Thoughtful reader Freedom2Learn writes in and asks, "Is Ron Paul worthy of a mention? I'm curious as to what your gang thinks.
I don't have a lot of time to participate on your blog, but I at least skim it daily - I learn a lot - very interesting!"
Well thanks for stopping by Freedom. I always enjoy your comments and I think you should dive in more often.
Here's my take on Ron Paul: That he's a libertarian tells you most of what you need to about his positions on the issues...he believes in the supreme rights of the individual, limited government meddling in our lives, a reactionary military rather than a pre-emptive one, and basically the right of the individual to pursue happiness in any way, both personal and economic, that doesn't obstruct any other individual from pursuing happiness. He's fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Actually, most conservatives fall into that category too, though they won't admit it. The big difference between Ron Paul and rank-and-file republicans is that he doesn't wish to legislate morality as do Bush, Rove, and others.
That's the basic question you have to ask yourself about the republican and libertarian parties.
That being said, the Libertarian party is a marginal party and you could say that voting for Ron Paul is a wasted vote or a vote not cast against Hillary. On the other hand, a purist would say voting your beliefs, regardless of chances of winning, is as useful as voting for a major party candidate. Because if enough people do that, other major candidates start to take notice the next time around, and compete for those votes by embracing the principles those voters respond to. To reflexively vote for republicans just re-enforces the dreadful big-government policies they have embraced. The point is that your vote counts regardless for whom it is cast.
Bottom line, the longer Ron Paul stays in the race, putting his ideas out there, and getting financial support for them, the more the other candidates will take notice and move in the libertarian direction in order to win those votes. To me, that can only be a good thing.
2 comments:
Hey - Thanks!
I thought he was running as a Republican.??
Why do people try to lump him with the 9/11 truthers? I've heard the comments people refer to , but I think they are taken out of context. Am I missing something? I certainly wouldn't want to support a truther.
Some say he's anti- war (true) and anti- American. Is he really anti-American? I thought he seemed to be extremely patriotic.
I think he makes a lot of sense - most of the time. Although, I don't believe we can "march right out" of the war in Iraq. And the pre-emptive vs. reactionary military.... I don't mind admitting I'm not anywhere near smart enough to have a thought on that one.
The media laughs him off and conservatives don't seem to acknowlege him. Fox News seems partial to Rudy G., and Sean Hannity came down hard on Paul after the debate where Rudy played his 9/11 card... oh wait - thats right - he plays the 9/11 card all the time. Anyway... I can't decide on Ron Paul. I keep going back to his constitutional views and it is nagging me. Most of the others I like or don't like - end of story.
BTW Fox News has been a real disappointment with their Rudy bias. I haven't been able to watch much Tv at all lately - except The Unit - but as of a few months ago they sure were on the Rudy bandwagon. I'm just not feelin'it.
My fear is that it will come down to a vote not cast for Rudy will be a vote cast for Hillary. Being pro-life, I'm having a hard time with that.
Okay, I'm rambling. Thanks for bringing it up - I wish some others would have offered some insight.
Hey freedom, what I meant by reactionary v. pre-emptive is, libertarians like Paul believe that our military is there only to defend the US, based on the Constitution, and not to meddle in the affairs of other nations. Honestly, he's got a strong argument for that. Bush's pre-emption doctrine, (i.e. killing the terrorists in their country before they come to ours) has irritated a lot of strict constitutionalists like Paul.
Yes he is running as a Republican but everybody knows he's the figure head of the Libertarian party.
As for Rudi, his popularity with conservatives is not due to, but rather in spite of his centrism. He's viewed as maybe the only candidate capable of beating Hillary. That explains Hannity's support.
And I think that's the lens through which all republican candidates are viewed this election year...can he beat Hillary? That's too bad because Tancredo, Huckabee, and Paul have a lot to add to the discourse among conservatives, but they're not taken seriously because nobody thinks they can beat Hillary.
Post a Comment