What the elder bunch have done, though, is studied the Constitution before many of the latter-day invented-on-the-bench "rights" appeared between the lines the Founders wrote there.
What they don't see is why a soverign state cannot declare the same right to associate or not with other soverign States--especially when the representation of the State as an entity was effectively removed by the 17th Amendment.
They take a dim view of folks who live in the land of the great sidewalk handing down edicts with the full force of law and backing if need be of the United States Military or other armed Federal Forces, of which there are many in increasing number--from thousands of miles away, when at best these selfsame people have seen their state from 27,000 ft. as they flew over, and have never, even in their wildest imaginings, experienced thirty below weather.
They thought 9/11 was a tragedy, and that the government screwed up by letting its intelligence agencies be corralled and not interacting. That was Clinton, not Bush, despite when the attack happened. They were pissed off about it, but wonder why we've spent ten years with their neighbors sons (or most of them) coming home, some in a box, from fighting for people who will go back to their old brutal ways when we leave.
Now, maybe it'll work that way, maybe not, but they wonder.
And yes, they'll buy those young men a beer proudly down at the Legoin Club or the VFW, because they've been there, too, just in a different place and time.
The root of our foreign policy problems is much the same as a guy on payday flashing a roll of money in a bar. He'll have lots of friends until the money runs out.
We've been setting the drinks up for the world, and our bar tab is due. We'll see how many friends we have when the last shot is poured.
Old farmers believe in a fair fight, and figure the rest of the world does, too. Until Iran puts a nuke on the end of a missile or tests a warhead, they can claim it was all "for peaceful purposes". If they have a weapon, they aren't unarmed, and we're free to draw down on them. If you don't get that, I can't help you.
Ronald Reagan did well with the economy, but a service economy can only go so far. As one fellow put it, you can't all make a living scrubbing each other's toilets.
Creating wealth is the key, taking raw materials and making finished products.
As much as I admire Reagan, the border remains open.
Do they think Heroin should be legalized?
Did their wife get morphine in her IV when she went in for the angiogram?
Where in the Constitution is the Federal Government empowered to regulate what anyone willingly puts in their own body?
If you are talking about old farmers, you'll be hard put to find a more independant lot. They've survived, even thrived by their own ingenuity and the sweat of their brow. They willingly put in 18 hour days, year round, because that is what they do. They feed a goodly portion of the world, and they don't need the nanny state, Federal Regulators, or other BS to do it. They believe the government which governs best governs least.
In that sense, they are libertarian leaning, what in Jefferson's day would have been a Liberal, althought the meaning of that has been since corrupted.
Now, if you put that snapshot together, you might see why they would support someone who would call for sweeping reductions in the scope and size of Government. --And don't ask them to show up at the rally, it's planting/harvest season--the work never ends, and you make hay when the sun shines.
But they will take a night off and go vote. After all, it's their duty.
Quite an eloquent post. I am sure you have a contingent of farmers in your neck of the woods that are as you describe. Your original question was on where Paul gets his support. Old farmers are not in the demographic. In the last two election cycles, he has siphoned off college age kids with Rat leanings to work the streets. They are the folks hooting and hollering at the debates like children when Paul so much as sneezes. They are the ones who flood the internet polls with votes for him. They flooded a radio station with Paulite questions for Perry this morning. They are why a guy who stagnates in the polls appears well supported. As you said, your friends are not activists. They work for a living.
I live in the sticks. If the wind turns around, I can smell cow s#!t from the dairy down the road and a mile in the other direction is a pig farm so we smell that. The farmers I chat with are straight up businessmen looking to see the economy turned around. There is little talk of Ron Paul except for comedy purposes. I rarely see Ron Paul stuff anywhere in PA.
I agree that the world is a mess and the country needs a sharp turn around. I just do not subscribe to Libertarian doctrine to save it. I want no part of the whole Ron Paul experience. If the ideology was so forward thinking and a winner in American politics, wouldn’t there be at least a few elected Libertarians? Instead Paul has to use the GOP as a platform and than shoehorn himself into the Tea Party. If Libertarianism was going anywhere, Paul would run under his true banner.
I appreciate your point of view on this, but I am a Conservative and will remain one. I will also do my best to enlighten people on the outright un-American ideals that Paul holds. Some were cited in my last post.
Regards