Over the holiday break I decided to become politically active for the first time in my life. Who do I support? Ron Paul. Let me explain why.
First, he is the only candidate I trust. He has as much integrity as Jed Bartlet. John McCain has called Ron Paul "the most honest man in Congress". Ron says what he believes rather than what people want to hear. He doesn't treat voters like children. He says and does what he thinks is best for the country, not for himself. He supported his children during their undergraduate and medical school years, preventing their participation in federal student loans because the program was taxpayer-subsidized. He rejected a Congressional pension for the same reason, and even proposed a pay cut for Congressmen (i.e. himself). He declined to attend junkets or register for a Congressional pension. His medical practice refused Medicare and Medicaid payments; he worked pro bono, arranged discounted or custom-payment plans for needy patients, or otherwise "just took care of them".
Second, I like most of his platform and voting record. He voted against the Iraq War resolution. He has never voted to approve a deficit budget. He wants to abolish individual income tax. (Absurd, you say? Actually, it would only require scaling back the federal budget to its 2000 spending levels.) He favors allowing workers to opt out of Social Security. He opposes the "Patriot" Act. He understands that the reason the U.S. has more enemies and fewer friends than ever before is not that everyone else is jealous of our freedom.
Third (and most importantly), he is the only candidate who could really change the system. He understands that the federal government is a bloated, ravenous monster that devours everything in its domain, causes problems rather than solving them, and gets bigger, less efficient, and more destructive with every passing decade. Personally I would estimate that the value the government provides me is about 5% of what I involuntarily pay it for those services. (If you haven't done this type of calculation yourself, I encourage you to. Be sure to include everything you pay: income tax, payroll tax, sales tax, capital gains tax, property tax, gas tax, the hidden tax of inflation, etc etc.) It's time to starve the beast, and Ron Paul is the only candidate willing to do it. All candidates talk about change, but once they're elected we just get more of the same. As I watched the presidential debates, the other candidates reminded me of a debate in one episode of Futurama:
John Jackson: "It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: I'm against those things that everybody hates."
Jack Johnson: "Now, I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man. But quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said."
John Jackson: "I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far."
Jack Johnson: "And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough."
A vote for anyone else is a vote for The System. The two parties appear to have very different platforms, but the perceived differences are exaggerated by the fact that they only discuss the 10% they disagree on; the other 90% doesn't get discussed until a candidate like Ron Paul questions the hidden assumptions and puts everything back on the table. This country is going in the wrong direction, and if all we do is hire new people for the same old positions, things will keep getting worse.
Having said all that, I'm not going to pull a Trevor Lyman or Vijay Boyapati and quit my job to join his campaign. Ron Paul is not my ideal candidate. There are certain parts of his platform I don't agree with; for example, I think his strict non-interventionism is overly simplistic in a world with genocide and increasingly loose nukes. More troubling (at least for me), he has said that he doesn't "accept" evolution. (I think his word choice is interesting, essentially implying a desire to not think about something one knows is true rather than genuinely believing that it's false.) He also said he doesn't think that (dis)belief in evolution is an important consideration in one's choice of president, and that it's a "theological debate". Given the extent to which religion affects policy in this country, I disagree. We have seen that a president who is willing to ignore overwhelming evidence because it doesn't match his current belief system can get our country into serious trouble. I am a lover of truth, which is why I like the rest of his platform so much, but also why find this particular (dis)belief so troubling.
I don't think Ron Paul has a realistic chance of winning the Republican nomination, or winning the presidency as a third-party candidate (although I hope I'm wrong). But if enough people support Ron Paul and his movement, we can send a message to future politicians: our lives and our wallets belong to ourselves, not to the government, and if you agree, we'll elect you. My hope is that passion of the hundreds of thousands of fervent Ron Paul supporters will outlive this election and will enable the libertarian party to be a real force in the coming years. Hopefully some of the people carrying "Ron Paul Cured My Apathy" signs at his rallies will decide to seek public office themselves. I'm fairly certain I'll never be a politician (I would find it exceedingly frustrating), but I do intend to contribute to the cause in other ways.
Learn more about Ron Paul:
PBS NewsHour interview
John Stossel interview
monetary policy
quotes
his official site
his writing
videos
First, he is the only candidate I trust. He has as much integrity as Jed Bartlet. John McCain has called Ron Paul "the most honest man in Congress". Ron says what he believes rather than what people want to hear. He doesn't treat voters like children. He says and does what he thinks is best for the country, not for himself. He supported his children during their undergraduate and medical school years, preventing their participation in federal student loans because the program was taxpayer-subsidized. He rejected a Congressional pension for the same reason, and even proposed a pay cut for Congressmen (i.e. himself). He declined to attend junkets or register for a Congressional pension. His medical practice refused Medicare and Medicaid payments; he worked pro bono, arranged discounted or custom-payment plans for needy patients, or otherwise "just took care of them".
Second, I like most of his platform and voting record. He voted against the Iraq War resolution. He has never voted to approve a deficit budget. He wants to abolish individual income tax. (Absurd, you say? Actually, it would only require scaling back the federal budget to its 2000 spending levels.) He favors allowing workers to opt out of Social Security. He opposes the "Patriot" Act. He understands that the reason the U.S. has more enemies and fewer friends than ever before is not that everyone else is jealous of our freedom.
Third (and most importantly), he is the only candidate who could really change the system. He understands that the federal government is a bloated, ravenous monster that devours everything in its domain, causes problems rather than solving them, and gets bigger, less efficient, and more destructive with every passing decade. Personally I would estimate that the value the government provides me is about 5% of what I involuntarily pay it for those services. (If you haven't done this type of calculation yourself, I encourage you to. Be sure to include everything you pay: income tax, payroll tax, sales tax, capital gains tax, property tax, gas tax, the hidden tax of inflation, etc etc.) It's time to starve the beast, and Ron Paul is the only candidate willing to do it. All candidates talk about change, but once they're elected we just get more of the same. As I watched the presidential debates, the other candidates reminded me of a debate in one episode of Futurama:
John Jackson: "It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: I'm against those things that everybody hates."
Jack Johnson: "Now, I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man. But quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said."
John Jackson: "I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far."
Jack Johnson: "And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough."
A vote for anyone else is a vote for The System. The two parties appear to have very different platforms, but the perceived differences are exaggerated by the fact that they only discuss the 10% they disagree on; the other 90% doesn't get discussed until a candidate like Ron Paul questions the hidden assumptions and puts everything back on the table. This country is going in the wrong direction, and if all we do is hire new people for the same old positions, things will keep getting worse.
Having said all that, I'm not going to pull a Trevor Lyman or Vijay Boyapati and quit my job to join his campaign. Ron Paul is not my ideal candidate. There are certain parts of his platform I don't agree with; for example, I think his strict non-interventionism is overly simplistic in a world with genocide and increasingly loose nukes. More troubling (at least for me), he has said that he doesn't "accept" evolution. (I think his word choice is interesting, essentially implying a desire to not think about something one knows is true rather than genuinely believing that it's false.) He also said he doesn't think that (dis)belief in evolution is an important consideration in one's choice of president, and that it's a "theological debate". Given the extent to which religion affects policy in this country, I disagree. We have seen that a president who is willing to ignore overwhelming evidence because it doesn't match his current belief system can get our country into serious trouble. I am a lover of truth, which is why I like the rest of his platform so much, but also why find this particular (dis)belief so troubling.
I don't think Ron Paul has a realistic chance of winning the Republican nomination, or winning the presidency as a third-party candidate (although I hope I'm wrong). But if enough people support Ron Paul and his movement, we can send a message to future politicians: our lives and our wallets belong to ourselves, not to the government, and if you agree, we'll elect you. My hope is that passion of the hundreds of thousands of fervent Ron Paul supporters will outlive this election and will enable the libertarian party to be a real force in the coming years. Hopefully some of the people carrying "Ron Paul Cured My Apathy" signs at his rallies will decide to seek public office themselves. I'm fairly certain I'll never be a politician (I would find it exceedingly frustrating), but I do intend to contribute to the cause in other ways.
Learn more about Ron Paul:
PBS NewsHour interview
John Stossel interview
monetary policy
quotes
his official site
his writing
videos


9 Comments:
There is no doubt Paul is the best candidate... if we're discussing only republicans. It is refreshing to see a GOP member not scare-mongering for a change, and actually being honest. But Paul is a libertarian. (And I am somewhat surprised you are, I would have guessed liberal). I think libertarians have just wacky ideas on liberty and freedom. It seems libertarians ignore positive rights, and only look at negative rights (but isn't it absurd to claim starving children in Africa are "free" because nobody is acting against them? One needs to look at positive rights and notice that the y are not free, the same way that someone stuck in a mining collapse is not free because because there occurs a lack of action)
I just disagree with Paul's policies too much. Someone I would love to see as president would be either Obama or Edwards.
Here is a brief outline of Obama's values: http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm
But the main reason I support him is outlined in this brilliant post:
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2007/12/obama-for-president.html
As the post made me realise, his policies are so similar in effect to the other liberal candidates that the thing which really matters is who is the most electable, the most likely to actually win against McCain or Romney.
Anyway, just some ideas I'm chucking out there. Interesting post though.
By
DL, at 1:05 PM
Damn second link didn't fit =(
Here:
anonymousliberal.com/2007/12/obama-for-president.html
By
DL, at 1:09 PM
Thanks for your comments. I don't mind being called a libertarian, but I don't think any one label describes my set of opinions. My score for the test at politicalcompass.org was
Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.92
i.e. slightly toward the liberal side on the economic dimension and pretty far (but not all the way) toward the libertarian side on the social dimension.
Your point about positive vs negative rights is a valid one... This is one reason I said in my post that I think strict non-interventionism is the wrong policy when a genocide is occurring. Ron Paul claims that if the federal government wasn't taking so much money that its citizens would have more left over for charity, and that we wouldn't need to compel people to give against their will. (Given how few of my tax dollars go toward feeding starving children in Africa, I tend to agree.) My thinking on the moral necessity of charity was greatly influenced by John Rawls' "veil of ignorance" idea, and I do think people should feel a moral obligation to help those in need, but I don't know whether it's fair to have a system in which such an obligation is legally enforced. Anyway, thanks for your observations, I'll be sure to check out the links.
By
howtolive.org, at 3:00 PM
Here's my favorite Ron Paul video (from his visit to Google). Great stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg
By
Anonymous, at 10:45 PM
This is interesting. I'm not sure of the credibility of the article, although it is from TNR. I sure hope it's not true, because it sounds pretty serious: (sorry have to split link, too long, just do 2 copy and pastes)
tnr.com/politics/story.html?id
=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
By
Jason Williams, at 5:05 PM
I like how different Ron Paul is from the other candidates. I like how he'll talk about issues that the other candidates won't. I like how grassroots his fanbase is - (they are *everywhere* online!) I despise the two-party system, and wish we had more options like Canada or the UK. I like a lot of what Ron stands for. He's for medical marijuana, against the war, pro-gay rights (except voting against gay adoption in 1999), against the Patriot Act, against the death penalty, anti WTO, and against our stupid, stupid war.
He's got some great issues that I totally agree with! But that said, there's just some things I fiercely disagree with. I don't like how pro-corporation he is (which is the case with most libertarians, it seems) nor how isolationist he is. He's against universal health care, which is long overdue in our country - he wants to dissolve the Dept of Education and IRS. Look - I don't know much about economics, so I don't why killing the IRS would be a good thing, but destroying the Dept of Education, which insures that public schools actually get *some* funding?? I think Ron likes the idea of vouchers instead of social schooling, which, I gotta tell ya - that frightens the shit out of me. That, and - yeah, sure, people should be responsible for giving to charity if they wish, but Ron saying "no" for gov't assistance to Sudan & Darfur? *And* he wants to pull out of the UN? I have to slap my head at that one. It just seems to scream "Go US Corporations! Screw human rights!!"
But maybe I'm wrong. I hope I am, and have the whole thing screwed up. I like how he's against coal and oil and for alternatives, but I hate how he's for public school prayer and supporting creationism. I like how he's against the War on Drugs, but I hate how he's against the Kyoto Protocol. He just seems to be so isolationist against the rest of the world, in a time where the rest of the world could use some balancing out. I'm sorry to say, but we just can't be the world's biggest superpower and turn our back on it.
The guy I like myself? Dennis Kucinich. He's basically Ron Paul but without the corporate or isolationist agenda. I think he's a much better choice, but like you said about Ron Paul, Dennis doesn't stand a chance either. And that really sucks for both of them. You need a whole lot of money to be President, and Ron and Dennis don't have enough of it. But they've done pretty good with what they've got, right?
I think the problem is that Americans aren't really ready for change of this caliber yet. We're still too comatose with our heavy work week and TV schedules. We're still too complacent and lethargic to pay attention in the world around us. And I don't know what's going to wake us up, either.
Oh, I got all this from ontheissues.com, btw. Nice site for all the voting records and comments from all the candidates!
By
Mike, at 1:27 PM
mike - great post! i agree with pretty much everything you said, especially that he's too pro-corporation and he goes to an extreme re national sovereignty (which causes problems vis a vis global warming, genocide non-intervention, etc). i've had friends tell me i should check out kucinich too, but when i tried glassbooth.org it said i agreed with paul ~85% but kucinich only 45%. maybe the site isn't very accurate, though.
By
Anonymous, at 6:06 PM
He sounds like another radical. Being radical is normally a good thing but America needs a leader who plays well with other children.
By
Seraphine, at 4:40 PM
jason - I wasn't aware of the racist comments made in his newsletter... apparently not made by him, but still in his publication, which he presumably had editing authority over. Troubling if true, I'll have to look into it.
By
howtolive.org, at 5:44 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home