If you've known me for a while, you
know that I've avoided politics for years. This year, however, I keep talking
about Ron Paul. For anyone who's curious, I'm going to explain why. I hope
you'll take some time to listen, even if it's just a few minutes. (You can
always come back later and read more.)
First, who is Ron Paul? He's a
twelve-term congressman from Texas,
and he's running for president in 2012. He's one of the contenders for the
Republican Party's nomination, but his philosophy is better described as "libertarian."
Because of his medical degree, and his tendency to vote against new legislation,
he is often called "Dr. No," or just "The Doctor."
I’m promoting Ron Paul for two
reasons:
{1} Ron Paul needs Internet exposure,
because his popularity is frequently ignored – perhaps intentionally – by the
media. According to polls, he has a good chance of winning the Republican
primaries (which start in January), but it's a close race.
{2} Freedom and privacy are my biggest
concerns, as a voter. By promoting Ron Paul, I'm promoting his philosophy of
personal liberty and the restriction of government power. That philosophy is
desperately needed right now, with frightening legislation (like NDAA and SOPA)
threatening our privacy and freedom.
For many people (including me), this
is so important that we're temporarily registering Republican, just to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican
primaries. If he wins in the primaries, he can get the Republican Party's
nomination and challenge Obama for the presidency at the end of next year.
◘ Supplements, Part 1 ◘
• In
this 4:27 video, see examples of Ron Paul being ignored by the media,
hilariously presented by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show:
• In
this 4:26 video, learn how the SOPA legislation will restrict our freedom by censoring
the Internet:
• At
the 1:59 mark of this video, learn about the frightening NDAA legislation, and how
"people can be held without trial whether an American citizen or not":
• In
this 4:55 video, learn about temporarily registering Republican (quickly—before
the deadlines!) to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries:
◘ Impressions of Ron Paul ◘
I have a lot to learn about politics,
but I’ve been paying attention to Ron Paul for long enough to form a few strong
impressions. These impressions, which align with my own values, are the reasons
I support Ron Paul:
{A} Ron Paul is a gentleman.
{B} Ron Paul is logical.
{C} Ron Paul has great knowledge and
wisdom.
{D} Ron Paul follows the Golden
Rule.
◘ Ron Paul is a Gentleman ◘
This jumped out at me when I read
his sixth book, "Liberty Defined." Unlike many political authors, Dr.
Paul didn’t center his arguments on vilifying anyone, insulting anyone, or
using an excess of "us vs. them" language. Instead, he was matter-of-fact
in his arguments and genteel in his criticisms.
He also has a reputation for
sticking to his principles. His voting record is remarkably consistent, and
he's frank about what he believes. His honesty and consistency have earned him
a lot of respect, even among those who don't share his views. To quote Jon
Stewart, host of The Daily Show, "He’s the one guy in the field – agree
with him or don't agree with him – who doesn’t go out of his way to regurgitate
talking points or change what he believes to fit the audience he’s in front
of."
◘ Supplements, Part 2 ◘
• In
this 1:23 video, Ron Paul shows his parental side by defending a reporter who
was rudely shoved.
• In
this 5:15 video, hear an excerpt from Ron Paul's book, "Liberty
Defined," on the topic of bipartisanship:
• In
this 2:36 video from 2007, hear Bill Maher (who is generally considered very liberal)
express his respect for Ron Paul:
◘ Ron Paul Is Logical ◘
In the past, when I attempted to get
more involved in politics, I was overwhelmed by the complexity of certain
issues. How, I wondered, could I know what was best for everyone? That's what
differs about Ron Paul's libertarian philosophy. It holds that, rather than
government (or a voting majority) deciding what's best for everyone, the
individual should decide what's best for himself. To a libertarian, the
individual has a right to do anything that doesn't threaten the lives or liberties
of others.
This philosophy resonates with me
because it aligns with my own attitudes, and also because it gives me a good
place to start when I approach political issues. After all, when you're trying
to make decisions, you have to start somewhere. In Math and Logic, we construct
a list of basic premises and derive our conclusions from those. In everyday
life, we do the same thing, but we do it unconsciously. (For example, to be
Christian, one takes "God exists" as a basic premise.) I say that Ron
Paul thinks like a mathematician because he consciously adheres to his premises
about government.
In making decisions about government
policy, Dr. Paul seems to start from these three premises: First, "Human
life must be preserved." Second, "Personal liberty must be
preserved." Third, "The U.S. Constitution must be followed." His
positions on policy are derived from those three premises. (It's worth noting
that – even though Ron Paul is a Christian – he does not seem to base his
policy decisions on his personal, religious premises.) According to his web
site, "Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is
expressly authorized by the Constitution."
◘ Supplements, Part 3 ◘
• In
this hour-long interview, Dr. Paul discusses many of his viewpoints:
◘ Ron Paul Has Great Knowledge and Wisdom ◘
At this point, most people agree that
the country is in crisis. When disagreements arise, they arise over how to
respond. In 2008, the response (for many voters) was to replace a Republican
with a Democrat in the White House. However, many of the problems that
motivated people to vote for "change" in Obama have continued. The national
debt, which rose from $6 trillion to $11 trillion under Bush, has risen to $15
trillion since Obama took office. The expensive and complicated military
entanglements of the Middle East have remained
expensive and complicated.
In the public consciousness, a
question like this one is growing: "If Bush and Obama both had wrong ideas
about how to steer the country, then what are the right ideas, and who has
them?" The answer to that question may be Ron Paul, who stands apart from
both parties. When he ran for president in 2008, his ideas were widely dismissed.
At the time, voters were focused on the Democratic Party as the natural alternative
to an unpopular Republican president. They weren't ready to consider a Republican
(Ron Paul) as an alternative to a Republican (George Bush), even though Ron
Paul is a libertarian Republican who's marginalized by his own party.
Now, on the eve of the 2012 election
year, Ron Paul is finally getting serious attention. His wisdom has been validated
by predictions he made years ago, especially about the economy (but also about
social and foreign policy). In fact, he gave prophetic warnings about some of
the specific crises that America
has faced in recent years. For example, he predicted the current economic
downturn in 2002 (if not earlier), and he predicted the 2007 housing crisis
back in 2003. Because of his predictions, he's earned an alternate version of
his nickname: "Dr. Know."
When Dr. Paul talks about the
economy, he talks like an economist, using confusing terms like "Keynesian
model" and "Austrian economics." (After all, he's written books
on economics.) His knowledge of the subject is impressive, but it can make his
arguments hard to follow—at least for me. Thus, when I say that I trust his
judgment, I don't speak as a student of economics. I speak as a layman who
understands that great foresight is a sign of great wisdom. Ron Paul seems to
have that foresight.
Furthermore, his arguments about
inflation and the national debt seem inherently reasonable to me. Even as a
child, when I first learned about those things, I was perplexed by the way they
were accepted as normal and healthy. How could debt and inflation grow forever,
without reaching a breaking point? To me, it seemed like the cycle would have
to break eventually... but everything seemed to be going fine at the time, so I
dismissed my discomfort as a lack of understanding.
It was a revelation for me when I finally
heard Dr. Paul's argument—that inflation actually is unhealthy; and that national
debt is a serious problem, which should be addressed promptly and severely. He plans
to cut $1 trillion from federal spending during his first year as president,
because he believes that it's time for drastic reductions. This sets him apart
from many other candidates, who talk boldly about reducing the national debt, but
lack the resolve to make sufficiently drastic budget cuts.
◘ Supplements, Part 4 ◘
• In
this 3:06 video from 2009, hear Dr. Paul's 2003 prediction of the 2007 housing
crisis, and Joe Scarborough's shocked reaction:
• In the
first 3:36 of this video, hear a series of Ron Paul's predictions from 2002:
• In
this 2:16 video, hear Ron Paul discuss his plan to cut $1 trillion from federal
spending and explain how it would benefit the people:
◘ Ron Paul Follows the Golden Rule ◘
The Golden Rule, of course, says to
treat other people the way that you'd like to be treated. (Also, don't treat
them in a way that you wouldn't be willing to tolerate.) When I state my
impression that Ron Paul follows this rule, I'm not speaking of his personal
conduct. I'm speaking of his attitude towards the conduct of nations,
especially ours.
In my life, I have not paid enough
attention to the conduct of my country overseas. The more I pay attention, the
more uncomfortable I am with what my country does. Recently, I learned that President
Clinton bombed a medicine factory in Sudan, back in 1998, because of
alleged ties to al-Qaeda. (Note that the ties were alleged—not confirmed.) The
bombing of the factory deprived Sudanese civilians of medicine. One source
reports that thousands of deaths resulted.
I haven't verified the death toll of
the Sudanese bombing to my satisfaction, and I don't claim to understand every
consequence of the attack, or every reason it was made. The important thing is
that it demonstrates how America's
actions overseas could make reasonable people overseas feel resentful – even
fearful – of America.
(It also suggests why non-reasonable people could get angry enough to become
terrorists.) That's not something that I would have expected from my country. Like
many Americans, I think of my country as a noble defender. It certainly has been
so in the past.
I still believe that America is
special, that Americans are basically good people, and that American ideals are
noble. However, I fear that our belief in our own benevolence is blinding us to
the Golden Rule. We seem to accept that America is justified in telling
other countries what to do, perhaps believing that our benevolence gives us the
moral authority to do so. But, should we expect special treatment from the rest
of the world on the same grounds? Should we expect them to have the same faith
in our benevolence that we do? (For example, should we expect Sudan to
tolerate a missile strike within its borders when we would not tolerate such an
attack in ours?)
This is another way in which Ron
Paul's philosophy resonates with my personal attitudes. I was never satisfied
with President Bush's explanation, after September 11, that the terrorists attacked
us because they "hate our freedoms." It was too simplistic—too
indulgent of the easy assumption that "we're good, they're bad, and that's
all there is to it." (I can accept that a large group of people might hate
America
because it's free, but I'm skeptical that so many of them would be willing to
kill and die for that reason alone.) I've always identified more with Amanda
Waller, who said, "Our enemies are never as evil as we imagine... and
maybe we're never quite as good." More importantly, we may not seem as
good to others as we believe we are.
One of Ron Paul's most controversial
claims is that America's
conduct around the world has encouraged the use of terrorism as a tactic
against us. (He voiced eerie warnings to that effect in the late nineties.) On
those grounds, he's often accused of blaming America for terrorism, but I don't
see it that way. I see it as recognizing how our conduct may be hurting us, and
urging that we change our conduct in response. For that reason, he wants to end
America's
military interventions around the world.
To some, his non-interventionist position
seems naïve or anti-military. That's why it's worth noting that Dr. Paul
receives a lot of his support from military personnel. As of July 20, 2011, Ron
Paul's campaign had received more than twice as much donation money from
military personnel as the other Republican candidates combined. (He had also
received more than Obama.) These members of the military probably know more
about US conduct abroad than most of us at home, so I put a lot of stock in
their support for Ron Paul. Even among those Americans who want America to keep
intervening, support for Dr. Paul is rising from practical, economic concerns.
War is expensive, and America
can't afford to wage it everywhere.
When my country is at war, the issue
that matters to me the most is preserving my freedom and privacy at home. I'm
frightened to think of the liberties I might have already lost – especially in
the last ten years, due to this wartime climate – when I wasn't even paying
attention. For example, the Patriot Act was passed at the end of 2001, when we
were scared and confused, and it robbed us of privacy. Now, in 2011, the NDAA
(National Defense Authorization Act) is being changed to rob us of freedom.
This year's version originally authorized the government to detain someone indefinitely
– even a US citizen, on US soil,
without a trial – just by calling that person a terrorism suspect. The law was
amended slightly before it passed, but it still gives too much power to the
government. That power is obviously meant to protect us from terrorism, but it
could easily be misused. I don't want the government to have that kind of power
at all, even in the interest of protecting me.
This is what I believe: No matter
how benevolent we try to be, there will always be people who want to hurt us.
Furthermore, terrorism will always be available, as a tactic, to those people. This
means that the threat of terrorism will never be completely gone. Therefore, if
we allow the threat of terrorism to be defined as "war," it will be
war that never ends. As James Madison (principal author of the Bill of Rights)
said, "No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual
warfare."
Dr. Paul is fond of mentioning that,
for several reasons, this "War on Terror" is not an official war. Our
leaders frame it as one because they know that people are more willing to surrender
their rights in times of war. But, if we accept this endless, nebulous
"war" as an excuse for giving up our liberty, we will never get it
back. And, as Ben Franklin famously said, "Those who desire to give up
freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either
one."
◘ Supplements, Part 5 ◘
• In
this 2:47 video, see a compilation of Ron Paul's 1997–2001 warnings that US
foreign policy could encourage terrorism:
• In
this 3:19 video, Ron Paul gives his powerful "What if?" speech,
raising vital questions about the future of the United States:
• On
this page of the Ron Paul web site, see a graph showing how much donation money
his campaign has received from members of the military:
• In
this 9-minute speech about the NDAA, Senator Rand Paul (son of Ron Paul) argues
that we shouldn't sacrifice real liberty for false security:
◘ Conclusion ◘
Thank you for reading. At the least,
I hope you understand Ron Paul better than you did before. At the most, I hope
you're on your way to becoming a supporter. If this essay affected you, please
pass it on. If you're considering a vote for Dr. Paul in the primaries, and you
are not yet registered Republican, please visit "BlueRepublican.org" immediately.
We have to hurry, because the Republican primaries are starting soon—in
January. Ron Paul must win those primaries to win the White House. (I believe
that, if he loses at all, it won't be in November. It will be in the next few
months.)
I'll close with a quote from a
supporter on YouTube, because it gets at the heart of my dedication to Ron
Paul's philosophy: "The message of liberty is infectious, and it spreads
like a virus. Once you understand Ron Paul's message, it's really hard to turn
away from it, because your eyes are opened to the reality of what's happening,
so you almost feel guilty to turn away from it. It's sort of like pretending
that you didn't watch a car crash, or something like that. So people – once
they get turned on to Ron Paul – they stay turned on to Ron Paul, and they
continue to spread the message."
Now it's your turn. Go out and
spread this message. (While you're at it, follow Ron Paul on Facebook or
Twitter. The updates will keep you informed.)
◘ Before You Go ◘
If you skipped the supplements
listed above, at least watch the five repeated here.
They are, to me, the most important.
They are, to me, the most important.
• In
this 4:27 video, see examples of Ron Paul being overlooked by the media,
hilariously presented by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show:
• In
this 3:06 video from 2009, hear Dr. Paul's 2003 prediction of the 2007 housing
crisis, and Joe Scarborough's shocked reaction:
• In
this 2:47 video, see a compilation of Ron Paul's 1997–2001 warnings that US foreign
policy could encourage terrorism:
• In
this 3:19 video, Ron Paul gives his powerful "What if?" speech,
raising vital questions about the future of the United States:
• In
this 4:55 video, learn about temporarily registering Republican (quickly—before
the deadlines!) to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries:
«§» by David "Shelverman" Grimes «§»
«§» December 16, 2011 «§»
«§» with special thanks to Alexander Bush for his input «§»
Awesome article, and an amazing picture. Can you do a version of that picture without the text and without the lightning?
ReplyDeleteFunny story about the lightning: I didn't add it. It's actually part of the picture of the White House that I used. Still, I could probably remove it... but, out of curiosity, why? How are you planning to use the picture?
DeleteThank you for reading, and for the compliments! (I had given up on ever having a comment on this old thing.)