy vey!

Ron Paul reaches for the ceiling

What is the ceiling for support for Ron Paul? He's got a great campaign network, good fundraising, ads on TV, a strong message, name recognition, and no other candidate splitting his pool of voters. He should be running at his maximum level, at least for this campaign. These primaries are a test to see what his ceiling is and the maximum number of people who will vote for Paul's platform.

In a different post, I declared that Paul's ceiling is 15%. My prediction was too low since he's already gotten 21% in Iowa and 23% in New Hampshire. His libertarian platform may not play so well in the socially conservative south, but the rest of the country is pretty fertile ground.

Paul gave a great semi-victory speech after the New Hampshire primary. He's a good speaker in debates, interviews, and even sound bites. He doesn't suffer from many of the characterizations that plague other candidates. People don't see him as:

a Wall Street stooge, Wall Street raider, lobbyist, elitist, rich, dishonest, greedy, flip-flopper, philanderer, unethical, pompous, vindictive, opportunist, contemptible, theocratic, hypocritical, empty-suit, uptight, dumber than dirt, whiny, liar, insincere, or slick.  

His negative characteristics are usually variations on these: out-of-touch, dangerous to the GOP, crackpot.

If Paul ends up in a two-man race with Mitt Romney, we will all get to see what his ceiling is. But more important, the GOP will have a stark choice: they can embrace the candidate who actually follows their small-government ideals, or they can choose someone from Bush mold (but one who promises to do better on the finances).

With Romney polling at a national average of 34%, and Paul getting 12% to 20%, that leaves at least 46% who have to make that stark choice. Will Tea partiers, who were so outspoken on the constitution, gravitate to Paul? They should,  if smaller government is a more important message than being the top military power in the world.

I don't think the Tea partiers are that pure. They may say they love the constitution, but they want to be top dog with no apologies. Because of this, I think Paul is close to his max at 23% in New Hampshire. He'll do better in some western caucus state, but over all, his ceiling is probably 30%. That's better than 8% in 2008, and it becomes the floor for 2016*. We shall see.

* That's not really the floor for 2016. But it's a pleasant idea that 30% of the Republican party would be honest in their small-government goals.

The Fair Way to Report

The non-coverage of Ron Paul, and now the coverage of Ron Paul, give me an example of how badly the press reports on candidates. Here is my recipe for a fair, interesting, informative way to cover a candidate

• Do your homework first--know the candidate's policy positions, their strengths and weaknesses.
• Let the candidate present their positions and their strengths. Give them a fair chance to do this without interrupting with gotcha questions.
• Follow-up on the policy weaknesses and professional/leadership weaknesses. Revealing these weaknesses is an important task for the press because the candidate isn't going to do it himself, and opponents will tend to exaggerate.
  

So what was wrong with the coverage on Paul?

• First no coverage.
• Then coverage only as a no-hoper.
• Then coverage only of the newsletter scandal. 
• No reporting on his policy proposals.
  
• No critique of his policy weaknesses.

The first and the last are the biggest failures of the press. On second thought, they are all failures, and I'm not sure which is the worst, especially considering that the press could easily do a better job. If only they would divert some of their resources away from repetition, celebrity reporting, and media frenzy, they would have many more half-decent stories on this at-least-moderately-important presidential race.

 The only guaranteed airtime for Paul

I critique Paul's general policy approach here and "sound money" ideas here.

Ron Paul supporters get their wish

Ron Paul is finally getting a lot of press. Some higher power heard the collective prayers (or rants) from Paul supporters, and granted their wish. But as is wont to happen with wishes, it didn't turn out quite as hoped.

Now the media, instead of ignoring Ron Paul's numbers in this straw poll or that conservative conference, is reporting on Paul's surge in the Iowa pre-caucus polls. Mostly, it's "He might win Iowa, but that just shows how marginal Iowa is" or "There's no way he'll win the nomination." There are also a spate of articles on his newsletters from the 1990's with some racist articles that appeared under his byline.

All this gives Ron Paul supporters a new reason to call foul. I'm glad they have a new reason, because the old one was worn thinner than the elbows on my favorite shirt. They are shocked... shocked that the media is not all adulation and hero worship. I don't know how this happened, but every single one of Paul's supporters ignored what happens when the press turns its attention on someone, especially a candidate for president. The anointed Obama excepted, of course.

Now, I think it's a great idea to report on Paul's policies, and give them a real good inspection, because they don't hold up to scrutiny. But the coverage on his newsletter is also plenty fair. Paul has barely explained this ghost from his past. If I have to fill the blanks that he leaves, I'm not giving him much benefit of the doubt. Here goes:

• Paul is a strict constitutional libertarian, and there aren't many around.
• He'll hang with anyone who also says that they want the federal government out of their business.
• There's a concentration of somewhat like-minded people in militias, white-supremacists groups, gun rights/survivalist groups.
• Ron Paul craves any audience, and this is what came to him. He didn't look too closely at anything else they support and stand for. Why? Because the constitution is all that matters.
• There is a lot of evidence that Paul is not a racist, but he didn't mind associating with them, or giving them control of his newsletter.
• I don't want this guy as my president. I'll add this of my pile of reasons.
• Move over, Tea Party. Cue a new bunch of people screaming about Sen. Byrd being in the KKK.

It's a fair question whether an issue form 20 years ago should matter so much. If it is wasn't a pattern, or was completely disavowed in word and deed, I'd agree. However, Paul has continued the pattern of poor associations with whackos. For him, crazy is OK so long as he gets airtime. I'll repeat, I don't want this guy as president.

Extras
Don't get no respect:

"Wow. The second Ron Paul becomes a viable candidate, the slander machine begins. Someone REALLY doesn't want him to win... Don't you find it odd that there was no mention of him before he started polling first, and now that his numbers are rising, every mention is negative?!"

"Now that media's attempt to eliminate Paul haven't worked and he's due to win Iowa, now all of a sudden 'iowa doesn't matter', and here come the tired re-treads of this old canard."

"MSM should stick with what they do best cover Britney Spears or a "sports hero" or any other useless time wasting coverage... " - Atlantic comments

Best defense of Ron Paul:

"Libertarianism is an attractive philosophy to racists... because it states that people should be allowed to freely associate and enter into contracts with whomever they decide. This would mean racists could have a private club and only allow same race people to join... History shows, however, that racists will flock to whatever party serves their interests at the moment. They will switch parties based on superficial reasons. They've switched between Democrats and Republicans." - Atlantic comment

Update 12/29/11. I allude to Paul's continuing pattern of working with whackos, but I should name names. Here goes: Alex Jones, truther and major conspiracy theorist. The New York Times has a longer list. I think this is important because it indicates potential risks in a Ron Paul presidency. All presidencies have risks, and it's good to identify them as well as we can and then choose. By the way, it was almost all Ron Paul all the time in political news today. He's not missing in the media anymore.

My Crystal Ball - Iowa and beyond

On Bernstein's blog, we were asked for our predictions for Iowa. The caucuses in Iowa are inscrutable to foreigners, and I'm definitely a foreigner with regard to Iowa, so I don't have a prediction. But others on the blog made longer-range predictions, like Paul was going to be a stronger contender throughout the primary season. Be sure to read the interesting array of ideas. As for me, I'm afraid that I have a vanilla prediction.

I have pity for Mitt. He's the most sensible choice for the general election (Paul would be slaughtered), but the girl he's waiting for keeps dancing with all these bad-boys. He's even tried to be more bad-boy himself, but it's not working.

Despite the reluctance of the national party, I do think Romney will win in NH. I was up there this past weekend, and Romney had the most and largest signs. Ron Paul is second.

Romney will do well enough to stay in the race past Florida, and he'll have stronger wins after that. Gingrich will win a few, but people will find him less and less charming. He'll enjoy the campaign, avoid becoming nasty to his rivals, and be cordial when he bows out.

Paul will keep up the fight, but he doesn't have a shot. He'll have to decide whether to run as an independent.

I haven't mentioned Iowa because don't think it's going to be important. The only exception to that is if Paul does really well (1st or very high 2nd) and the same in NH. If Paul gets two wins or near-wins, he'll finally get some press. Once he gets some coverage, the merely curious will drop out, and he'll have only his die-hard 15%. (Because he really is Nader crazy.)

The final scorecard will look like this:

• Romney - gets the nomination, is gushingly grateful. The bride has her doubts all the way to the altar and beyond.
• Gingrich - his good cheer wins him elder statesman status--less than Reagan, but more than any other Republican. He remains very partisan, with frequent visits to Fox News and all the right-wing think tanks. 
• Paul - 80% find out for sure that Paul IS crazy. Fifteen per cent know for sure he's a genius. The remaining 5% are split between lizard-alien, regular alien, and "who?"

*****************************************************

To me, it's almost as though the Republicans are a contestant on Let's Make a Deal. The only difference is that they can see the prizes, and still the choice is difficult. "... Do I want the RV, the Mediterranean casino cruise, or the goat? Oh no, I can't decide."

Bonus predictions: Callista divorces Newt and takes over the Huffington Post. Both Newt and Ron Paul will be contestants on The Apprentice. Pirate videos of Ron Paul grabbing Trump's hair will go viral. Newt will get a Christmas special on TV and dress up as an elf. Lots of Christian stars will sing. Sarah and Bristol Palin will visit. President Romney will visit on the second season. Newt dies happy and fulfilled. The End.

Update 12/30/11. This post is already a bit out of date. I know it stuck out like a red flag: "Gingrich will win a few..." It now looks like this part of my prediction won't pan out. And I couldn't be happier--I loathe Gingrich.

Debating with Ron Paul

No, I don't get the pleasure of debating Dr. Paul, but I do get to debate a few of his (always) avid supporters. Here are a few observations:

• They assert that life would be better without the federal oversight, but they never provide any data to back up the contention. Their belief is based on a faith and hope, not data. This isn't unusual in politics, but Paul supporters tend to think of themselves as more intelligent, so pointing this out galls them.
• Since they don't have an answer when you point out that their politics are based on faith, they don't come back with any answer. The conversation is over. They probably move on to someone who won't ask any hard questions.
• There's a strong strain of nostalgia for times before the federal government got so large (either before the first federal income tax, before the New Deal, or before Teddy Roosevelt). I definitely have sympathy for this longing for a time when a brave person or family could go to the frontier and homestead without farming regulations, water regulations, estimated tax payments, housing standards, gun permits and waiting periods, etc. But getting rid of government won't bring back that period. We'd still be the more crowded country we are now.

Maybe this is the vision that draws such fierce support to Ron Paul--you wouldn't have various governments or other entities telling you what you have to do. You can drink raw milk. You can sell raw milk without being closed down. There's something good there. But how can we enable the good without opening the door to the ruinously bad?

Maybe you don't try to prevent the bad. You accept both the good and the bad that freedom and liberty bring. Maybe Ron Paul supporters shouldn't say it would be much better under these policies (more accurately, lack of policies), but it would be freer. That isn't the choice our society made before, but it's worth looking at our decisions again.

Coming to your street soon...

Update 10/19/11. Here's a highlight from the comments. Nick points out that that personal autonomy (ie., freedom) is the fundamental ideal for Paul. That prompted me to see him as a fundamentalist, which means he won't make decisions on a rationalist basis. He's also somewhat utopian, believing (or proclaiming) that a return to his view of constitutionalism will cure many of the problems in this country. In either case, he never acknowledges the possible drawbacks to his policies. Reality isn't allowed to impinge on his ideal world. It's really quite bizarre--how he'll call out the failures of others, but never think he or his firm beliefs could lead to any failures.

Throw the bums out

The problem with "throw the bums out" is that voters need an alternative. It's not unlike choosing a consumer good. If Brand A stinks, Brand B just got crappy, and there's no Brand C or D, you're kind of stuck. The '06 brand alternative was the Democratic House. The '08 alternative was Obama and an even more Democratic Congress. The '10 alternative was the Tea Party. Who is happy with those alternatives now?

I know the Ron Paul people think that he's the alternative this time, but I'm not buying it for a variety of reasons.

What I hope is that maybe, finally, we'll get some centrists back. Ideally, I'd like: fiscally realistic, wanting to gradually reduce the deficit starting now; socially modern; politically open to bipartisanship. I live in Massachusetts, and I've been happy with Scott Brown, probably for the same reasons the Tea Party consider him a turncoat.

I'd like to see centrists on both the Republican and Democratic sides and especially in the House. The Democrats may think the electorate will turn to them, but they also have a lot to apologize for, the first being their avoidance of the deficit issue.

Does anyone else think this is a possibility? If centrists aren't the alternative this time, I hate to think what-on-earth will be.

Ron Paul -- Missing in the Media

Poor Ron Paul, the perennial presidential candidate who gets good returns in some Republican caucuses, but never gets the "serious contender treatment."  He is emblematic of frustration of libertarians in this country. They can't make their voices heard, stagnating at 10% or so of the population.

Sure he deserves some mentions in the news. Maybe he doesn't get it because it's the same story every election. He polls OK in a large field, but he never cracks into a 2-way race. This happened in 1988, 2004, 2008, and now 2012. I don't totally blame the media for dozing off on this rerun candidacy, but it is their job to report. I honestly don't know why they don't report on him. So this post will be entirely speculation--nary a fact in sight.

If Jon Stewart is right, the mainstream media is lazy and sensational. Maybe that explains why they don't cover Ron Paul. When it comes to sensational, he has some out-there ideas (good for sensationalism), but they're the same ones every campaign, so the positions would be old news by now. Besides, a reporter would have to look up positions and think about how they would work or not work. That's too difficult for your average lazy reporter. Also, the vibe from Ron Paul is trouble. If you were to start questioning him on some of his policies, how they would be implemented, and their likely effects, you'd have to worry about being hacked by his tech-savvy cult.

What the US needs

It would be hard as a reporter to say a lot of good things about him because he's far out from the mainstream--against social security, medicare, the income tax. But what he stands for is even stranger--the faith that, with a tiny federal government, everything in this country will be better--no problem getting medical care, no problem reining in renegade businesses, cheats, and polluters, no inflation, no deficits. He believes that the US needs a total makeover.

Most of us would think long and hard before undertaking such an extensive makeover of, say, our house. Ron Paul and his supporters don't show any trepidation about redesigning the entire country, as though it's no big deal... we'll  survive the changes and be better for it, like a 12-mile mountain hike. Sorry, but I'm not one of your young, male, in-shape guys, so I'm not sure that I can survive your makeover of America. Maybe that's why your support stays stubbornly at around 10%--those are the people who feel they'll do better in your brave new world. For the rest of us, it's way too scary, and you're not doing a good job talking us into it.

For those Paul supporters who point to a poll showing strong support or a great caucus showing: yeah, I noticed. I noticed Paul wins when well organized enthusiasts can tip the balance, such as at CPAC, caucuses and online polls. I also noticed how poorly he does in a broader election, like a large-state primary. That makes Paul and his supporters look like marginal true-believers, not contestants in the real race. If he wants a place in the real race, he'll have to win more of the qualifiers, and he hasn't, yet again. I'm not holding my breath, and maybe the lazy media doesn't want to either.

Update 9/25/11 
To all the Ron Paul supporters who are reading this post, these are the most important words in this post: "... think about how [his policies] would work or not work." When I question how his policies would work in the real America,  and don't just accept his utopian vision, I conclude that most would lead to worse situations, not better.

Ron Paul fanatics need to start questioning, and not just accept the utopia. I'm sorry, because I know how beautiful and satisfying utopian dreams are. I really do. But this will not work. Start the hard work of questioning now. If you still conclude that he has the best policy solutions, you'll be better able to explain and defend those policies to others.

Cross of Gold

One of the best things about living in the U.S. is the abundance of economic and political ideas. This is a diverse society of both ethnic groups and ideas, and I wouldn't change either of those. So I won't attack the existence of loony ideas, just their particular merits and demerits. I won't even throw the label "loony idea" around since that would antithetical to my belief that most political ideas have strong reasons behind them.

With that in mind, maybe I shouldn't consider a return to the gold standard a loony idea. It's one of tenets of Ron Paul's long campaign to return the US to the straight-and-narrow of the constitution or die trying. But the drive to reestablish the gold standard is a poster child for the blindness of adherents to the disadvantages and risks of an idea.

Here are the highlights for the advantages of the gold standard:

• Paper currency has no intrinsic value because it isn't gold and isn't convertible to gold.
• Governments, politicians, and central banks often cause massive inflation of the currency.
• A gold standard makes it impossible for politicians or a central bank to inflate currency. The value of our national currency can stay stable for decades or longer.
• A gold standard forces the government to behave soundly, to avoid budget or trade deficits, in order to preserve the country's gold store.
• If there's a gold standard, we can return to using gold coins, which have intrinsic value in the precious metal.

Here are some risks and disadvantages:

• The gold-based currencies are subject to attack by currency speculators. That's why there are no longer any gold-based currencies.
• A gold-based currency doesn't necessarily stop governments from misbehaving. Governments have been known to run deficits and ended up bankrupting their precious metal reserves.
• The gold standard favors one kind of wealth over all others. Gains in non-gold wealth (agriculture, housing, infrastructure, a varied economy) are devalued unless there is also significant growth in gold holdings. That was possible during the mining boom in the 1800's, but not likely now.
• The inflexibility of the gold standard can lead to deflation, which has much worse economic effects than slight inflation rate of 1-2%.
• The history of financial panics in the 19th century doesn't support the idea that the gold standard promotes economic stability.

When I look at these two lists, the disadvantages clearly seem the weightier side of the equation. I don't know how someone supports the gold standard unless they completely ignore the mountain of evidence against it. When supporters embrace the policy as a magic cure to vagaries of financial systems, they look more like an unquestioning cult than a reasonable political movement. No, Paulites, the gold standard will not be our salvation from ourselves.

Update 6/12/23. Blogger flagged this post as having virus-infested links. I removed the links I thought were the most questionable. They were to a Lew Rockwell site.