I’m helping the Ron Paul supporters with their local organizing. I have attended two Ron Paul meetups and intend to continue lending a hand. Why would I, a confirmed liberal, want to help Republicans organize for a Republican candidate? Well, by the end of this post, I hope a lot of you will want to do the same.
Like many liberals I am deeply disturbed by the political environment in the Republican party. They are quickly becoming (if they are not already) the party of American fascism, and that fascism is marching draped in the flag and carrying a crucifix. But it is not just liberals that see this trend clearly. Many conservatives see it too, and they don’t like it any better than we.
It could be that the GOP is beyond redemption. It could be that all we can do is hope to beat the snot out of GOP candidates in enough races to preserve our Constitution and our democracy. I don’t think that is realistic or wise. In order to preserve the integrity of our political system, we need a loyal opposition whichever party is in power; the GOP is increasingly nothing of the sort, and only reform from within can correct that.
It is purely self interest for Democrats to support and encourage those within the Republican party who are real, Constitution-respecting, small government conservatives to retake their party. The fascist wing of the GOP doesn’t see the Democratic party, or any opposition, as legitimate; real conservatives do. We are in the fight of our lives against those who would make opposition to their designs to radically alter our society a crime and use the powers of government to destroy their enemies. Our natural allies in that fight are not just other liberals (we are weakened if we limit our alliances such) but those in the other party who are just as disturbed by the past 6 years as we.
The only way that major parties have ever reformed is from within. It is going to take a massive grassroots revolt within the Republican party to remake the party. Many progressive Democrats have some experience with that as our own party continues to experience such a beneficial grassroots activist insurgency. Both parties have been hollowed-out in recent years as more citizens become alienated from the political process and civic affairs. The result is that well-organized ideologues with fringe ideologies and lots of money have been able to effectively capture both parties. The main difference is that our ideologues aren’t nearly so malignant or vicious as theirs. Conservatives will face some seriously nasty and deeply motivated activists to retake their parties; progressives faced mostly ossified indifference and little organized resistance to greater participation at the local level.
Those of us who are organizing and encouraging a reformation within our own party have an opportunity to forge ties with like-minded insurgents in the other party. Those links will be the basis of future cooperation both sides will need to retake our political patrimony from the cynical manipulators who have seized both parties, and to move our nation forward with a fundamental respect for civil rights and our nation’s vital traditions.
By helping Ron Paul supporters, we help ourselves. We don’t have to agree on every issue to agree on fundamental respect for the Constitution, respect for civil rights, and respect for the integrity of our democratic process. Clearly, not everyone supports those values anymore; those that do, despite any policy differences we may have, are objectively allies in the fight to keep the American experiment alive.
There is only a small spark of respect for American civic values in the GOP’s nomination contest. That spark is Ron Paul. But there is a massive reservoir of people who can nurture that spark into a prairie fire of reform within the GOP. We progressives need to ensure that the spark doesn’t die out and that the real conservatives among the Republicans and Independents on the right have a chance to catch that spark.
I don’t want to see another Republican President any more than the next Democrat. But I do want to see a Republican nominee who stands up for civil rights, who speaks sensibly about America’s place in the world, who insists on the rule of law and rejects the exceptionalism and emergency powers advocated by every other GOP candidate. I want to see the Republican part rally around a voice that is not encouraging them to tear apart the Constitution in fear of terrorism. I want to see a Republican nominee who will enable the American people to experience a campaign of hope and ideas, not of fear and McCarthyism.
There is only one way I can see to make that happen: do everything we can to ensure that the GOP nominee is Ron Paul (as unlikely as it seems right now). Howard Dean was never expected and his rise was extremely unlikely, but now he heads the DNC and is bringing many progressive values to the party’s operations. Reform is an ongoing and protracted process, especially for part-time citizen activists. There are conservatives out there hungry for an honest voice that reflects their values: a Dean-like surge could happen in the GOP (indeed, it seems to be the only thing that can save the party) and we Democrats should encourage such a revolt.
So break out your checkbooks and donate to Ron Paul. Get off your duffs help organize Ron Paul events and spread the message of Constitutionalism among our conservative brothers. Stop thinking in purely partisan terms and start thinking strategically. The GOP nomination is just as important as our own nomination contest. Perhaps even more so, since at least all of our candidates support the Constitution and the rule of law. This is our fight, too.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Every Presidential debate in the era of television is quite the news item. Many Americans watch in order to gauge which candidate is going to pursue policies that they feel are best, in order to find out who it is they think they should vote for. Many voters today in America are becoming or have become disillusioned with our leaders and the political process, and so watch things like the debates with limited expectations, knowing that direct questions will most likely not be answered, and will sound like sound bites. The major newspapers, such as the New York Times and the Boston Globe, hailed the debate as having “forced cordiality” and being “mercifully free” of personal attacks, and that was very true; neither candidate resorted too much to character assassination. McCain continued with “staying the course” and pursuing domestic drilling policies. (Hmmm….I wonder just who he was listening to on that one.) Obama was still criticizing Republican policies which he says got us into this mess of a recession in the first place. If the election were based on the performances on the debate , there’d be no clear way to say who it was that had won. America needs a clear proposal for action. Obama’s views on “predatory lending” which basically is sanctioning payday loan lenders is not a real solution. It’s basically an appeal to the banking lobby.
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/
I have nothing much to add to this discussion other than to say Im encouraged and impressed by it.
I am a former democrat who is pushing Paul with everything I have.
I have seen what his message does to unite people. I have seen the passion it inspires in many, even me who up until I heard about Paul I was completely apolitical. I am not an uncommon story. I share the sentiments of many of the well written posts here.
I.
I’m a supporter of Ron Paul, and think a Dr. Paul presidency is exactly the prescription this country needs right now. You may have guessed that I’m a republican, and if you did, you are wrong. I’m an independent and I like to look at the best man for the job. In our current situation, Ron Paul is that man. I describe my independence as a social libertarian and fiscal conservative.
It just seems to me, as an either party outsider, that the Democrats are swinging way way left, and that conservatives led by neocons have moved beyond right, out it crazy land. We need someone with a level head and a good sense of LIBERTY and ECONOMICS right now.
Either party wants to take my Liberties. The democrats want my 2nd Ammendment rights, the Republican want my 1st & 3rd. I see the U.S. as a police state more and more every year, yet all I hear people talking about are abortion and gay marriage like it’s something nationally important! We have much bigger fish to fry at the moment. We have to fix broken policies and get our own house in constitutional order. We have to end this undeclared waste of life and taxpayer money in Iraq! And then we can deal with other issues, which IMHO are state issues anyway.
1st we need a candidate that can reverse the damages done to every American, the erosion of our rights! We need to re-establish a long forgotten fundamental of liberty: people have rights, not groups. I’m willing to bet our last 4 presidents didn’t even know that is was their JOB to enforce the constitution. George W is effectively doing the opposite of his job (4th ammendment), as would Hillary if she were in office (2nd Ammendment).
2nd we need a candidate who can restore value to the dollar. When a bank in france forces the reserve to print $38B out of thin air to bail out wall street because a French bank cashed in some bonds, our money, our families bread, is at stake. The “front runners” from both parties this year want to spend even more money. I know the Federal Reserve makes our money elastic, but do we really want to see how far it can stretch before it becomes untrusted and snaps?
Lastly, we need a candidate who can fix our foreign policy, bring the troops home, and stop meddling with other countries. They don’t like it, and they’ve shown they are willing to strike back. Ron Paul is dedicated to the responsible use of U.S. Arms. This doesn’t mean he wont step into a foreign country to stop a genocide, it means he will do it the right way by getting the consent of the people (congress) in a declaration of war. I’m sure congress won’t give him this consent without hard evidence, clearly defined objectives, and an exit strategy. You know, those things someone forgot to tell Bush about, but would have if he’d asked for a declaration.
I think liberals and conservatives can all agree that solving these issues should be at the top of the list! And the man with the best solutions to these issues, the man who doesn’t dodge these issues, HELL, the man who brings these issues into the debate is Ron Paul
Both sides, here is a link of Rep. Paul talking to Ben Bernanke about the direction that our Country is going monetarily.
http://www.discursivemonologue.com/2007/05/21/ron-paul-house-financial-services-committee-transcript-lecturing-ben-bernanke-on-monetary-policy/
Go to X-rates.com and look at the Euro v. The American Dollar
Then look at the British Pound v. American Dollar
Now look at the Canadian Dollar v. American Dollar.
This is called inflation.
As Rep. Paul puts it, “we are borrowing ourselves not into prosperity. At some point the bills come due and whether it is us, or our children, we ultimately lose as a nation.”
All things being equal, if we had no debt as a nation we could have conversations that were nothing more than mental masturbation to our hearts content.
Gay rights, same sex marriage, abortion, global warming etc. are fun things to talk about but I find this akin to 12 people finding themselves in a burning building with 100’s of exits and standing around as the fire licks at their bodies because they can’t even come to the consensus the buildings even on fire!
Ron Paul is the only one yelling fire, and the rest haven’t even noticed it.
Keep talking it over, this mans already left the building.
What most you you fail to realize is that with Federal Government agencies that purport to provide needed social services do so very poorly. Take the Dept. of Education for example, I hope no one would dispute that free access to schooling makes America a stronger and more productive country. The problem comes with the fact that only about 40% of the federal money earmarked for education makes its way back to the States, the other 60% is absorbed by the Federal bureaucracy. Of the 40% that does make its way back to the states – another 10% plus is spent in staffing time and resources just complying with all the extra paperwork that the federal government demands for the schools to receive Federal funding. One state school official bemoaned the fact that only 7% of their budget comes from the Federal Government, while more than 50% of the paperwork is attributable to Federal Mandates. Every $100 you give the Federal Government toward education… less than $30 actually serves that purpose. The much better solution would be to only give $30 to your state Government, they’d still be ahead by not having to deal with federal intervention, and you’d still have $70 to sock away for your kids college education. Makes much more sense to me. And Education is simple compared to healthcare… I expect, on average, we’ll be spending $500 to $800 for every $100 that actually gets used for health care. The rest will be absorbed by the bureaucracy. Also one point often looked over is that currently Hospitals are required to treat emergency health problems, regardless of your ability to pay. The People who can’t pay make up only about 3% of the total. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather pay $103 for $100 of health care than $500. Free health care isn’t… it will always cost you, the only ones who truly benefit from National Health Care are the Special Interest groups who will be lining up to shape policy, Bureaucrats who will be employeed by this mega bureaucracy and those small percentage of people who trashed their futures through their own choices… dropping out, teen pregnancy, joining gangs, getting arrested, and all the other people who currently benefit from the welfare state, you know people who through their own choice (in most cases, not all) are not productive members of society. Everybody else will lose on the deal.
J Lamb: “Liberals, following the New Deal and Great Society approaches, use federal government interest and resources to effect meaningful positive changes in the political and economic lives of American citizens. Sometimes that costs money.”
You do realize that FDR started the course of destruction we are on now… correct?
“Sometimes that costs money.” You meant to say, “This always costs money… LOTS OF IT and the results are far less than what the free market could provide.”
As I read your posts the ideas reflect a common sence approach to governing but what is it with Iam a Libertarian Conservative? I get sea sick thinking what that could mean?
In 2000, I believed that it didn’t matter so much who became president. I believed that the checks and balances engineered into our government sufficiently limited the damage (and perhaps good) any single president could do. The past 7 years have proved this to be very wrong. We have all witnessed the rollback of many of these protections. In 2000, I believed that federal law provided uniformity and lifted the standards in areas of the country where they would otherwise be lacking. In the past 8 years, I’ve seen this premise turned upon its head with the federal government doing more damage than good in many cases.
I’ve come to believe that the ultimate liberal principle is freedom. It is the one thing terrorists cannot take, but it seems too many are willing to give it up. Ron Paul’s campaign is the only one which offers to put American freedom back on the radar screen. Borrowing huges amounts of money whether for neocon adventures in Iraq or Afganistan or for domestic pork leads to less freedom down the road. Perhaps it will be my 9 year old daugher who has to pay or perhaps her 9 year old daughter, but someday down the road the bill will come due.
All of the Democratic & Republican candidates seem like G.W.Bush lite. These are the candidates of the status quo. Sure, there are differences in particular areas, but their foreign policy & domestic policy will largely be a continuation whether its Iraq, Iran, Israel, or Lebanon. The Republican candiates struggled to decide whether nuclear weapons should be used on Iran, and at the same time, Candidate Clinton argues that G.W. has been too soft on Iran (Iran can hardly complete public works projects, and it’s on the verge of going from 0 to ICBM nukes, right!).
As evidenced by some posts on this thread, American politics have become a cycle of (1) raise money, (2) win elections, (3) reward contributors, (4) go to #1. This tends to put party above country and money above principles. It skews our foreign policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy), it wastes our money, and causes “blowback”… Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, etc.
It’s time for a change. From where I sit, Ron Paul is the only game in town.
I think that the most important thing that Ron Pauls candidacy offers is a return to states rights. The idea that most people have, liberals and conservatives alike, is that their way is “right” and their opponents ideas are “wrong”. I happen to be a libertarian conservative, although I am not self centered enough to think that the way I think should be applied to people all across the country. What is best for Virginia might not work best for California, or be what Californians want. It is far easier to improve things at a local and state level, as well as to get rid of things that dont work. By allowing states to chose different methods of solving problems, we can see which ones work best and pick and chose which models to follow.
The common argument is that “states don’t have the resources” to do such things… well that is because the federal government is sucking them dry and then “granting” their money back to them. The whole system is oppressive and counter productive.
People are individuals, lumping them together in groups just crushes the minorities. Populism works like a democracy, it is two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. Just because 2/3 of people want something, doesn’t mean that you have the right to crush the other third. That is the problem with both political parties.
Actually I want to expand on this belief in “human fallibility” that is central to the liberal belief. I want to point out exactly how opposed that belief is to anything positive.
For one why even have a democracy? Are you not just relegating all decisions into the fallibility or humans and ensuring even the ones who might overcome this through education and appeal of the rational dynamic be overwhelmed by the rabble of humanity? Or perhaps you have realized that the end goal of the modern liberal is not championing the rights of all but exploiting the down trodden in order to place those non-existent philosopher-kings into unchecked power and actually support the idea.
Second, if one moves the focus from the individual to the collective one diffuses the responsibility of the individual which is noted in psychology a good example of which is the Kitty Genovese murder. It also helps foster mob mentality in which the most base attributes of the group take control. Lastly focus on a collective rather than an individual encourages group-think and stagnation of new ideas as well as encouraging the individual to bow to authority even more so than our natural predilection towards authority would normally allow.
My apologies, that was to Michael Bryan.
S Andrews
Tell me how do human politicians somehow magically shed that “fallibility of human nature”?
“It never ceases to amaze me that though their philosophy is based on transforming the base metal of human self-interest into the gold of the public good…”
Hey there, S Andrews, it doesn’t look like you really understand libertarianism, if that comment is any indication.
Liza’s point is a good one: many liberals have noble aims but neglect to apply a rigorous economic examination to their proposed solutions.
“I assure you, I’ve studied economics far more thoroughly than ‘a little bit’ including your precious Austrians.”
Hmmm. Easy assertion to make; a bit harder to actually back up. I’m waiting.
Such intellectual condescension is utterly typical of ideological libertarians. They always assume that any disagreement with their world-view stems from ignorance of their premises.
I assure you, I’ve studied economics far more thoroughly than ‘a little bit’ including your precious Austrians. The reason why I am not a libertarian free-market fundamentalist is not because I don’t understand it, but because I’ve grown beyond it.
It never ceases to amaze me that though their philosophy is based on transforming the base metal of human self-interest into the gold of the public good, nevertheless libertarians continually fail to understand that the fallibility of human nature and the power of the social compact stand at the heart of liberalism, not any supposition of the moral perfectibility of some faction of humanity. Just the opposite, in fact… perhaps ethical evolution would be a good approximation.
Your quite unwarranted arrogance isn’t going to be winning you any converts around here, S Andrews.
When you are thinking with an emotional heart rather than a logical head, you tend to think like a liberal – which is to say they are not thinking at all. Just the belief that a bunch of “superior moral beings” knows better than individuals is a fallacy.
I would recommend that all liberals take their the thinking a step or two further and Liberals can get to the libertarian camp quickly.
There is always a selfish profit motive in most human action – I recommend that all liberal study the Austrian School a little bit.
http://www.mises.org
“Ending political polarization remains a worthy cause best assisted by Democratic hegemony over the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, so that our ideas — like Senator Obama’s healthcare plan — can help change America for the better.”
J.Lamb,
How does one party rule, Democratic hegemony as you call it, assist the end of political polarization? Is your theory possibly that the Democrats will govern so well that the opposition will be silenced as we all walk in the tall cotton of prosperity with good paying jobs, education for our children, healthcare for everyone, and a foreign policy that wins back the love?
There is nothing, absolutely nothing out there right now to substantiate the notion that “Democratic hegemony” could even get us back to where we were in pre-Bush 1999.
Take Iraq, for example. One of the so called “benchmarks” approved by Democrats is that the new “oil law” should be passed by the Iraqi Parliament. The main purpose of the Bush Administration’s oil law is the privatization of the planet’s second largest (and possibly the largest)known reserves of sweet crude oil that is cheap to extract (approx $1.50 per barrel.) The profit sharing agreements being planned are heavily lopsided in favor of the foreign petroleum interests. Yes, the Democrats are 100% complicit in the plundering of Iraqi oil knowing full well that these arrangements insure permanent US military and economic occupation of Iraq.
This is not a small issue, J.Lamb. If nothing else, it should illuminate for you the simple fact that politicians are, for the most part, beholden to Big Oil, Big Pharma, and every other lobby and special interest that bankrolls and controls them. We are not going to “reform politics” as you say by having the party that is only slightly better than the other one be the ruling party. Politicians are not saviors.
I lived in the South throughout the Civil Rights era and I have seen the power of the people when they unite with determination to enact major political and socioeconomic changes. I know that in my lifetime I will never again witness a populist movement of that magnitude and that powerful. It is true, of course, that politicians are the ones who pass legislation and they deserve credit when they do the right thing. However, if Martin Luther King had spent his brief time on this earth enlightening politicians instead of motivating the brutally oppressed masses, then I’m afraid that my little 10 year old African American nephew would be riding in the back of the bus.
We, the people, have the power. We are the ones who will ignite the engine of “reform” and see it through, but only when we have the collective will to do so.
Hell yes I am willing to support Paul for the GOP nomination.
To the extent that he can gain exposure, and provide Repubs with an alternative to the snake pit that they have foisted on us for 8 years, I think that is a constructive strategy.
And his ideas do have currency in the current national policy debates.
I totally agree with many of his positions, as I did with a lot of Goldwaters.
It might not even be such a bad thing if he could get elected, with a veto proof Dem majority in the House and Senate.
Unless Gore steps up, that might even be the best of all possible worlds.
I’m an unabashed Libertarian and naturally I’ll be voting for Paul.
However the reason I’m urging even non libertarians to do the same is because the issues he stands for and the actions he will take are radically for the better than the current status quo.
If you want to get us out of Iraq, get the federal reserve abolished and get true tax and spending reform, or at the very least a 4 year reprieve from the current fascist policies then vote for this guy.
A vote for Ron Paul is a guarantee of at least 4 years of peace. None of the other “front-runners” from either party will guarantee that.
You think Hilary is going to withdraw all of our troops from Iraq? Repeal the Patriot Act that she voted for? Not bomb or put sanctions on Iran? Not Bomb Darfur? She supports the status quo and all she will do is take our current course and turn it 12 degrees to the left. That simply isn’t good enough for me and it shouldn’t be good enough for Democrats either.
So what if Ron Paul actually gets elected? We bring home the troops and save a trillion a year on our deployments? Maybe we reduce the deficit? What is so wrong about electing a candidate that isn’t bought and paid for? You think he’s going to be able to touch half the federal programs he wants to demolish without congressional consent? It’s not going to happen under our current congress.
Ok so you have to wait another 4 years for socialized medicine and a “green” administration (I’d give arguments why these are bad but that isn’t really my point).
The point is the government has become an entity solely beholden to corporate interests and imperialist nation building and we can’t afford it anymore. We can’t morally afford this, and we can’t financially afford this. We need a radical change of direction before we can build our utopia, whatever that vision might be. Ron Paul will guarantee a change in course, and while his views might not be everything to everybody at least he’ll leave office with the country facing the right way. None of the other “front-runners” are going to do that.
Actually, Antiphone, I don’t think Kerry ever framed Election 2004 around ‘crazy, impractical Bush’. That would have required charisma and passion on Kerry’s part, qualities that seemed in short supply after the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacked his wartime service.
Seriously, this idea that people on the left should “support sanity wherever we find it” only makes sense if we do not sacrifice Presidential elections in that process. Ending political polarization remains a worthy cause best assisted by Democratic hegemony over the executive and legislative branches of the federal government, so that our ideas — like Senator Obama’s healthcare plan — can help change America for the better.
Widespread public support for a successful Democratic administration would depolarize our politics much more effectively than grassroots efforts for doomed candidates.
Michael,
I’m too swamped to get into the particulars of the thread, but I do want to acknowledge your original post and the distinction of the fascistic cancer that has taken hold in a disturbingly significant part of the GOP. I agree with your language on this completely.
You choose your approach and I will choose mine. The good news, as you noted in your original post, is that many in the GOP find this every bit as disturbing as we do.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Abraham Lincoln (1809 – 1865)
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
Thomas Jefferson (1754 – 1826)
“…Democrats win more easily when Republican candidates can be dismissed as crazy and impractical.”
That really worked out well with Kerry didn’t it? He just dismissed the hell out of crazy, impractical Bush. I’m not advocating voting for Ron Paul or sending him money but I think we need to support sanity wherever we can find it.
“Posted by: J. Lamb | June 14, 2007 at 06:35 PM
I disagree with liberals who “support” GOP candidates like Ron Paul with their time and money.
Why? Because Democrats win more easily when Republican candidates can be dismissed as crazy and impractical.”
Sure Lamb, and Republicans can win more easily when Democrats can be dismissed as weak on defense,soft on crime, baby killing ineffectual pin heads and do- gooders.
America is on its death bed and polarization is no cure for what ails her.
Let’s be clear: I never suggested that Mike advocated voting for Ron Paul; rather I disagreed with liberals showing any support for his campaign. “Support” given our use here involves raising money for a candidate and volunteering one’s time to promote a candidate. I recently supported Senator Barack Obama by canvassing door-to-door to raise awareness about his campaign. I disagree with liberals who “support” GOP candidates like Ron Paul with their time and money.
Why? Because Democrats win more easily when Republican candidates can be dismissed as crazy and impractical. Rep. Tom Tancredo’s anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric easily slides into prohibitions against increased public visibility of Latino cultures in American life, and I don’t want him to cease and desist at all, because this rhetoric will encourage Democratic Latino voting for a generation. Ron Paul’s consistent anti-Iraq War isolationism has few takers in the modern GOP, but presents exactly the type of general election small government perspective that independents, moderates and centrists enjoy.
Any GOP Presidential nominee who successfully appropriated some of Paul’s message in the general election campaign would cause serious problems for the Democratic nominee, whomever he or she would be. Since 1968, GOP candidates willing to paint themselves as genial but stalwart pillars of law and order at home and belligerent American psychos abroad have won Presidential elections, and convinced the American voting public that Democrats will never go far enough to protect them.
Sometimes that narrative can be overplayed to it’s most fantastic Jack Bauer fantasies, but whenever a GOP candidate modifies those excesses to play to the middle, they cause problems for the Democrats. Helping Ron Paul means increasing his public support, which means that it’s more likely — not less — that a top-tier GOP Presidential candidate will steal part of his message to appeal to the middle in the general election, and therefore cause serious problems for the Democratic candidate. It wouldn’t be hard for a Mitt Romney or a John McCain or a Fred Thompson to increase his appeal in this fashion.
Further, liberal, progressive, and Democratic activists work with scarce resources of time, interest, and money. When we waste those resources on feel-good attempts to attract a small cadre of Republicans who might agree with us on one or two issues — maybe — it’s hard not to consider that action wasteful. Of course, many Republicans found the Bush Administration’s systematic erosion of civil rights and civil liberties untenable, but let’s face it: if they really had problems with the GOP they could have supported Democrats willing to change Bush’s policies, like Sen. John Kerry. People like Andrew Sullivan and Christine Todd Whitman have already lost the battle for the soul of the Republican Party; they should either vote Democratic, and convince their constituencies to help forge a Democratic governing coalition that could then start solving some of our global warming and terrorism problems, or they should abandon the GOP for third-party options.
Moderating the GOP only works against the Democrats, and because of that I can’t imagine why any liberal, progressive, or Democrat could possibly devote time, interest, and money towards any GOP candidate, not to mention Ron Paul, a consistent opposing voice to just about every policy solution liberals, progressives, and Democrats champion. Just today, on Tucker Carlson’s show Rep. Paul offered a cogent argument against federal rebuilding efforts in the Gulf Coast regions still damaged by Hurricane Katrina, because he believes that centralized economic planning does not offer the best options for local revitalization following natural disasters.
While his statements against FEMA offer consistent small government thinking, they are not liberal or progressive or Democratic in the slightest, and supporting such a candidate can not be justified in my opinion by a desire to reform the polarized partisanship of American party politics today. Liberals, progressives and Democrats can easily lose the public conflicts on global warming, affirmative action, gay marriage, and supporting the Constitution — not to mention ending the Iraq War — by looking past the 2008 election now. It’s not closed-minded to focus on winning the election first, then governing with the most public support possible afterwards.
Left and right are obsolete… the fight is between individual liberty + the rule of law, versus big Government, big Corporations and the return to feudalism
It’s very disappointing to read some of these comments and find the same tired talking points used to support Bush simply recycled for Ron Paul. Blah, blah, blah…Clinton. Blah, blah, blah…socialist etc. It sounds like the same old thing to me.
Well I am a liberal who supports Ron Paul. Baracl Obama might nuke Iran. My brother is is prison for drug laws, my parents in poverty because of the IRS. Ron Paul is against the drug war, period. I would much rather have a cranky old white bigot who respects peace and liberty, or a feel good candidate like obama, who will continue the police state, war on drugs, invade iran, darfur, somolia, lebanon, venezuelia etc… No one will be able to implement their social issues( liberal or conservative) anyway. This is drama between ever expanding empire and intervention, or a republic. This is not about liberal vs. conservative, don’t be fooled. Support Ron Paul is you care about liberty, or don’t complain when a democrat keeps napalming civilians, oh wait democrats didn’t care when clinton bombed serbians, I objected as a liberal.
It’s pretty disturbing when someone’s rationale for not voting for Ron Paul is “Understanding blowback doesn’t make Ron Paul a liberal.” That’s the problem with most liberals I hear from – their minds are extremely closed.
“How can we achieve universal health care and combat global warming without programs organized and funded by the federal government?”
If the poster is such a socialist and trusts the big government to do these things correctly (think: Clintons, Gore) then he is in a huge state of denial. Take a look at other socialist governments and if you like what you see, maybe you should go live there – that isn’t what America was founded on.
Oops – sorry about that, not Leo, it was Dale Fitz who was wise. Leo is only half-wise.
Leo is wise. The rest of you keep looking to government to solve your problems. It ain’t happened in 5,000 years, and it ain’t gonna happen no time soon. But keep dreaming.
Meanwhile, I’m throwing my vote away on Ron Paul, and telling everyone I know about him. Because, 7 to 1 odds aren’t so bad. And if it comes down to Ron Paul vs. Hillary Clinton, you best believe she’s going to lose, and lose hard. Because people (real people, not megalobbies) actually like Paul, and nobody actually likes Hillary (they just tolerate her because of her fundraising).
I hope that Ron Paul wins the nomination and the presidency.
He has a better civil rights record than Hillary, Edwards or Obama.
He’s the only one that voted against both the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act, unlike Hillary, Edwards or Obama.
His foreign policy objectives are better than Hillary, Edwards or Obama.
His record of defending the internet is better than Hillary, Edwards or Obama.
He wants to abolish the IRS and force congress to find an alternative, fairer way to collect federal taxes, something that Hillary, Edwards and Obama are too cowardly to suggest.
He wants to end the War on Drugs, something that Hillary, Edwards and Obama are too cowardly to even consider.
He doesn’t think the federal government has any business telling the states who can marry whom, who can smoke what, or whether abortion should be prohibited even in the 3rd trimester.
Yes, he wants to get rid of the Dept of Education, reform Medicare and Medicaid, and basically strip the Federal Government of 90% of the functions it now serves, but just think of it- that would mean that California could take ALL that federal money it sends to DC every year and create its own Universal Health Care, Nevada can have all the cocaine it wants to import, and New York can teach whatever the hell it feels like teaching about evolution versus creationism without worrying about what Utah, South Carolina or Ohio has to say about those things. In my mind, that would be a far better scenario than the one we have now where 548 toadies and their enablers in Washington DC get to dictate every move we make.
In short, he’s a better Democrat than the leading Democrats!
Let’s look at the above post from a mirror-image perspective. I am a small-government libertarian who has tended to vote Republican over the years because that party has best represented my views on federalism and free-market economics. Should I wish the Democratic Party to veer further left or move center? At the least, should I hope for voices within that party that represent at least some my views? Self-evident answer.
The problem with political polarization is that the fringe of neither party will ever attain hegemony. Even if dailykos types succeed in moving the Democratic Party far left and that party has great electoral success, the remnant of the Republican party will still have enough Congressional votes to block major left-wing initiatives, and the Republicans will do so, if only to deny success to their political opponents.
This is similar to what the Democrats did to Bush’s proposals for Social Security partial privatization. After declaring Bush’s Social Security proposals DOA and after their takeover of Congress, the time was ripe for the Democrats to make a Social Security counter-proposal, but the phrase “Social Security reform” has not crossed their lips. Why? Because they are locked in by the rhetoric they used in opposing Bush (see Schumer’s comments about not changing the retirement age, not changing the FICA tax rate, etc.).
So what we have is paralysis resulting from rejectionism. Issues-driven people can throw in the towel, or can hope to solve at least a few problems by encouraging diversity of viewpoint within both parties. Which is why Ron Paul should matter to those on the left.
Want change ? It’s simple…support policies and values you like and reject those that you don’t regardless of party labels. The party label is an artificial means of dividing citizens and bluring checks and balances. Those Dems that think the success of their clan is more important than the health of our political system only gives license to Recrooklicans to think the same way. America can not survive a one party state. The Constitution is in very grave danger and a “winner take all” approach to party politics will harm us all.
If you give respect to those that deserve it, maybe we can create a political culture where the oaths taken by our representitives are taken seriously, and the rule of law is enforced by our courts. Right now, the USA is a Banana Republic. That is a fact.
I generally describe myself as a right-leaning libertarian, but I have many problems with Ron Paul. I don’t think he’s anybody’s ideal candidate. The more people know about his monetary policy, for instance, the less widespread support he’s going to get. Many libertarians also disagree with him on abortion and immigration. But I do think there’s something in Ron Paul for everybody, and let’s be honest here, no matter how much support Paul gets, he’s not going to be the nominee and he’s not going to win the election. Ron Paul will never become President, so I don’t think you have much to worry about, J. Lamb.
But I do think that the longer Ron Paul stays in the primary battle, the better — for libertarians, conversatives, and liberals alike. The Republicans need to have a voice in the primaries to fight them on torture, on Iraq, on their bankrupt fiscal ideals, the constitution, etc. Maybe, just maybe, with Ron Paul up on that stage with the other candidates at each debate, the others will actually have to answer some serious questions. Ron Paul’s presence in the primaries is good for everybody. Obviously, those of you who are liberals don’t want Ron Paul or any of the other GOP contenders to become President, and that’s fine. But you better your chances at getting what you want on many of those issues if the Republicans must answer some of Paul’s criticisms. You want to restore some constitutional discipline by stopping torture and wiretapping? Ron Paul can help.
Let me be clear (although I thought I had), obviously Dr. Paul is not the right candidate for the Democratic party, I argue only that he is the best candidate for the GOP. To the extent that a sane GOP is good for Democrats, Paul is also good for Democrats, but obviously all the defects that J. Lamb points out would preclude me from wanting him to be President. But it is exactly some of those defects that amount to ‘features’ making him a beneficial moderating force in the GOP if nominated, or even if he only stirs up a grassroots movement in the GOP and scares the crap out of the apparatchikis, as Dean did for the Democrats.
Obviously, (or so I thought) I am not asking Democrats to vote for Dr. Paul. I am asking them to support his Republican nomination, which is a much different, and clearly strategic action.
Almost 70% of American’s from both Parties feel the Country is on the Wrong Track from imigration to our envolvement in world affairs!
The President is at 29% approval with The Congress and Nancy Pelosi at 24% a complete meltdown of the so called referendum 2006 election where The Democrats say they got a mandate to govern and have failed!
We now know both Political Parties are corrupt and driven by corporate demands over that of the Voting American Citizen.
I could not support a Democratic Party Platform in 2004 and in 2006 to make an honest run for Congress and choose not to lie to my constitutents as has Gabriel Giffords in District 8 by voting with Nancy Pelosi and against the voters of District 8!
As a result of telling we the voters they in Washington know better than we what is good for us; as we are living the mess first hand they created and refuse to fix or enforce existing laws ; the election of 2008 will look very different than any of us suspect at this time.
I have read about events in History like this but never in my 62 years has discontent been across party lines since the 1920 election of Teddy Rosevelt; and can be related to our Civil War days.
Sometimes people from parties or organizations other than our own are just as angered about what they see in there own party and resonate with people from other parties!
Such is the case with Ron Paul!
“To reform American politics, one must win elections. Period.”
Honestly, there’s not much incentive for the politicians who win elections under the current system to turn around and embrace meaningful reform. The people at the top don’t want to change the game they’ve spent their careers mastering and unfortunately they don’t want to change much when they loose either. Why has Bob Shrum been able to lead so many campaigns to defeat?
I think Democrats have been far too willing to send money and then leave politics to the experts. What’s wrong with finding common ground with voters who don’t share our party affiliation and working to improve the conversation?
Michael, I disagree with this post.
To reform American politics, one must win elections. Period. The best way to assist the Republican Party, the surest method to drive them away from open support for torture and public indifference towards incompetence involves beating whatever candidate they decide upon in 2008. When Democrats win, Republicans can adapt.
Seriously, I find liberal support for Rep. Ron Paul ghastly counterproductive. The major impetus for mainstream interest in his campaign involves his articulate disapproval of the war in Iraq in public debates and his noble support for constitutional principles, but I believe that liberals who support Ron Paul given these stances either perform grave injustices to their own ideals or have not heard Rep. Paul clearly.
Let us speak plain – Ron Paul remains a committed isolationist, antagonistic to any use of American military might outside of clear and incontrovertible national defense. That means he would not, as President, have invaded Iraq. It also means that he would not invade Darfur to eliminate the genocide there.
Just because the man reads Chalmers Johnson does not make him a viable Presidential candidate. Understanding blowback doesn’t make Ron Paul a liberal any more than reforming campaign finance made John McCain a liberal.
Ron Paul’s anti-war rhetoric only means that he respects smaller government, one relatively free of foreign entanglements that drain our national resources to offer freedom to irrational (from Reagan’s estimation) foreign populations. How any liberal could support a man who respects President Bush Election 2000 statements decrying President Clinton’s intervention in Kosovo is beyond me.
Still, what most troubles me about Ron Paul involves his undeniable interest in smaller government. Liberals, following the New Deal and Great Society approaches, use federal government interest and resources to effect meaningful positive changes in the political and economic lives of American citizens. Sometimes that costs money.
But a man who only wants government to perform a small set of basic tasks, expressly set forth in the Constitution, is not a man interested in any number of governmental solutions to solve our domestic problems. How can we achieve universal health care and combat global warming without programs organized and funded by the federal government? Some problems demand national solutions, and Ron Paul’s myopic Reaganism would not bode well.
But, while all those reasons mean that liberal Democrats should not support Rep. Paul, in my opinion, the most important reason I oppose Ron Paul’s candidacy is largely strategic. Competent Republicans beat competent Democrats in major elections. Fundamental respect for the Constitution, civil liberties and civil rights, and our democratic process from a GOP Presidential nominee would present a serious blow to practically any Democratic candidate.
Out of the last ten Presidential elections, The American voting public elected three Democratic candidates to seven Republicans. Nixon twice. Reagan twice. George H.W. Bush once. George W. Bush twice. And some liberals want to make Republican candidates more attractive to the American voting public?
People interested in supporting a candidate who believes in the rule of law, who supports civil rights and civil liberties, and who practices a politics of hope and change need not look further than Senator Barack Obama, the Democrat from Illinois. Certainly, they should support a Democratic candidate, because Democrats, with all their corporate influence and big-tent constituency pandering, offer the nation’s best hopes for non-ideological, diplomatic foreign policy strategies and practical, reasoned domestic policy solutions.
Under the last Democratic administrations, we cut governmental spending and forged a surplus, wasted by the GOP. Let’s not Bill Maher ourselves; just because Ron Paul isn’t Tom Tancredo doesn’t mean he’s a credible option for the Presidency of the United States of America.