Ron Paul Is Changing Minds
Politics, Ron Paul, 2008 Election November 26th. 2007, 11:08pmI’ve posted about Ron Paul in the past, and I’m doing it again, damnit. I never thought I’d be quoting a Fox News host to do anything aside from point out the obvious marginalization of reason and rationality, but in the words of Neil Cavuto…
“At first he was just an internet curiosity, then he became an internet phenomenon. Fourteen bands had wrote songs about him… fourteen! Rich and not-so-rich fans raised more than 4 million dollars in one day. They love his IQ, his EQ, and now, apparently his GQ, because he is among that hit publication’s Men of the Year.”
I’m one of those that found him to be a curiosity. But encouraged by the numerous soundbytes I heard of him so intelligently pontificating on the ills of deficit spending, and war-mongering, and unchecked power and growth of government, I read more. I researched his political career, and now I’m one of those not-so-rich fans.
A Fan of Ron Paul
As a fan, I almost wish that I donated on the 5th of November when Ron Paul supporters raised that $4.3 million. To be a part of something so historic would be unforgettable. Alas, the gods (and by gods, i mean people) have smiled upon me and all others that haven’t yet made the leap from future voter to proactive supporter. Marking another historic anniversary that celebrates dissent from authoritarian rule, the grassroots supporters have organized another website for a major donation - Teaparty07.com.
Also as a fan, it’s encouraging to see someone like a self-absorbed host from Fox News almost fawn over Ron Paul when that same host was so eager to interrupt Ron Paul’s explanations in past interviews. You see, Neil hasn’t always been so nice to Ron Paul. Just a few months prior, Cavuto was trying to pigeonhole Paul by marrying his political views to the people that holed up in their homes after not paying their taxes in protest. Near the end of the interview, Cavuto presented Ron Paul with an opportunity that Paul seized, and handled brilliantly…
“If you were president of the United States, would your first statement be on January 20th, ‘look, you don’t have to pay income taxes, nor should you’?”
And Paul’s response is something everyone should listen to, especially those people that are calling him the “worst kind of god-pusher” or preaching that liberals shouldn’t believe the hype because he’s against abortion or doesn’t push hard enough for the separation of church and state, or anybody that thinks he’s someone to be feared. His response to Mr. Cavuto?
“No. But I would certainly work with the Congress, the proper way, and get the Congress to pass a law to change it, and to repeal the 16th amendment. So no, a president… you’re always making the assumption that the President is an authoritarian. The President should be responsive to the government and to the Congress and to the people. But a president like myself, even though I would believe this, I couldn’t do it. But I would try to persuade people to do it, just as I do in the Congress, and just as I do in campaigning for the presidency.”
In case you’re interested, here’s the interview in its entirety…
Now, in this instance Ron Paul was speaking specifically about abolishing the IRS, and related tax issues. But this philosophy can be applied to all of Ron Paul’s positions. All of them. The overarching point that people seem to miss when they preach fear of Ron Paul’s political ideals is that he doesn’t seek to use government the way it’s been used for the past 7 years (and perhaps longer).
Why The Left is Wrong
The people from the left that attack Ron Paul in this way also seem to suffer from some very serious and chronic amnesia. Because they seem to forget that we’ve been living under a president whose made the largest unwarranted power-grab in American history. This was done by a president who is a devout christian, who courts the religious right establishment with unabashed fervor, and spends the way he says democrats do.
He is the poster boy for double-speak, one rubber-stamped, unread law away from instituting the thought police, and almost completely unashamed of - and actively campaigning for - using government to ink moral laws into the Constitution that get their traction solely from the bible. And even after all of this, after we’ve watched Bush, and Cheney, and Rove, and Rumsfeld try to use government in this abhorrently authoritarian way for the past 7 years, we’re supposed to fear Ron Paul??? Even though Bush couldn’t get his divine law passed with both houses of Congress on his side, we’re supposed to be afraid of a man that consistently breaks with both parties?
Why The Right is Wrong
The left isn’t the only wing of the political spectrum with chronic amnesia. The right seems to forget, even as they blindly invoke the name of Ronald Reagan to garner support for their “conservative” agenda, that Paul’s “freedom message” is the direct descendant of a once-dominant GOP philosophy of libertarianism. Ron Paul’s message is the same one that Ronald Reagan described as ‘the very heart and soul of conservatism’. But the neo-conservatives don’t remember this, nor do they want to. It completely destroys their war-mongering, militarily dominated world that feeds the American empire through open-ended wars that guarantee unending profits to the private industries that fuel them.
Not only Reagan, but Goldwater, and Eisenhower railed against this kind of government abuse. The Ronald Reagan that all of the republican candidates are so fond of would laugh at the term that so accurately describes their version of the republican party… ‘Big-Government Conservative’. The ‘Tax-and-Spend Conservative’ moniker would be even more horrifying to these republican heroes. These are labels that republicans have tried to pin on democrats, but Ron Paul eloquently points out, just as he does in so many other cases with so many other issues, why this republican party deserves the hated label…
“Deficits mean future tax increases, pure and simple. Deficit spending should be viewed as a tax on future generations, and politicians who create deficits should be exposed as tax hikers.”
So it Goes…
Ron Paul continues to gather support, even changing the minds of some of the most stubborn in the mainstream media. As subtle as some of it may be, it’s real, and it’s happening now. No longer can he be marginalized and ignored, either by the mainstream media or by his competitors. This change, in my humble opinion, can be directly attributed to Paul’s consistent courage to tell the truth in front of the American people, even when that group of American people might want to hear more of the cheerleading that they’re getting from the other republican candidates for president.
That’s just one of the reasons he’ll be getting my vote. And it’s just one of the reasons he’ll now be getting my proactive support until that time comes.
Loading ...
November 27th, 2007 at 6:50 am
When I first heard of Ron Paul’s positions, I seriously considered a switch to the Republican party just to support him and help scare all the other Republicans out there into listening more seriously to his perspective and honorably strict approach to government.
But then again.. Ron Paul is still an ideological lunatic who would never cease to completely wreck the system. Sure, there’s the check of congress to keep him in line.. sorta. But if Ron Paul is any bit as gung-ho about his ideology as he sounds, I’m sure he’ll hang onto all those corrupt breaches of power that Bush has abused until at least a few key major departments have been dissolved or at least in shambles.
I would agree that shrinking the power, spending, and overall corruption throughout the system is needed, but if we’ve learned anything at all from Bush, the Taliban, and virtually all the other major woes in the past 7 years (including some blame for the Housing market crash, influx of biological and geological creationism in all kinds of places of learning, etc.) is the danger of ideologies. No matter how wonderful an idea might sound to certain people in certain situations, there is no one single idea that works best in every situation for everyone.
Again.. I hope Ron Paul does well enough to earn respect so some of his ideas might spread among politicians, but I’m really not sure that this country can handle another stubborn, ideological president bent on “restoring” our goverment back to a mytholocial golden age that we supposedly foolishly gave up in the past.
November 27th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Great article. I agree it’s been interesting to watch Ron Paul interviews. They used to outright attack him now for the most part lately the main stream interviewers have been condescending or trying to trap Ron Paul into showing his “otherness”. He’s too smart for them and consistently answers in an honest and Constitutionally correct way. What will really be funny is how they’ll kiss up to him after the next big Fund raiser and the NH primary.
I’m so sick of phony media, with a few exceptions most are self absorbed cheer leaders of either the right or left.
It’s sad that we fell for there BS so long that we got caught up in the Conservative vs Liberal rhetoric.
Ron Paul’s message destroy that line of thinking and brings hope to ALL Americans. Those in power, Big Gov’t., big business, big media, fear that the cat is out of the bag…
and they’ll lose control of us, the manipulated masses.
Let’s make sure that happens. Vote for Ron Paul.
Google Ron Paul for President 2008
November 27th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Miguel
First you say you want other Repubs to listen to his honerable approach to Gov., and then you call him a lunitic that will wreck the system??? Sounds to me like your really confused. You berate the present admin., and then say your afraid of what Ron Paul will do with the same power that is now in place? What are you afraid of? Less Gov.? Less Taxes? A sane foriegn policy? A better monetary system? Less illegal aliens? It seems to me that if you want to be afraid, you should really be afraid of the present president taking matters into his own hands (after all, he is the one that has put some very questionable powers in place.) I think you have a problem with change… Your actually afraid of change and so you are saying that you would prefer someone who is less “Lunatic”!!! Who would you vote for??? Look at the other candidates records, their flip flopping, their LACK of integrity, their WAR MONGERING!!! OH, perhaps you think the others are so principled they won’t abuse the powers presently in place??? You ever heard of the Military Industrial Complex? The Medical Industrial Complex? The Insurance Industrial Complex? Which of the other candidates will stand against these powerful organizations???
You think Hillary, or Mitt, or Rudy will take a stand against these powerful organizations??? If you want to be afraid, you should really look at the present situation and be VERY afraid of what will happen if Ron Paul doesn’t get elected.
Your probably also afraid of Ron’s stance against Federal Drug Laws? Listen Carefully. He will (hopefully) do away with the DEA!!! OH, your afraid that the country will become “Drugged out”. Don’t you understand that there are more than enough STATE drug laws to deal with any drug problem (Don’t forget about the states!) Why should we have a Mega powerful Federal DEA (and the expense)??? Oh perhaps you have forgotten about Our on Gov. (CIA) bartering guns for drugs??? You (as many other people) are good at calling Ron Paul bad names… But can you point to just ONE position he has taken that you can debate the opposite ideal as being better??? Just ONE??? You really don’t understand the overall concept of freedom… If you did, you wouldn’t be afraid of it (or Ron Paul’s ideology)!!! Nuff said…
November 27th, 2007 at 9:00 am
Miguel your comments lead me to believe you think an authoritarian empire building big brother government is better than a fiscally sane one that uh follows that “mythical” document, you know the United States Constitution?
November 27th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Independent journalism at its best. We don’t see this common sense analysis in lame-stream media. Thanks, you really added value by doing your homework. Help us raise $10 million on December 16. It won’t be that difficult. The 40,000 who donated $100 on average must double their Nov. 5 donations. Last time, 20,000 new donors contributed. This time if another 20,000 (highly likely) donate $100 each, we’ll make it. Put another way, if each of the 40,000 Nov. 5 donors raise $250 each among themselves and friends, we’ll make it. I’m contributing three times my Nov. 5 donation.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:16 am
Miguel,
You are so wrong. The point you miss is Ron Paul has integrity. He is honest. Check his voting record. Check out his videos from the 70’s and 80’s on youtube. I know it is hard, bordering on impossible, to trust a damn politician. Dr. Paul is the man to trust. The only thing he is promising us is freedom. No free lunches. No government handouts. What dont you understand about $9,100,000,000,000.00 in debt? We HAVE to make big cuts. We have already screwed our kids, lets try to not screw our grandkids.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:26 am
This article highlights an important issue. Ron Paul will need the support of Congress to implement much of what he believes. Ron’s supporters simply must begin to take their excitement, creativeness and dedication into the Congressional arena. They must start asking Who is my Representative? How has he or she voted? How can I/we get him or her to support the Ron (whether Ron is in the White House or continues in the House of Representatives). For more on this see my article THE 5TH OF NOVEMBER at www.nolanchart.com.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:50 am
HA, that’s funny. I didn’t think the very first comment would demonstrate my point so perfectly. So, just in case Miguel makes it back here in the future, let’s review…
If you’re going to assume otherwise, at least admit that it’s pure speculation and completely at odds with how Ron Paul has governed during his career in Congress. Not only is there direct evidence to the contrary, but it requires an assumption that he’s lying when he says…
…and that’s an assumption that is made without reason.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
So it’s either big authoritirian government or Ron Paul? Or, it’s either a $9 trillion debt or Ron Paul? - Two perfect examples of False Dichotomy, Missing Middle, or Gambler’s Fallacy. Perhaps it should be called the Political Fallacy because it seems to be used all the time to bolster an extreme position accusing detractors of being foolish enough to favor an opposite extreme? You’re free to vote for someone based on such fallacies, but please realize why such arguments aren’t effectively as you might have hoped.
I’m actually a HUGE fan of the constitution, quelling runaway government spending and corruption, and not paying so much in taxes; thank you very much. But if Ron Paul gets the office and signs only the types of bills he votes for, the entire system may simply crash when department after department runs out of funds as Paul vetoes any bill (or line, if Paul succeeds in bringing back the line item veto) containing any mention of funding anything he doesn’t deep appropriate - which seems to exclude shrimp, theatres, trolleys, aquariums, and mule museums among other personal favorites.
Of course.. this would either have Paul’s intended effect - or bolster congress to 2/3rds pass most bills since Democrats and Republicans are both likely to have qualms with Paul’s requirements for his signature. Perhaps the idea Paul can alone fix everything wrong with the country given an appropriate check by congress and the courts seems like a pipedream - especially considering his abrasive approach and extreme ideology. Paul’s obviously against making any friends in DC.
And such constant infighting itself would hugely stall government. Let’s not forget that congress writes the changes of laws and interpreted by the courts for the President to carry out, not the President. The best Paul can do is sit on his hands and send people home, but the last thing he’s likely to do is have a huge impact in any of the major areas he promises on the campaign - except the Iraq war, but that’s certainly echoed all across the campaigns.
Again.. I sincerely appreciate balanced budgets, stopping illegal wars, reducing power of government, etc. But getting rid of the education department, disregarding the needs of the military (in terms of refusing to fund it outside of domestic activities), and fighting to abolish most of all amendments (I half expect Paul’s first act in the WH would be on writing an Executive Order cancelling out all currently effective EO’s.. or at least the ones he doesn’t forsee needing to “fix” the government to his views.)
I must again admit.. especially after 7 years of BS, Paul’s approach sounds extremely enticing and I hope his ideas catch among politicians - but not his extremist ideological approach.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
December 16th is the day people.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
I think anyone who takes Ron Paul seriously, and really takes the time to understand what he’s saying, doesn’t have a pipedream about him fixing everything that’s “wrong” with the country. Anybody who pays attention knows that’s not his job. And even meting out that kind of change singlehandedly would require an authoritarian ruler beyond what any of his supporters would ever wish for, even if that ruler is to their liking.
Perhaps we fantasize about him fixing everything that’s wrong with the Executive Branch, but that’s the extent of his power.
I get the sense that the “extreme ideology” that you’re talking about is referring to times when Paul has said he is in favor of getting rid of just about every federal department that there is. Personally, I don’t like the way he frames his answers because people hear that and they don’t take the time to listen to his explanation or the rest of what he’s saying. They just take him literally, and call him extreme for suggesting such outrageous things.
But make no mistake, he has explained it when given the opportunity. Much like the explanation he gave to Cavuto about tax protesters, he has also explained why certain FEDERAL departments are unnecessary or wholly counterproductive to their intended purpose.
And on another note, to think that Ron Paul is crazy enough to simply go about abolishing things without any forethought or consideration for its ramifications while you (or I) are able to see them easily is the height of pretentiousness. Don’t think for a second that Ron Paul doesn’t realize that these changes have to be gradual and they can only come AFTER he has persuaded and changed the minds of people regarding the real role of federal government in our society.
In other words, he knows that you can’t get rid of the Department of Education simply by refusing to fund it. That’s a stubborn tactic that is more suited for the present administration’s playbook. Ron Paul knows that you first have to convince the people to stop depending on, and stop making state-employed teachers accountable to, the federal Department of Education. Only then can you take away the funds, because the funds would be completely unnecessary at that point, and better used in other places.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Insult after insult from you people.. so since I don’t think Paul is realistic, I haven’t taken his ideas seriously enough? How is that not different from: If I think a plane hit the pentagon, then I obviously don’t care enough about the “truth”.
I just wasted over an hour responding to this mess.. only to have it eaten by the website. I’m done beating my head against the wall here. It’s almost like talking to zombies who are never cease to attack you until everyone become one of them. I need solid outlined plans of action and substitutions for all the services Paul would like to abolish. (And if he really means reform, he should be honest enough to actually say what he means… unless his intent is to raise the hopes of the fanatical.) Clinton balanced the budget without such extremes.. and by slimming down all over the place all without uttering the word “abolish”. So why is that now suddenly the only viable answer to our problems?
November 27th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
I wasn’t trying to be insulting, unless you really think it’s insulting to say that anyone taking him seriously doesn’t have that pipedream. I mean, really? Is that insulting? I’m asking honestly, because I don’t think so. And I’m really sorry you took it that way.
The point is, he DOES say what he actually means, but it’s a long and involved explanation that requires critical thinking and attention for more than a minute, so it’s not the kind of chatter that gets highlighted in the sound bites of political debates or in a short interview with Stephen Colbert. It also requires you to get past the initial shock whenever he answers a question about getting rid of a federal department with an affirmative.
I’m not trying to insult you by saying that you’re not doing these things, but when you say stuff like, “he should be honest enough to actually say what he means,” then it seems like you aren’t taking the time to listen to the entire answer, or even to search through his copious amounts of responses and writings to help answer any questions you may have about his intentions.
And where are you getting these so-called “solid outlined plans of action” from other candidates that you aren’t getting from Ron Paul? Let’s keep from speaking in the abstract here and use some hard evidence and actual examples.
For instance, the balanced budget under Clinton was done without abolishing federal programs. But Ron Paul isn’t suggesting that we get rid of these programs just as a means of balancing the budget. He suggesting it because they’re unconstitutional or unnecessary, or both. It’s not the quintessential answer to our problems, it’s simply an answer to one problem - Big Unnecessary Government Bureaucracy. After that problem is taken care of, it’s up to the people to stand up and take responsibility, not only for themselves, but for their communities, for their states, for their country, and for their government.
But again, all of this has to be precluded by a change in the way people think about the role of federal government. If that doesn’t happen, then Ron Paul doesn’t get the change that he ultimately wants. Instead he becomes a president who fails to convince the people of the need for change in the role of government domestically, all while running a financially sound foreign policy that decreases the threat to our security, decreases the bloated pentagon budget, and allows us to move that money to domestic programs that people have come to think of as part of our federal government’s responsibilities. But I digress, this change is not meant to be done by Ron Paul himself and force people into this. It’s the people that have to affect change.
November 27th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Ah.. the difference between pipe dreams and ignorant is that I didn’t call you a pipe dream. Straw man, anyone? I’ve had my fill, thanks.
Also.. I don’t see any other candidtate demanding that we get rid of the national government as we know it. (And yes, we got along fine without it before.. but the world was slightly less complicated back then.) What we’re talking about here is nearly anarchy - Market Anarchy to be more specific.. plus a few non-economic applications thrown in just because the founding fathers didn’t think far enough ahead to account for the Industrial Revolution.
The other candidates shouldn’t be expected to supply an outline for how the market will magically spawn a replacement to our education system - because they’re not the ones trying to abolish it! As far as changes in policies are concerned, they are nearly all on the record in those terms.
If Ron Paul has laid out how the market plans to handle hundreds of thousands of bankrupt school systems with self-regulating and comparably affordable quality school systems, I’d very much appreciate a reference because I’m having trouble finding ANY such plan outlined anywhere on the internet. All I can find is how Paul has voted in the past and that he thinks people should be able to decide where their children attend school.
Not like we don’t already have such a choice or anything.. I guess the market must just be tricked by the government since all the families out there that are still choosing public education over private alternatives. So fly in the Founding Fathers and Strict Constitutionalist arguments.. wait, wasn’t all that before the fields of modern Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Computers, and the like? Oh.. but nevermind all that, eh?
November 27th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
I only used the word pipedream because you did.
I’m not trying to construct any strawmen.
And they don’t have to be demanding the same thing in order for you to need solid outlined plans of action for their proposals. Is this a double standard? OR are you just more curious about Paul’s specific outlines than you are about say… Hillary’s national healthcare proposal or her keep-the-troops-in-Iraq-and-bring-them-home-at-the-same-time strategy? That’s a genuine question, by the way.
To address your education point, Ron Paul isn’t saying that he wants to dismantle the education system, he’s saying that he wants it to be the state’s responsibility. All he’s saying is that there doesn’t need to be, and in fact shouldn’t be, a department for it at the federal level. In other words, nothing needs to replace it, it’s already there. We just need to change the way people look to the federal government for these things. You would know these things about Ron Paul if you were truly paying attention to what he has said. But instead you’re just being argumentative without any real interest in finding answers to your - seemingly disingenuous - questions.
All you’re interested in is attacking him and lobbing strict libertarian generalizations in his direction without giving any merit to the numerous times that I’ve mentioned that this is all precluded by a change in the way THE PEOPLE think about the role of the federal government. In the process of ignoring it, you do nothing for the discussion and descend into outright reductio ad absurdum argumentation. Something which you already said you had no time for. And look… here you are doing it yourself.
November 27th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Chris-
You did a fine job with Miguel and were much more patient than I would have been. Some day Miguel will understand. I suspect, if Ron Paul is not elected, Miguel will have no choice but to figure out how to find solutions to his problems w/o govt. Soon enough the govt. will be bankrupt and not be able to fund Miguel’s beloved public school and other needs.
Hey Miguel - you did not even realize it, but you nailed it when you said, “but the world was slightly less complicated back then.”. Exactly Miguel. The world is a much more complicated place today than it was 200 years ago. That is the exact reason why govt. needs to be shrunk to the size of a pimple. Govt. is not prepared to deal with the complexities of the new millennium. It never was and it never will be. Govt. is the problem not the solution. Govt. is force. Its time to unleash the power of the individual. Miguel, I suggest you get on board or be steamrolled. There is a mighty change coming. It may not happen in 08 but it will happen. I prefer we do it by our own choice in 08 b/c if we go much further it will be pushed on to us via a federal bankruptcy that will impact every individual in America. Have you seen the value of the dollar lately?
November 27th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Thank you,
For what it’s worth… I’m not trying to argue with him. I began with the premise that his questions about Ron Paul were genuine. And I was simply trying to explain what he seems to not understand, which is still the point I was making in the original post.
Alas, he seems hell-bent on misinterpreting my words to the end of picking out non-existent logical fallacies and accusing me of insulting him, and (unwittingly or willingly
) ignoring the explanations that would help quell some of his reservations about Ron Paul.
I’m beginning to get the feeling that his admitted ignorance of Ron Paul’s so-called “solid plan” is willful and preferred, simply because it provides an excuse to attack him and grounds on which to dismiss his bid for the presidency.
I have no interest in arguing or debating to change the vote of someone who thinks they already know everything about him that they need to know, but I am most willing to explain (where I can) the things that people may genuinely have questions about.
November 28th, 2007 at 3:33 am
Funny, I’m actually not a fan of Hillary at all.. but here’s her entire first plan.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c103:H.R.3600.IH:
And here’s the second one on universal health insurance:
http://multimedia.nydailynews.com/pdf/2007/09/18/hillary_clinton_health_care_plan/
These were almost too easy to find. Your turn! Or am I still not being genuine enough for you? Come on.. at least throw me a bone here.. something. You haven’t provided a single lick of substance. Just ad hominums, dismissiveness, straw men, and a host of fallacious arguments simply in favor of shrinking DC to the size of a zit just for the sake of it(ElLobo’s analogy, not mine).
Oh and please do elaborate on how a much more complicated and faster economic, educational, technological world means that a central regulating government is obsolete? Could you please cite any other first world nation that in no way protects vital services such as education and health care from bankruptcy or outright fraud?
Can you also explain to me why it’s somehow a good idea for people to profit from the public illness?
How about school systems that care more about making a profit or considering whether your child has enough cost-effective potential to help them reach higher competitive ratings than actually spending resources where as many students as possible get the attention they need to succeed in life?
As far as eliminating the federal involvement on the education system in particular is concerned, do you even have the slightest idea what goes on in the Federal Education Department? Republicans whine about an invasion of local rights.. but they actually don’t affect policy that much at all (except to regulate against major civil rights abuses that the christian right is so insistent on continuing) - it instead focuses merely on evaluation, assisting with the distribution of loans to students from low income families, etc.
You might think that free marketers would appreciate a department that helps ensure the transparency of progress that the FED provides. In a purely privatized system, you’d basically be left with statistics from commercials and ads - and I’m sure we all know by now how reliable businesses can be when it comes to airing their dirty laundry.
Sure, No Child Left Behind is an expensive farce forcing children to learn how to score higher standardized tests and very little to nothing else.. but that’s the fault of an ignorant man’s attempt to pretend to address the problems, not a problem with the FED itself.
You’ve got my attention.. I’m all ears, do you have anything of substance to enlighten me about how (another simple example:) giving up the federal student loan department to a profit hungry finance market (compare public Direct Loan with private Guaranteed Loan: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/senate/committees/student_affairs/nte/research6.html).
So what were you saying about how using systems proven to be flawed time and time again is somehow better for this country than employing the nonprofit approach? How much money is being wasted on US privatized militaries in Iraq? How did the American Public fair when regulations on mortgage finance handling were lifted?
I just don’t see why such faith in the market to regulate itself is so warranted. Just like democracy and everything else, freedom only truly exists the majority is prohibited from getting away with the murder of the minority. The founding fathers knew this better than anyone.. and if they were living today, I bet they’d want to add a few things to their pride and joy given all that we’ve learned over the past couple hundred years.
November 28th, 2007 at 4:10 am
Ooh.. have you heard about the Kucinich-Paul proposal?
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/119606963456620.xml&coll=2
I can definitely see Paul being much more effective getting the best parts of his ideas to fruition as the Presidentof the Senate. I’m not a huge fan of either extreme (Kucinich or Paul), but perhaps this would be an appropriate balance and compromise that could even appeal to radial independants and moderates riding the fence but still looking for serious government reform.
My gripe has always been that some of the best and most direct ideas (though some are still nonetheless flawed here and there) are buried in the extremes unable to be palatable by the less ideological middle voting block.
Too bad Paul would likely never settle for anything less than a completely libertarian ticket. Like I said.. it’s all or nothing with Paul. hrmm.. or perhaps I should say: it’s no goverment at all or nothing with Paul. Too bad.. this is probably the only way either of them have a chance to take on either of the party front runners.
Kucinich is clearly the better man for proposing such a compromise with someone with such radically different political approach. The dismissive response from the Paul camp is quite disinheartening.. but predictable and confirming of my claims of the extreme ideology of his positions.
November 28th, 2007 at 8:40 am
November 28th, 2007 at 9:13 am
No fallacies here, I have not attacked you and used that attack to dismiss your argument, I have not reframed your argument in any way to make it easier to dismiss, and I am not dismissing anything you are saying. If that’s what you are going to continue to think, then I regret that my apologies for leaving room for such misinterpretations are being ignored. I am just trying to help you understand that it’s not Paul’s job to scheme for a way to get rid of unnecessary federal bureaucracy. He’s told you his plan is to persuade people that those departments are simply unnecessary, and when something is unnecessary, you don’t need to “replace” it with anything at the federal level.
And you didn’t answer the question. I wasn’t asking what Hillary’s plans are, I was asking about your curiosity. The point was that Paul’s so-called “plans” are just as available as Hillary’s if you’re willing to pay attention, which you clearly aren’t.
I never said that I agreed with Ron Paul on any of that. I only agree with his approach that he can’t force people to accept a form or action of government simply because he thinks it’s right. He knows that simply being elected does not give him a mandate to carry out all of his proposals or ideas at his will. He understands better than any other candidate what the job of the president is, and his power is very limited in what he can force upon the people.
By virtue of the 14th amendment the civil rights are to be protected by the states, so I don’t see why a federal education department is needed for that. Evaluation too, why can’t the sate department of education be responsible? Same goes for providing aid. Again, this is all based on the idea that the people will change the way they think of the federal government’s responsibilities first, then the departments can go and responsibilities can be shifted. It’s not a change to be forced by Paul himself. And It’s not about privatizing it. It’s simply not the responsibility of the federal government.
All you’re doing is substituting a completely free market libertarian philosophy where one isn’t necessarily being proposed (the definition of a strawman, by the way). And again, you would know this if you were really paying attention to what Ron Paul is saying. But that’s not even really the point. Even if he were proposing an absolute completely free market for everything, that change would be predicated on creating buy-in from the people on such things. It’s not his place to change it, it’s the people’s place.
This is why I can completely disagree with Paul about keeping the government out of Medical Care (because it’s in the private company’s best interest to keep you sick) and still support him as a leader and a candidate for president.
November 28th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Again, like I said in my first comment, let’s review the point from the article…
December 4th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
[…] following video, Ron Paul says, in his own words, exactly the point I was trying to communicate in my last post and the subsequent […]
December 17th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Cavuto completely ignored in his question (when he finally somewhat nailed him down) and Dr. Paul in his answer two of the powers the latter will have as President (I hope he was holding them, neatly concealed, like aces during the pre-flop betting round of a Texas hold-em hand.) He will be able to rehire all US attorneys and if he chooses, can instruct them not to prosecute tax cases. He will have for his purposes unlimited under Article 2 Section 2 unlimited pardon power, which includes via US v. Klein, the power to pardon classes of people. If Dr. Paul is reluctant to use this latter power, I suggest he read Federalist 74, for that paper covers in detail just such cases as this and it is clear that the pardon power was intended for just such injustices as we have every day with the profoundly unfair tax laws.
December 20th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
[…] a previous post, in the process of describing the unprecedented power claimed by the current administration, I made […]