Why a Young Conservative Supports Ron Paul

Ron PaulEver since Congressman Ron Paul has risen in the polls among the Republican presidential candidates – culminating in a third place finish in the Iowa Caucus and second place in the New Hampshire Caucus – there has been a lot written about him and his political stances.

Even among those whom I speak to about it, I’ve noticed a consistent pattern of bemusement over the reason for Ron Paul’s popularity, specifically with young conservatives.

I don’t expect to convert many peoples’ political beliefs, but I would like to attempt to explain why young conservatives like myself support Ron Paul’s presidential campaign in the hopes that there might be better understanding of our perspective.

I am twenty four years old. For the record, I don’t believe in conspiracies involving the Illuminati or the Free Masons, nor do I believe Zionists caused the September 11 attacks. I don’t have a Confederate flag hanging on my wall, nor do I listen to Alex Jones’ radio show. As a staunch pro-life advocate and Christian, I also do not believe in Ayn Rand’s atheistic, pro-choice philosophy, Objectivism.

I say without any exaggeration that our current government has strayed so far from the Constitutional republic as originally conceived by the Founding Fathers that drastic changes must be made if we are to restore it. I am tired of milquetoast, counterfeit conservatives running for public office under the pretense of fighting for limited government, lower taxes, and individual liberty, only to go to Washington and support deficit spending, increase the size of government bureaucracies such as the Department of Education, and pass legislation which erode our civil liberties under the guise of national security.â

More than ever, we need politicians who practice what they preach, whose lives reflect the integrity they claim to promote.

After election after election of hearing candidates talk about solving these problems yet providing no results, we need leaders whose actions speak far more eloquently than any words they may try to use to placate us.

As a young person who has worked hard to be fiscally responsible and debt-free, I am disgusted with how Republicans and Democrats have both contributed to a $15 trillion national debt in addition to trillions in unfunded entitlements, which people like myself will have to suffer the consequences for when those congressmen are dead and buried.

It infuriates me how those who have made poor choices in life think they can pass the bill for it onto taxpayers.

I am enraged every time I hear someone tell me how my liberties found within the Bill of Rights only exist if a lawyer or a group of nine people in black robes say they do.

I don’t believe our country is being torn apart because of hate and intolerance. I believe our country is being torn apart because we have accepted a mentality where every single issue pertaining to our lives, from the food we put on our table to how we seek medical treatment, must be decided by a small group of elitists to whom the rules do not apply. It is only natural, then, that it becomes of a struggle over who is going to oppress who.

If there is a division in our nation, it is between two peoples; those who rely on the government and those whom the government relies on, the consumers and the producers.

While I believe the Iranian government is tyrannical and depraved, my greatest fear does not involve them possessing a nuclear weapon. My passion for history has taught me that before a country can be destroyed externally, it first must destroy itself internally. My greatest fear is one day having children whom I will have no freedom to raise according to my beliefs, traditions, or religion.

I am convinced that, with the current trend, the government will have total oversight and control over everything we do before my generation has passed.

I believe now, more than ever, we need elected officials who will stand for the rule of law, who acknowledge that they do not have the authority to do whatever they want, and who will not compromise their values or beliefs in the Washington cesspool of corruption. We need forthright people who will speak honestly, even if it means they endure severe criticism and derision for it.

We need people who will stand by their convictions rather than, as the Psalmist put it, “sit in the seat of mockers.”

Lastly, we need candidates who, if elected, will fight unceasingly for the ideals which got them elected in the first place.

I sincerely believe Ron Paul is such a person, which is why I am supporting him for president.

His record matches his words; his thirty year career in politics is one of consistency and fidelity to the Constitution. When he is asked about his views, he is plain-spoken and direct. He does not try to beguile both sides of the fence in order to win votes. And when he says he will do something, like cut $1 trillion in Federal spending, I take him at his word.

I do not, however, worship him as I saw many literally do of Barack Obama in 2008. I am guided by my principles, not people. Should Ron Paul one day forsake them, I will no longer support him. I don’t agree with him on everything, including some of his foreign policy. But I know that under his presidency, my freedoms would be protected, and I would rather be free than safe from harm.

Ultimately, this is why young conservatives like myself support him.

This article was originally published Jan. 10, 2012 on the American Thinker and can be found here.

Powered By DT Author Box

Written by TJ

Related posts:


  1. I used to have strong libertarian leanings but then I realized that I had taken for granted rules, laws and regulations that help protect us. No system is perfect, however, we need a construct in place. “Throwing the baby out with the bath water” can so easily be done. This is why I’m a moderate independent.


    • It truly depends on what kind of regulation. Very often the free market takes care of many problems which government feels the need to interfere in. And too often regulations are in place not to protect citizens, but to protect existing businesses from competition. A business license is one of them. This is also how little girls’ lemonade stands are shut down by police because they don’t have food handling permits.

      Here are some great videos the Institute for Justice has made on unnecessary regulations.


      I’m not an economic anarchist where there are no rules and it’s every man for himself. There needs to be a construct. There need to be rules, but at the moment I feel like we’re suffering from far too many restrictions that aren’t doing the job they’re supposed to.

      • A “voluntary society” is a utopian dream. We need laws to help guide us. Picking one admittedly stupid incident of a lemonade stand is not a very good example and doesn’t prove much.

        I invite one to visit certain parts of Mexico to experience “law-less-ness” first hand.

        For example: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-13/health/bottled.water.safety_1_bottled-water-bottled-brands-water-suppliers?_s=PM:HEALTH

        Here’s another fine example of regulation (or lack thereof): http://www.propublica.org/article/freddy-mac-mortgage-eisinger-arnold

        • Brian,

          I strongly believe we don’t need laws to guide us inasmuch as we need laws to enforce practical measures. The United States passed Prohibition in 1919 to guide people away from alcoholism, but it merely gave way to violence and corruption within cities, as powerful gangsters such as Al Capone were able to bribe and threaten municipal governments into complying with their demands. Only after Prohibition was removed and practical liquor regulations were put in place did they lose their power and corruption decreased. Now we have reasonable liquor laws.

          I do not advocate what you refer to as “voluntary society” (not sure if you’re referring to me or the other comment by that) anywhere in my column and I’m not certain what that means precisely. I am a paleo-conservative, not a libertarian.

          Like I said before, there need to be laws, but not ones which cost American businesses $1.75 trillion annually (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/05/31/Crazy-Federal-Rules-Cost-Business-175T-a-Year.aspx#page1).

          The unclean bottled water is not an issue that pertains to business regulations but the regulation of foreign imports, much like the Chinese toys with lead in them. Regulating what comes into this country is perfectly fine because it is a part of our national security. We need to know what is entering our borders.

          If you are referring to what goes on inside the country, tourists who go to Africa can only drink soda and beer made by international companies because unlike the water they have quality standards, so the problem isn’t regulations.

          I actually have been to the less touristy places in Mexico as part of a humanitarian effort, and what I saw was a lot of corruption and instability. Like so many Third World countries, the government only enforce the laws when they’re paid to do so by the highest bidder. Business regulations aren’t necessarily related to the stability of a government.

          Hong Kong, on the other hand, is a great example of a system with a good balance between necessary regulations and free market economy. As a result, its financial and economic competitiveness and quality of life are all highly ranked. It capitalistic model has been so successful that even the communist regime in Bejing has allowed it to continue without intervention.


          As for Freddic Mac, the whole reason they and Fannie Mae were giving out sub-prime mortgages in the first place was due to pressure from the Federal government in order to push for “affordable housing.” The entire housing market crash wasn’t due to a lack of regulations but as a result of government manipulation of housing prices by allowing too many people to buy a home who had no ability to ever pay off their loan, thereby creating artificial prices which did not reflect the true value of the homes. Sooner or later the housing prices have to revert to their true value.

          Senator Chris Dodd was the chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs during the housing crisis in 2007. He also co-sponsored the Frank-Dodd Wall Street Reform Act that introduced new regulations for financial institutions.

          He was also the politician whom Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae made the highest financial contributions to from 1989-2008.


  2. Excellent post. Re: the poster above, the laws, regulations and rules that protect us actually are better at protecting the state and the privileged interests. I do believe that we need a construct in place, but I also believe that the nexus of voluntary human interaction is a better means of achieving the right constructs, rather than the system that we have today. THAT is why I believe in a voluntary society. I will take a voluntary social order over illegitimate coercion anytime.

    Besides, most of the good rules, laws and regulations were not imposed top down, but were simply codified on top of what was already common sense or what fit within common morality. One does not have to be a statist to see that dumping crap in rivers is wrong… just the same as one can be a statist and still dump plenty of crap in rivers, and pass the regulations that allow some to get away with it.

  3. It’s funny, if not pathetic, how people claim they’re sick of politics as usual yet support the status quo time and again. Barack Obama adopted “Change” as a slogan, though not as a philosophy. Yet his administration follows (as a Romney one or a Gingrich one would) the same path of statism and restraint of liberties that presidents have been following since Coolidge left office.

    Authentic change, like the kind Paul talks about (the presidential candidate, not the apostle) should have more devotees than it does. But when an electorate that listens to LMFAO and watches the Kardashians is entrusted with selecting its chief executive, how do you explain to them the concept of a government restrained by its people (and not the other way around)?

    It’s refreshing that the people who do support Paul skew young and military. As a 43-year old longhair with a penchant for loud music and a disdain for neckties, I identify far more with the 76-year old running for president than I do with his younger opponents or with the hip, cosmopolitan dude in the White House. Paul explains his popularity among more recent generations by saying, “My ideas are young. In fact, they’re timeless.”

    What does the average voter make of a strict Constitutionalist who won’t make promises that economics can’t keep? Paul doesn’t pander, he doesn’t believe freedom should be compromised, and he won’t give stock answers (“better America for our children and our future”, et al.) In the recent debate in Florida, some Hispanic chick asked the candidates to name Hispanic Republicans whom they’d put in their cabinet if elected. I can’t remember Paul’s response verbatim, but instead of treating the question as a pop quiz (How many Hispanic Republicans you can name in 30 seconds?) he said, “Maybe none. Depends who’s qualified for the job.”

    I love how Paul is the “crazy” candidate, yet in that same debate, Gingrich took seriously a question about a manned mission to Mars. Meanwhile, Romney has been spending months explaining how socialized medicine isn’t really socialized medicine. But Paul is the nut.

    Unfortunately, appearances are everything. And a short old guy with funny eyebrows has an uphill battle against a Greek god like Romney, regardless of what comes out of their mouths.

    Fewer laws. Greater enforcement.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this:
Read previous post:
inexpensive date
The Legend of the Three Magic Spells for an Inexpensive Date

Once upon a time, in a land far, far away from here, there was a young man who lived an...