For 2012 your choice as a registered Democrat is already made: you’re going to vote for Obama. You’re OK with things as they are; you believe in a government run by Democrats. You may even believe that the inflationary and spending policies of Bush and Obama will eventually work. However, I need you to think beyond just this singular choice for a moment and think about a bigger picture. That is, the “what if?”
I’ll explain.
If Mitt Romney goes against Obama and wins, a strong likelihood, he won’t raise taxes on the rich as you would like. He strikes me as having planted his stake firmly with the corporatists and crony capitalists. He is pro-military-industrial complex, and he may be pro-Romneycare. I do not want this man to win, and you definitely do not want this man to win.
The others?
Herman Cain is out. Lucky for you.
Michelle Bachman? Her chances look grim right now, but the LAST person any of us should want as the president of the United States is an ex-IRS attorney. She is also a Tea Party late-comer. She jumped on the band-wagon, painted it with hideous colors, and is broadcasting a hateful ideology regarding gay rights. I do not want this woman in office. I suspect you feel the same.
Rick Perry … I forgot the uhhh, wait, it’s … oops. He would be awful. Close your eyes and imagine what it would be like to have this guy as president … OK, now go to the bathroom and clean up. Most Texans don’t even credit him for the reason Texas stayed at the forefront of U.S. economies (only 21% believe he had anything to do with it). Imagine another Texas Governor at the wheel of our nation. He’s sort of a W. Bush without the intellectual encumbrances.
I feel bad for Jon Huntsman. Huntsman is a very bright guy with three hot daughters, and one would think this is a winning recipe for attaining office. He holds many libertarian ideals and was appointed by Obama as the Ambassador to China—he speaks Chinese. But it seems that there is only enough room for one libertarian (Paul) and one Mormon (Romney).
Santorum? He’s the MOST socially conservative of the lot. The Pope’s man so to speak.
Then there’s Newt. Not the cute kid from Aliens that managed to keep herself alive in the midst of a parasitic alien race. Newt Gingrich IS a parasitic monster that has been in the pocket of corporations, is pro-military industrial complex, pro-war, and pro-extending the Patriot Act. This man does not treasure liberty, freedom, or abide by our Constitution. You don’t know where this guy will go. This should scare the hell out of you.
So who’s left?
Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is polling well across all states. He raises more money than any other candidate, including Obama.
First, I disagree with his stance on abortion. However, after reading his book and listening to his story of being a young doctor at a hospital that performed abortions – I was made to understand his perspective. I do not agree with a pro-life stance, but I agree as an individual he saw some things that deeply shook him. The way the book read, he seems to have more in common with a Vietnam veteran who saw too much war versus some kind of dogmatic religious determinant:
“It was pretty dramatic for me to see a two-and-a-half-pound baby taken out crying and breathing and put in a bucket.”
Moving on.
- Ron Paul wants to end our war-driven foreign policy. He would bring our soldiers home (from everywhere).
- He wants to remove our income tax (for everyone, not just the rich) and abolish the IRS. He’ll fund a streamlined government through excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs, and massive cuts in wasteful spending.
- He would also like to end the Federal Reserve – the system that causes our boom-bust cycles and has resulted in trillions of dollars in economic damage since its inception.
- He would like you to be in charge of you, and remove the always-growing barriers to individual choice and personal freedom.
- He would have us do away with “protective” governmental organizations which have placed regulations in place that favor large corporations and inhibit the formation of new businesses.
In short, he doesn’t want to tell you how to run your life or how to spend your money, and if Ron Paul was to beat Obama, isn’t he the best of the “worst” in your opinion as a liberal Democrat?
So I need to ask you again, as liberals, do something for the good of all Americans, and make sure the two best candidates go head-to-head. If you choose to be thoughtful and honest about this, then take a concerted effort to help create the least amount of damage to a country that has already had more than it can take. We can’t afford a Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Michelle Bachman.
Here’s how you can make sure this happens:
Change your political party (temporarily) to Republican (I’m libertarian, but I registered as a Republican so I could make sure Ron Paul has a better chance). Once you do that, you are able to vote in the Republican primaries. Then, please vote for Ron Paul.
I can understand how the idea of all of this dismays you, but again, think of it as an insurance policy against truly unprincipled characters – candidates that have a very good chance to win in 2012.
Here’s some dated, but decent online information on how to change your registration.
Jon Stewart likes this guy. Here’s a clip of him discussing the “if we ignore him maybe he’ll go away” conservative media bias against Ron Paul.
Do the right thing.
mATT, you would be well received in DC…
Hans, we already know your stance on RP and that you’re firmly in Bachman’s court. I just don’t like her on principle. Remember what I went into with “exclusionary liberty”?
Matt, the fact that you wish to manipulate the voting booth, only tells me that your man can not win..
This is one grand strategy, axing the leftocrats to support Paul in order to have the two “best” candidates in the general election…
Is this all the talk in the Ron Paul’s forums?
To undermine our political process, with this underhanded means only services up the notion of how corrupt our politics has become; not to mention the utter contempt for ethics and principles…
BTW, what will you do, if Paul does not win?
“Manipulate the voting booth” – Are you aware this is something individuals have the right to do at ANY time? So, this is more of an opinion piece on why Ron Paul is a better option for America.
They should worry about someone like Bachman, Newt, or Romney getting elected. I would ask liberals to examine and potentially find some congruence with the only Libertarian/Austrian Economics minded GOP candidate (barring perhaps Jon Huntsman).
I do not like Obama, or the liberal mindset. But, if the end result is maybe, just maybe, it’ll win over some hearts and minds – then I feel pretty good about it.
I do not read the Ron Paul forums. Too many neo-Tea Partyers.
If Ron Paul does not win, I’ll write him in. Same as last time. To me, theory and principle are everything.
The simple fact that the republican party chooses to field the candidates it does – proves that we have an entrenched system of cronyism, corporatism and mixed economy partial socialism. Ron Paul is to the republicans what Ralph Nader is to the democrats from the perspective that he represents a core constituency that allows him to run for office and secure enough petition signatures to make it through the primary function. Whatever your philosophical bent, if you want more freedom you must begin from the ground up. You must not be distracted by presidential elections. Focus on congress, the senate, and your state races. Develope your representatives from the ground up. I personally believe that as commander in chief Paul would be a disaster. He’s a blame America first proponent just like Obama but, if possible, even worse. He seems to me to specialize in 20/20 hindsight. It’s interesting to me that in all his years in congress he has not made any progress among his peers in promoting his ideas through reason and debate. I think the reason for this is that liberatarianism is a flawed system and like our dysfunctional government and conventional two party system its mixed premises work to undermine its core intent to promote and protect individual rights.
I’m not sure what you mean with 20/20 hindsight? He warned congress often of the impending crash, the dangers of the Fed, and hasn’t wavered from his central decision-making (libertarian) standpoint.
Hayek said that it’s an arduous process to repeal centralized governments, and painful, but that the healing process is generally pretty quick (market adapts). Ron Paul strikes me as the kind of person that will get in there and do some damage, but will help create a healthier organism over all. I do not get that feeling from any other candidate.
I believe American foreign policy IS to blame for many of our problems (though not all). In almost every case our militarized foreign policy has wrought a massive loss of life and a certain degree of blowback. The difference between Obama and RP is that, Dr.Paul would actually practice what he preaches. And non-interventionism is a very different from isolationism. I do not worry about the creation of a “weaker” America in that sense.
I am a libertarian, and believe that system to be far less flawed than what we currently have.
Thanks for he comment.
You’re kidding, right? This reads like Jonathan Swift’s “Modest Proposal.”
Say it ain’t so!
How so? Am I fattening up RP for the Dems?
I see what you’re getting at, but that’s not exactly the point of the argument. It’s a marketing message. I’m simply putting forth a case that says “if you really think you care, participate in a system that will help minimize the potential damage”.
I’m not disguising Dr.Paul as some quasi-liberal delicacy. He’s very much a libertarian.
You are certainly helping turn moral absolutist capitalists away from Ron Paul. You are buttressing the very paradigm you rhetorically wish to undermine, shining more and more light on how Paul is ideal from the perspective of both the marxist and Islamist worldviews. Those of us so enamored with the Austrian school and laissez-faire are seeing the once-obviousness of Paul debased by the articulations of his staunchest supporters.
Of course, you are always hostile to conservative Christian and Jewish worldviews (relatively emboldening the political agendas of islamists, queers, eugenicists, and marxists). You seem to think that your Austrian view of economics and classical liberalism absolves you of your patently materialist (marxist) analysis of history. Objectivists may also arrive at both atheism and libertarianism like you, but such thinkers by and large recognize the immorality of self-sacrifice and submission. Such objectivists, purely rational and Aristotelean, conclude of Islam exactly what the Platonic Jews and Christians have intuited. This alignment of “opposites” objectively disrupts your catchall paradigm of religious versus secular, and exposes your secularism (or secular humanism) as a religion itself – an irreligion that relies on its own ethics (the ethics of having no ethics until we “discover” them through rational thought). A truly secular State would not decide what speech to ban in public places (e.g. schools), but when secularism is established as state religion, then State can ban all other religions in public and can ban any speech some special class and their ethicists complains about. You apparently believe that is the original intent of the establishment clause.
Your geopolitical rhetoric generally reads as marxist analysis (paralleling Michael Moore, Naomi Klein, Robert Pape, Obama, and Osama) with a dash of Alex Jones Trutherism. Islam is a violent reaction to Judaism and Christianity in the first instance and within itself thereafter – Islam is itself “blowback” in its own terms. Arab Trutherism (that Jews were behind 9/11) is based on the premise that America can be Islamized without violence (through secular humanism via courts), so 9/11 could have only been perpetrated to make Islam look bad. “Sharia-compliant finance is very Christian,” they will tell you. Lending money at interest is “Jewish,” compounding is the basis of capitalism, and capitalist incorporation is corrupt. Booms and busts must end. Ergo, Osama Bin Laden’s last tape: “And it seems that the path to stop the hegemony of capitalism is to carry out a real radical change that will help you liberate — not to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein — but to liberate the White House so that Barack Hussein will be liberated and with him, everyone else from the hegemony of these corporations.”
What else but moral relativism could account for your support of free market capitalism while whitewashing the forces that wish to undo free market capitalism? How can you purport to be free of the Marxist-Hegelian dialectic while holding so rigidly to the religious versus secular paradigm? Are you not effectively a marxist progressive if you have a Darwinian view of society as “evolving” towards a utopia that is the synthesis of previously antithetical movements? Does that premise not rely on the marxist idea of matter over mind – that the rearrangement of material things will change the way people think (i.e. that all ideology is “false consciousness”)?
Your call to action to Democrats helps paint Paul as closer to a marxist libertarian than an objectivist libertarian, obfuscating the source of his morality and the morals of those who would take advantage of a president that does not recognize or understand the forces that oppose his ideals.
Weak response, Mr. Author. The comment reflects a sound philosophical foundation, and your decision to imply he/she was merely overthinking your position is deflection at best. Defend your beliefs and philosophy. A more thoughtful response is warranted.
No, it isn’t.
You are out there.
I have no idea how you managed to contrive all that from a marketing message for liberals to educate themselves on libertarian ideals, and to find some personal congruence in Ron Paul’s message of peace, the logic of Austrian economics, and the benefits of small government.
You have not derived some greater understanding of what I’m conveying here, or on my geopolitical perspective. This is not a defense of terrorism or some appeal to Marxism. Both, I find despicable.
Lighten up on the absolutism, too. It has little to do with what I’m trying to accomplish. Voting for Ron Paul isn’t going to make your state disappear over night.
I am responding to all that you have published about politics cumulatively since I last commented on a post, then urging resistance to the intelligentsia of the Occupy movement. I wasn’t critiquing Ron Paul here inasmuch as I’m trying to understand why you are apparently dismissive of the objectivist and theist libertarians (the majority of libertarians, perhaps), and why you instead proclaim yourself a libertarian who registers as a Republican trying to merge the two parties into one or none, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Marxist
I don’t say or mean that you defend terrorism. I am saying that a liberal arts student who reads all the social philosophy at prestigious university would find your view of religion and history to be categorically marxist in a blind taste test, and I’m observing, along with the Ayn Rand champions and traditional Western religionists, that marxism enables Islamism. Of course your view of macroeconomics is not marxist, but your faith in economics as “social science,” and your strict materialism itself is marxist. Of course, you may have a point that Jon Stewart is also a Republican now, and that’s the end of the discussion, and I’m to be committed to an insane asylum.
Moral relativism means no belief in an objective truth. The context you setup is the GOP primary, not whether or not Paul is better than Obama. Today, you are literally urging Democrats to ‘Occupy’ the GOP Primaries. Riding dirty? None of us here are voting for Obama, but you’ve got to let Ron Paul go if he doesn’t get the nod, and hope he gets Chairmanship of Federal Reserve to put his mouth where the money is.
Matt, don’t dent your pick with this guy.
I’m at a loss.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama because Ron Paul would lose to Obama. A vote for Obama is a vote for statism. Statism is against everything Ron Paul supporters seem to believe in.
Libertarians voted en mass for Obama last time directly. Could they have actually thrown the election to Obama? I have no idea. But anyone voting for Obama owes big time. The most important thing is to vote Obama out. Libertarianism will have every opportunity to pressure for their solutions after the election just like everyone else.
I’m not sure how you reached that conclusion, do you *know* something? I’ve got a guy in Vegas who would like to know :)
I think RP is running to win, now more than ever. He has only grown in the polls, whereas the rest of the candidates have been prone to sudden increases and decreases in their respective standings. If you’re a Romney supporter (and therefore a fan of bailouts and Statism to some degree), do you not vote for Ron Paul if he suddenly emerges as the candidate? Or, do you switch to Obama? Which begs the question, which candidates align more closely to what Obama is already doing?
RP sways more independents and has the largest following of those who’ve become disenfranchised by the Democrats. He gets the most military contributions by far. Plus, if he runs and LOSES – doesn’t that send a better message to our representatives than Romney actually winning?
Hi, I have been rooting for Ron Paul Tirelessly in the Politics section of YA for a year now and Jeff Harding is the one who explained Austrian Economics to me. Ron Paul is the answer to at least get us on the right track. I don’t know where these Neocons came from attacking you but you are absolutely right and I am going to twitter and facebook and ask a question using your Article. Good Work. Did you hear the Candy Crowley interview? Ron Paul turned her on her ear for twisting his words. lol http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/01/01/ron_paul_steve_king_and_terry_branstad_on_state_of_the_union_112608.html
Thanks Leslie.
Folks, Do you understand what Marxism is, and the consequences of that philosophy? (Totalitarian government …. with all the “chains” and “handcuffs” … not to mention what it does to the economy and human spirit). Libertarianism is diametrically opposed to a Totalitarian government. The jist is “freedom”, as complete as possible. The consequences of Libertarianism is that …. “no help from the state”, however, that is preferred. Living in a libertarian society, would necessarily be somewhat similar to living in the 1900′s, without regulation, taxes, government intrusion.
Agree. Thanks Pat.
Marxism and libertarianism are not mutually exclusive. Marxism has influenced a number of political ideologies, some opposed to each other. You are probably referring to communism in your generalization. Marx wrote much more than a political manifesto; he laid the foundation for what is taught in Universities as “Sociology.” The Universities are now apparently teaching that if you reject Communism you can’t be marxist, while also teaching marxist analysis as “correct.” Anyway, there are many possible libertarian societies based in free markets, and some are based in the “discovered truths” of sociology. Leftist libertarianism is about economic democracy (against corporate capitalism and state socialism alike) whereas Right-libertarianism is pro-capitalist and not egalitarian. Obviously, there is currently a movement of libertarian marxists and libertarian socialists in the USA. Noam Chomsky, for example, may be described as a libertarian – he opposes Marxism-Leninism while proposing a post-capitalist, stateless, worker-managed society based in direct democracy. A model here would be the autonomous municipalities of the Zapatistas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation
The issue at hand is whether or not you welcome leftist libertarians to occupy the GOP. Ron Paul is not a leftist libertarian per se but he does seem to be promoted by marxist thinkers who claim they are now libertarian and Republican though they would caucus with the anti-judeo-christian Democrats if not for Ron Paul. These are the people who make Ron Paul less attractive to traditionalist libertarians like himself, ironically, because they make him appear Leftist. This issue is about disservice – either as counterproductive activism or activism that intends to sabotage the solidarity of the anti-Left.
If you are honestly making the statement “Marxism and libertarianism are not mutually exclusive” you do not understand Libertarianism.
Perhaps you are defining libertarianism in quite a limited fashion in order to suit your wordldview, to the exclusion of the views of objectivist and theistic libertarian thinkers who also claim the mantle of libertarianism. Perhaps you are not understanding what language marxism has given to you. This is a critique of you, not Ron Paul. Honestly.
Charlie Wilson’s War. Go watch it.
I did, great movie.
Unfortunately the Right and Left have the same agenda, modeling Society in their own Image using OPM (other peoples money) to do so, Dr. Paul would like to remove the OPM from the system, leaving everyone with their own money instead of allowing this large pool of money and power to corrupt absolutely. I honestly think most people would not know what to do with themselves if they did not have a Government Master dictating how they should live. The Nanny State is the preferred Reality for both sides, that is why I do not believe the Dem’s would embrace your idea. Its all about Concentrated Money (Power) over the lives of others, talk about the Borg and assimilation, I do not wish to be assimilated by any one.
You’re right, of course. Most of these GOP candidates are closer to what democrats are comfortable with. However, they would also like to believe they are anti-corporatists (despite what democrat leadership has put into action). I think it’s RP’s anti-corporatist/anti-cronyist ideas and message of peace that should resonate with democrats.
That is what I’m hoping takes hold.
Wow. How nice. Would you like the Republicans to do this in the next election so they could stomach your candidate? Paul has some good ideas…but as most of us know, if you go into office and change EVERYTHING all at once, radically, it’s gonna be a rough ride.
The question is pain now and then the Ship of State on the correct course, ie stop borrowing from our Grandchildren.
We just to go into a bankrupt death spiral such as Greece and see the Republic disappear?
Lets see Dept. of Energy, 40 years and billions wasted, still no energy policy. Dept. of Education, 40 years, and my child’s college education 180K higher than mine, talk about INFLATION, billions wasted but every kids gets 3 meals of junk food a day. Children that are not taught to think but are programed?
Human History tells us we are near the tipping point, it will take a little more than SOP to keep from going over the falls.
it’s going to be a rougher ride if everything is not changed radically.
band-aids need to be ripped off, and it hurts. people need to grow up and deal with it. a hangover on New Year’s Day is made better with a bloody mary but only temporarily. the problem of spending too much of other people’s money is not made better by spending even more money. this is exactly where we are right now — look to europe if you want to see our future.
Damn right, and this was one of Hayek’s major points in Road to Serfdom.
Capitalism Sans Anarchy to your comment – “Of course your view of macroeconomics is not marxist, but your faith in economics as “social science,” and your strict materialism itself is marxist” And then your later comment “Marxism and libertarianism are not mutually exclusive.” I have to agree with another of your comments – “and that’s the end of the discussion, and I’m to be committed to an insane asylum.”
Seriously Sir, you need your head examined if you believe that. It indicates a Split Level Head imo.
Hi DD Happy New Year
Your Welcome Matt
I used a time machine to create all the history documented in Wikipedia (or maybe the Jews behind 9/11 made it all up). That’s how crazy I am. Here is another comrade: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
CapSanAn, I agree with you. You are, as you admit, “crazy.” I wish to warn you that bigotry will not be tolerated on this site. Consider this a warning. If you engage further in this type of bigoted commentary you will be banned. This is a “two strikes and you’re out” policy.
Is it bigoted to use the words of bigots for educational purposes, or to use a word some group claims exclusive rights to use when identifying themselves? May I protest the first strike and regain two? What is the exact charge? Is there a list of banned speech and books here?
hello and the same to you Leslie!