Ron Paul's sticky revolution

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.

‘If RP is such a loon, why don’t his detractors make rational arguments against his positions? ‘

I’ve done so repeatedly here in the forum. If I ask a basic question, as I did yesterday, about who he voted for in 2000, and 2004 his ‘supporters’ claim its none of my business, its private balloting, etc etc etc. Just one example.

Ask about his claim we brought on the attack on 9/11 because of one recently concluded decade of policy, and you get back ‘thats not what he said’ even though we all heard him say it, heard him defend it against the comments by two other candidates, and have the entire exchange from the transcript here in the forum multiple times.

Apparently the defense for that one is ‘don’t believe your own eyes and ears, we are telling you what he actually said....”

Ask about his shrimp earmark, and how to file that one in line with his claims about Federal Spending and the Constitution, and you get back ‘thats not what he did’ even though AGAIN, we have the budget, we have the earmark, and we see what he did. ‘don’t believe your own eyes and ears, we are tellnig you what he actually did....’

Ask why he doesn’t mention on his own website he was the Libertarian Candidate in 1988...and we get another variation of the same ‘Paulspeak’ I’ve detailed twice in the previous paragraphs.

Ask how it is every other Conservative under the sun understood clearly the difference between Gore and Bush in 2000...we get more ‘Paulspeak’ and a reminder its none of our business who he voted for in that race....which you might recall was the closest election in US history.

Ask how it is every other Conservative under the sun understood clearly the difference between Kerry and Bush...again, more ‘Paulspeak’ and another reminder who he votes for is ‘none of our business’.

I’m not so much annoyed by his ‘positions’ as I am by his ACTIONS, and the lack of explanation. He, and his supporters, choose to play a highhanded game, exuding arrogance about being ‘true Conservatives’ and oh so pure as driven snow...yet we have the earmarks, we have a weird disconnect on the merits of Bush v Gore, or Bush v Kerry.

If he can’t answer simple questions about his own voting record and track record supporting his ‘alleged’ political party in national election cycles....why on earth should anyone think he can deal with international entites that want to kill us because of a difference of religious viewpoint?

I ask these questions you say should be asked, and now you know what I’ve gotten back so far. IN my opinion.

The fact of the matter is Ron Paul wants the GOP ‘base’ to support his nomination, but continues to act offended when that base he desires dares to ask him basic questions.

Thats just stupid politics on the national level. He’s had an opening, the best one he’ll ever realize in his life to be blunt, and his own arrogance and bizzaro world view brought it to a screeching halt three months ago.

Hope tha answers your question....now I have one for you. One I’ve asked Paul supporters a few times here in the forum.

When he runs as a third party candidate, will you vote for him?

If it makes it easier, I’ll offer up another variation of the same question;

If he does run as a third party candidate, will you vote for him?

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.