The Pauls are basically grandstanders. They'll adopt any pseudo-libertarian position that they think makes a good soundbite. They record will show that they haven't actually done much of legislative consequence. Anyone who takes them at face value based on the soundbites IMO needs to develop more of a sense of cynicism when assessing politics.
Ron Paul specifically had been talking for what, 20 years about auditing the federal reserve more than they were allowed. They finally got something through under someone else's name, but the victory was his.
The reason is that Ron Paul and his like cannot push through something on his own. The entrenched interests are way too powerful.
> You are confusing popularity with effectiveness.
No, I am saying this ineffectiveness is motivated by lack of genuine interest. They're just opportunists, no better than any other.
His son is even more blatant about this, showing up at the last minute with tough questions when something is in the headlines, but not showing any signs of prior interest or following through. It gets him quoted in the news a lot, and a lot of support from people who aren't paying attention.
They are very willing to fall totally in line with the entrenched interests you mention. That they happen to be allowed token protest votes on stuff that won't be in serious danger is incidental.
That and... I guess being pro-life is a big libertarian position?
The Pauls are basically grandstanders. They'll adopt any pseudo-libertarian position that they think makes a good soundbite. They record will show that they haven't actually done much of legislative consequence. Anyone who takes them at face value based on the soundbites IMO needs to develop more of a sense of cynicism when assessing politics.