Commentary on the Ron Paul Revolution

Eureka and Kalispell both have one thing in common politically: Ron Paul is a popular contender for president. With Republicans taking the vote in these counties more often than not, it is no wonder that this libertarian looks as though he can redeem politics with his limited government rhetoric. What I find interesting is how he manages to hook in a fair share of liberals and how his support is so non-linear. His straight talk on issues like foreign policy and ending the war promptly seem to be the bait he uses to reel supporters in.

I have sniffed out the bait and investigated the Ron Paul revolution a bit closer. One thing has been on my conscience since last Monday when Martin Luther King’s birthday was celebrated and his life and death were remembered. The week before last, I followed a lead looking into Ron Paul’s past and the path looked an awful lot like supporting racism. The path led me straight to the “Angry White Man” by The New Republic: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca Please- if you are against racism, think extra hard on how you could support Ron Paul after reading this article. Paul’s newsletters since the mid-seventies are riddled with racist remarks and agendas that point back in the direction of racism. And his form of bigotry is a giant warning signal. Sure, there are numerous problems we no longer want to tolerate in our country. But this intolerance should never turn to scapegoating and stereotyping populations. Uneducated or misinformed intolerance mobilized by intelligent men like Ron Paul is dangerous. Solutions are only easy when there is someone to blame. And America would rather believe in what looks like easy solutions rather than face the difficult ones that would ultimately solve the messes resulting from basic ideological flaws that are now seeing the full impact their consequences.

I don’t know of any candidate that is up to the task of running the country, and this concerns me. Kucinich just bailed out of the White House bid. I believe his claims that he is “one politician that can’t be bought.” How could you not believe him? His appearance dictates the stance of a sniveling, bleeding heart liberal. And Paul doesn’t have enough support. He won’t make it all the way to the presidential office. More and more, it is looking like Obama may be edging closer to the presidential seat.

Paul says we have a “health care system that is a federally managed disaster,” yet even with his doctor credentials and strong argument for patient’s rights, his dismantling of the health care system looks as frightening at Hillary’s attempt to bolster it up. Okay, maybe NOT as frightening as Hillary. Dr. Moses at FVCC who is a genius of a political theory professor once looked me in the eye and said, “Hillary scares me.” Spoken like a true libertarian. There has got to be a moderate approach to leadership, he urged.

Extreme, drastic measures look desirable only to desperate populations. We can temper the corporation without losing our free-market values. Health insurance companies lobbying and paying off politicians (including Clinton) is not acceptable. Either is gutting infrastructure to fight wars so war profiteers can pillage to no end. Paul’s approach to the war and foreign policy is commendable considering the blathering of other presidential candidates. His platform is revolutionary. But revolution is a reality that looks desirable to a desperate population. Supporters say he is authentic or, “You always know where he stands.” Yet Dr. Paul’s rhetoric is so slick and smooth at times that I don’t always know where her stands. Now that the skeleton is out of the closet and his racist past has been brought to light (of course he is denying it- but a person can tell a lot about somebody by looking at who gets published in that somebody’s newsletter) my intuition that was whispering “be suspicious” to my rational mind feels quenched.

As far as health systems go, .isn’t it time socialism was NOT considered a bad word? Couldn’t socialism be considered as a moderate approach? Isn’t this what European countries have managed to attain successfully? No use trying to emulate some Cuban version of Michael Mooredom: completely unrealistic. Even Clinton and Obama have to stay away from this nasty S word, so easily creating a knee jerk reaction that musters up communism and oppression. But oppression is not limited to the associations that are ingrained in Americans by design, and socialism is not drastic for a wealthy country like ours that can afford to have our cake and eat it, too. Socialism does not threaten Capitalism. It enhances it.

I wish Noam Chomsky- a libertarian socialist- could be president. When will politicians catch up to the great political thinkers? If we really were trying to model the robust roots of Western Civilization (Greek) wouldn’t we at least have great political thinkers for presidential advisors? O.K., Cheney is a bit Machiavellian, but that isn’t quite what I meant.

Libertarian socialism, from my political theory studies, fits the bill for how humans need to govern themselves as a species. To adapt such a political structure would be forging a new identity. Our national pride demands that we come up with our own solution to the difficult problems that the U.S. has caused world wide. I believe that many of Paul’s concepts would fit the bill. Libertarian socialism is a formula for human interdependency that allows for maximum freedom. It is a dismantling of “the beast” and a scattering of the unjustified power to the many. I think it is justifiable to keep a strong, centralized power structure in place, and one that mirrors our constitution. Restructuring must take precedence over dismantling. Some of this restructuring could redirect certain powers to the states. Leaders need to be especially careful about drawing this fine line. Bush has already gutted the government and stripped its integrity away by prostituting it to the highest bidder. Many other politicians follow suit. This looks more like a corporate ploy, not a government structure set up to be “of by and for the people.”

There is always a balance of power to keep in check and there is always a threat of anarchy when the dismantling is done without discernment by an armed, angry populace led by a charismatic leader. With ALL political candidates clamoring for change, we need to look at how realistically, change is going to take place. For example, the FDA has become a federal agency that is run by special interest groups. By definition, the boundaries of this agency have become so distorted by corporate interest that it no longer functions as a government agency run “of, by and for the people.” The solution isn’t to limit the power, but the power had better be redirected into the right hands before the lives of citizens are put even more at risk. And the government power has to be stronger and separate from corporate power. We can’t continue to operate at the expense of many for the benefit of some.

Ron Paul is pro-life and wants to abolish the power of Roe vs. Wade. Yet pro-choice liberals will still support him because of his stance on the war. I find that his “freedom of choice” rhetoric is double talk if he cannot stretch to include a pro-choice stance to his platform. With talk on personal freedom and not legislating morality, how can this be? To me, this looks like a symptom of desperation if citizens are willing to stomach this ends justifies the means Machiavellian tactic. Ron Paul has the innovation, but does he have the compassion to care about ALL of the needs and rights of citizens? His pro-life platform tells me no. His racist roots tell me no.

Personally, I am starting to take a liking to Obama. It has been a slow, skeptical process and I am still not convinced that I will be marking my ballot in his favor at the polls. I am not so sure I will even vote (desperation can lead to apathy, as well). In the past, I have been skeptical at the lengthy process Americans go to in order to decide a presidency. Nowadays, though, when any trust is to be earned and any words spoken by a politician must be taken with a grain of salt, I am glad that any relationship I form with a candidate is slow, as well. I have to temper my own desperation. Long lasting positive change is usually a slow, gradual process. I will not fall into the temptation of revolution at the expense of our evolution as a nation.