Batman-Chronicles-11-Pg18Yikes! Never saw that one coming.
Presidential candidate Ron Paul picks his super-hero favorite at ComicMix:

“My favorite comic book superhero is Baruch Wane, otherwise known as Batman, in The Batman Chronicles. “The Berlin Batman,” #11 in the series by Paul Pope, details Batman’s attempts to rescue the confiscated works of persecuted Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises, from Nazi Party hands. “


  1. Human Action, Mises’s magnum opus, contains a ringing attack on Nazism. In fact, Mises claims that the Nazi concept of Volkswirtschaft represents the purest ideological manifestation of socialism.

  2. Of course it does, sweetie; whatever helps you sleep at night.

    Batshit free-marketeer politico digs batshit free-marketeer cartoonist: Where’s the story here? I’m just surprised that Ron didn’t opt for BATMAN: YEAR 100, where PeePee really laid on the libertarian craziness.

  3. Yeah, I’m not too surprised the wingnut “libertarian” likes any incarnation of Batman. He’s the self made man who defies authoritarian regulation. He’s just playing to his base of easily impressed internet nerds with vigilante fantasies. If he was openly into Black Panther or Green Arrow, then we’d have a story.

  4. I find that wingnuts are highly useful. They allow you to tighten down bolts without having to use a wrench.

    Oh, did I miss something?

  5. Well, Ron Paul is pretty much the only guy in the Republican debates that makes sense, but I’m not a big fan. Not really a fan of anyone on either side, but I’d kind of like to see John Edwards do something. Maybe he reads Spider-man. Poor high school nerd who has to support his family with a part time job and goes on to become a success.

  6. Indeed. Ron Paul voted against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. Yeah, I can see how people confuse him with Nazis, crazies, and wingnuts. *rolleyes* Or do we simply name-call anyone with whom we disagree?

  7. Ron Paul also opposes the separation of church and state, believes our “Christian nation” to be under attack by “anti-religious elites,” and wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, repeal affirmative action, abolish OSHA, abolish protections for gays and lesbians, pull the US out of the United Nations, roll back environmental legislation… and that’s the tip of the iceberg.

    There are sane, well-reasoned arguments for a smaller, less-intrusive government: but Ron Paul is not making them. Given his Christianist leanings, I wouldn’t even class him as a genuine libertarian, but rather as a classic right-wing demagogue, squarely in the pocket of big business and the paranoid fringe. Being right on a couple of civil-liberties issues doesn’t make the guy any less of a whackjob—all it proves is that politics makes for strange bedfellows.

    As for Pope—I mean, did you read BATMAN: YEAR 100?!?

  8. You did well in your first paragraph to explain policies with which you disagree (though not all are Ron Paul’s policies). :) Too bad you reverted to name-calling in paragraph two. :(

  9. For the sake of clarity, I’ll note that I’m an atheist/skeptic/libertarian. There are better libertarians than Ron Paul, but I like his policies and voting record better than any other Democrat or Republican candidate. This is not a forum for discussing political philosophy; I’m merely suggesting that the political landscape would be much improved by more policy discussions and fewer ad hominems.

  10. Well, on the one hand, there has indeed been a secularizing trend in the public domain, especially in the big cities, over the past few decades. It’s probably more noticeable to people over 30. Being a sort of paganish atheist myself, I don’t see this as a bad thing, but I can understand how devout Christians would be upset about it.

    OTOH, Paul is completely wrong in declaring that “The Declaration and Constitution are replete with references to God…” The Declaration has exactly one reference: “endowed by their Creator” which could be interpreted a variety of ways; and there is no reference to any deity in the Constitution at all.

  11. You claimed that he wants to “abolish protections for gays and lesbians.” A true libertarian believes in equal protection for all individuals, not in “special” protection for certain groups. Can you provide a direct link showing he wants fewer rights for certain individuals? The only argument given in your first link is that he originally sponsored a bill in favor of leaving the definition of marriage up to the states (I am against this BTW, since I’m in favor of separation of marriage and state).

    That link is written by a self-described liberal Democrat’s (it’s not name-calling if the person names herself) statements against libertarianism in general, of the sort with inflammatory rhetoric (“disastrous,” “irreparable damage,” “unnatural obsession, “butcher”) but no actual proof against libertarian arguments.

    The second link correctly complains about those who think they have a right not to be offended, and those who think “separation of church and state” is in the Constitution. Much of what Ron Paul writes here is true, though “war on religion” is obvious hyperbole.

    His views on abortion, with which I disagree, are understandable considering he is a medical doctor who has delivered babies.

    I’ve seen nothing to convince me that Ron Paul is anything but what I already believed him to be— a mix of religious conservativism (yuck!) and libertarianism (yay!). You’re free to call him “off his rocker” of course, it only makes others less likely to thoughtfully consider your point of view.

    I agree with all of Scott Bieser’s post.

    *Apologies to Heidi for the non-comics discussion*

  12. His views on abortion, with which I disagree, are understandable considering he is a medical doctor who has delivered babies.

    …Okay, I’m done here.

  13. His views on abortion are based on his belief that a fetus is a human life. His belief is understandable, given that he is a doctor who has delivered babies. I can understand his belief and still disagree with his proposed legislation– based on my belief that overturning Roe v. Wade would return to the days of back-alley abortions.

    My apologies for skipping a step in this explanation earlier. Good evening to you, sir. :)

  14. Just to clarify. It’s not that I didn’t understand your comment on the source of Paul’s beliefs; it’s that your comment indicates to me that it’s going to take a lot of work to get this conversation to a point where we can even frame the issues in a way that makes them mutually comprehensible.

    I’m not opposed to continuing the public conversation, but—as you say—not here. If you’ve got a webpage or some manner of electronic shouting post, I’d be happy to engage you in a blogalogue. If you’re so inclined, follow the link to my blogspot page, scroll down the left-hand column, and click on my ugly mug to shoot me an e-mail.