Posted on 09/21/2007 8:51:19 AM PDT by traviskicks
The modern political era's reliance on focus group politics and blind party adherence makes it nice to see a fresh face or idea get batted around every once in a while. Particularly intriguing in today's already grueling campaign season is the clarion call of Ron Paul's simple libertarian constitutionalism. As anyone who has seen his supporters' rEVOLution (yes, that's LOVE backward) signs and graffiti around town can attest, Dr. Paul (an MD who makes liberal use of his title in his campaign literature) is finding quite a few listeners from all colors of the political spectrum.
His refusal to toe the Republican (and part of the "Democratic") party line that equates being "tough on terrorism" to military adventurism throughout the globe has won him quite a few converts and quite a bit more praise from some of the unlikeliest of places. In fact, the poll conducted by Fox News after the most recent Republican debate had 33 percent of respondents granting the victory to Dr. Paul. This came even after moderator Chris Mathews seemed to do everything he could to limit his participation in the debate. Though pundits were quick to credit Paul's rabid "blogospheric" following with bombarding the poll's results, the big thinking and soft talking Texas representative is making a noticeable splash in the stagnant waters of American politics.
Much of Ron Paul's popularity is due to his unwillingness to deal in political buzzwords and jargon, and his most popular positions are a refreshing appeal to America's common sense. But unfortunately, like so many things in today's attention deficient world, it is too easy to make a snap judgment of Dr. Paul based on his sound bites and YouTube clips. For all of their intellectual appeal, there are real reasons why Libertarians have uniformly been hapless also-rans in every important election (Dr. Paul was their presidential candidate in 1988, commanding a whopping 0.47 percent of the popular vote), and most of these flaws can be recognized in a perusal of Dr. Paul's campaign promises.
The dismantling of America's regulatory system and the dramatic decrease in our government's bureaucracy, Paul proposes, would be an unmitigated disaster up and down the line. The tragic collapse in July of a Minnesota bridge and its subsequent investigation proved that many areas of America require more oversight and funding, not less. The lacking services of vitally important federal agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency or consumer protections, reflect their neglected fate as little scraps of the federal budget. And though there is no doubt that every branch of the government's immense bureaucratic structure is in need of better efficiency and reform, Dr. Paul's argument that regulations and investigations put a damper on corporate profit and freedom do not hold up to any sort of scrutiny. Were it not for the few safeguards put in place to monitor the amount of pollutants in our drinking water or mercury in our Barbie dolls, you could be sure that we would learn quickly that one cannot rely on the goodness of corporate hearts to self-police their own interests.
In a policy that few besides your Ayn Rand Institute types could love, Ron Paul would have us repeg America's currency to the price of gold, economic thinking that was born in the "balance of wealth" days of kings and conquistadors. The Gold Standard theory, one that few economists endorse, could only work if every individual had a perfect knowledge of every aspect of the world economy at any given moment. Unfortunately, not even the Olympian minds of Ben Bernanke or Alan Greenspan could possibly hope to achieve this, and thus the consumer must continue to trust that the men whose job it is to monitor the state of the economy perform to the best of their ability.
And lastly, most every Republican and Democrat knows, even if it is deep in their heart of hearts, that Ron Paul's promise to abolish the IRS on the first day of his taking office is preposterous. Though it breaks my aching liberal heart to say it, America's military superiority, and subsequently the defense of the Constitution and the liberty that we all love (and for which Dr. Paul is a true champion), can no longer be funded by import duties and excise taxes as it was in the days of Franklin and Jefferson.
Though everyone dreads the inevitable appearance of the tax man every April, it is an unfortunate essential in our national security, safety and sovereignty. If money is the "life-blood" of man's existence, as Mrs. Rand's hero of "Atlas Shrugged" grandly proclaims, then how do we dare to cut out the heart of the defender of Freedom. And if it is our "social barometer," how can we institute policy that unduly punishes, by the law of diminishing returns, the nation's neediest citizens. The freedom from hunger and fear that Franklin Delano Roosevelt once promised to the American people is just as important as the freedom to make a buck.
America is better for having Ron Paul in the thick of its political fray. He is a man of intelligence and vision in a crowd of pretty faces and speeches. The geek may not get the girl in the end, but he can teach a thing or two to the jock. Here's hoping that the thorn in the side of the America's political establishment does a lot more damage before he's through.
lol, another liberal undergoing cognitive dissonance.
ping
I had a feeling this was written by a college student.
More Ron Paul spam?
I thought Jim Robinson called for an end to that last night.
Maybe what we should do here is........instead of allowing the Republican and Democratic party pick who we will vote for is have the candidate from both parties, the top three, have a debate. All of them on the same stage, answering the same questions. Make it a three hour debate. Let them get tired debating and you will see different answers. Let them each push their hot buttons by answering serious questions.
“Don’t taze me, bro!”
eh? You’re not buying into ‘End Times Crusader’s’ blacklist of Paul supporters in preparation for the mass banning are you? :)
“The tragic collapse in July of a Minnesota bridge and its subsequent investigation proved that many areas of America require more oversight and funding, not less.”
Events like this would just go from being Bush’s fault to Paul’s fault.
“More Ron Paul spam?”
Ok. Overlook the rest of the article. What are your thoughts on the second paragraph from the end?
‘The geek may not get the girl in the end, but he can teach a thing or two to the jock.’
Indeed, like how to get Stormfront’s total support according to polling data out of Oregon noted today in the forum.
“More Ron Paul spam?
I thought Jim Robinson called for an end to that last night.”
counterpunch: I think there is some FR rule that you should copy those you are talking about.
Well said.
eh? You’re not buying into ‘End Times Crusader’s’ blacklist of Paul supporters in preparation for the mass banning are you? :)No, I'm talking about this post here:
Not a Ron Paul fan by any means, but the "geek" DID get the girl and has been married 50 years, with children and grandchildren. Not bad at all. I don't want him as president or even as a nominee but he has been a good congressman and a good citizen, my profound disagreements on defense notwithstanding.
The dissonance here are these two lines of the article. First, the writer opines:
The dismantling of America's regulatory system and the dramatic decrease in our government's bureaucracy, Paul proposes, would be an unmitigated disaster up and down the line
Then, he writes:
Though it breaks my aching liberal heart to say it, America's military superiority, and subsequently the defense of the Constitution and the liberty that we all love (and for which Dr. Paul is a true champion), can no longer be funded by import duties and excise taxes as it was in the days of Franklin and Jefferson
Now...I know is shocks people who've never read the Constitution or the Federalist before...but that federal regulatory system...the dismantling of which the writer believes would be an unmitigated disaster...nearly all of it (maybe all of it)...was put into place without any Constitutional authority. Any President truly interested in defending the Constitution and liberty would begin dismantling the entire federal regulatory system the moment he took office
I think Ron Paul has a place in congress, and I’ve always said so. We need gadflies, to use the image employed by Socrates to describe his function in Athens.
Gadflies serve an important purpose, but they don’t make good presidents.
It only took 13 words for the author to tell me he's an idiot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.