(LittleLightShining;34437)
I'd like to share a speech that Ron Paul gave today at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Lunar, I'm interested in what your issue is with Ron Paul. So far I haven't really found any good reason not to support him.Here's the youtube in 3 parts:
Part 1Part 2Part 3Here's an mp3:
http://libertymaven.com/audio/ronpaul-at-cpac2008.mp3
I'm very familiar with Ron Paul's ideas. I should probably start by writing that I agree with Ron Paul on a lot of things. I definitely agree with his strong stance in favor of civil liberties, and that we should get out of Iraq as soon as possible. I agree that the government is probably spending too much, but I would chalk this up mostly to the Iraq war. I agree with him that we should end the war on drugs. And I admire that he is one of the few politicians who always votes his conscience and doesn't pander for the sake of a vote. Politics today needs more people like that.But there are some major problems with Ron Paul. First, I have to say that I disagree strongly with how infallibly he views the Constitution. Ron Paul fetishizes the Constitution to a dangerous extent. I'll acknowledge that the Constitution was a brilliant work with many great ideas for its time. Some of those ideas are still relevant today. But some of them aren't. The Constitution was obviously not an infallible document. Under the original Constitution, women couldn't vote. Indeed, the Constitution needed to be amended a number of times to get it to the right place. Why does Ron Paul think that that process has stopped? The views of the Constitution are only as relevant as the time period in which it is being used, and as the time evolves, so too must the Constitution. Now, some people want to amend the Constitution in bad ways. Some people want to use it as a weapon to destroy civil liberties. I disagree with these people. But there are other ways in which the original Constitution simply can't keep up with modern society - in particular, I was aghast when he suggested we repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.Which leads me to another thing I object to about Ron Paul - his no-tax, pro-business model. Ron Paul places far too much faith in the integrity of private corporations to provide effectively for the citizens of the United States. Now, I have a healthy skepticism of the good intentions of our government. But I have a far healthier skepticism of the good intentions of businesses, which do not even make any pretensions to acting in the interest of the citizens. Ron Paul's stance on government regulation of C02 emissions is a perfect example of this. There's simply no incentive for businesses to act in the interests of the environment - and in turn, the citizens, as the environment affects all of us - without government interference. Health care is another issue where I don't trust private corporations to function effectively. What's in the best interest of the health care provider - to make you better at once? Or to lead you on and keep you
mostly sick, so that you keep coming back and spending more money?And that he suggests that the Department of Education be dissolved? Honestly, I can scarcely believe he even suggested it. It takes
very little imagination to envision the ridiculous class imbalance that will ensue when education is left up to private corporations. In short, thinking that leaving all of these services up to businesses will somehow magically work things out is hopelessly idealistic and suggests severe historical amnesia. Businesses do not care about the citizen. They care only about maximizing profits. I read an article once that was doing a psychological profile of a number of different social entities. The business was diagnosed as a sociopath, and that's very reflective of how much faith I put in them to effectively manage our interests on their own - none.Ron Paul also doesn't really have a coherent positive stance on what the role of the government actually is. I watched several interviews with him and, when asked what role the government actually did have, his only answer was that the role of the government was to reduce regulations and get rid of needless laws. In other words, the role of the government is to destroy itself. His libertarian ideals seem synonymous with anarchism.There's also the issue of the newsletters published under his name from 1978-1995. The content of these newsletters is, to put it bluntly, completely appalling, as they spew a steady stream racist and homophobic vitriol, along with flagrant medical falsehoods (at one point the newsletters claimed that "we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in [Washington DC] are at least semi-criminal or entirely criminal." Another snippet suggested that, because of its high black population, Washington DC be renamed to "Welfaria, or Rapeville, or Dirtburg, or Lazyopolis.")Ron Paul denies that these words were his own and that the articles were ghost-written. The cynic would see this as damage control and assume that Ron Paul is actually a racist, homophobe, and all-around lunatic; while there is some merit to this view considering Ron Paul's voting record and his failure to do anything about the newsletter for seventeen years, I will be generous and give him the benefit of the doubt. But if this really was all an unfortunate mishap, and these views don't reflect Ron Paul's views, then what does this tell us about Ron Paul? I would say that it shows that he is astonishingly incompetent. To have this as a persistent issue for
seventeen years, have it brought to his attention numerous times, and not do anything about it - if Ron Paul can't effectively manage a
newsletter, what does that say about his ability to manage the country? The whole ordeal represents at best disturbing negligence and incompetence on his behalf, and at worst, blatant racism and homophobia.This charge of incompetence is also consistent with Ron Paul's legislative track record. Considering how long he has served in Congress, it is somewhat astonishing that Ron Paul has absolutely no significant legislative achievements. When you have extreme views like he does, you need a certain degree of tact and legislative finesse in order to accomplish your goals. That he has not been able to implement any of them suggests that he has neither. You have to question how much of his agenda the guy would actually accomplish as president. I'm going to be presumptuous and say not much.Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I don't think Ron Paul is interested in helping people. In terms of foreign policy, he's an isolationist. Even with respect to Darfur, where absolutely horrible things are happening, he has said something to the effect of "It's a civil war, and it's not our problem." What a horribly cynical view to take! Now, I'm wary of the charges of policing the world, and being an arrogant nation, but frankly, I see nothing arrogant about sending aid to Darfur. That seems like a very compassionate view to take. But Ron Paul doesn't seem interested in compassion. His rationale for everything seems to be based on money, not social wellbeing. You can't help but feel that he equates what is right with "where the money is." He seems interested primarily in the Constitution and libertarian ideals, and he has prioritized this ideology before the wellbeing of the people. I simply can't stand for that.So, that's why I don't support Ron Paul. I think his ideas would be incredibly destructive and not at all what Christ would want, and I think that he, personally, is not a competent politician.