The Ron Paul campaign is over. While he may hang in there for a few more weeks, the hope of Dr. Paul having any sway at a brokered convention has been dashed as he failed to pick up a substantial amount of delegates tonight on Super Tuesday. While he did have some double digit showings in North Dakota, Minnesota, Montana, and Alaska, these winner take all states did not boost his profile in the end. The only strong states he has left are Washington and Texas, but after his poor showing tonight it is unlikely that he will succeed in those states. As much as it hurts me to admit it, Ron Paul is finished.
No doubt there will be some hardcore supporters dreaming up pie-in-the-sky scenarios in which the nation comes to its senses and Ron Paul makes a dramatic comeback. But that won't get the r3VOLution anywhere. So the real question becomes: where do we go from here?
In order to answer that question, I think it's necessary to take a look back at how far we have come and what prevented us from getting even further. Out of a field of eleven candidates, Ron Paul made it to be one of the last four in the running, a remarkable feat for a no-name congressman that was written off by corporate media. He owned the internet for months, and inspired people from all over the world to actively support him and embrace his ideas. He has over 100,000 videos on YouTube, and his most viewed video has 5 million views. What's more, he was in 19 debates and had numerous television interviews on local and national stations, including appearances on Jay Leno, Comedy Central, and Meet the Press, among other notable interviews. The message has gotten out. Many people have heard what he had to say, even if they rejected it or in the end weren't convinced. He has earned a place in the history books, and as things get worse for America, he may be looked at by future generations as a prophet, even if he was a Cassandra in his own time.
A more immediate legacy will probably be the campaign organizational model that sprung up around him: decentralized, unpayed supporters doing most of the work organizing precincts, garnering media attention, and spreading his message; a message of freedom, peace, and prosperity made possible by vastly reduced military spending, a new foreign policy that respects other countries as we would want to be respected, and above all a strict adherence to the rule of law under the constitution. The new media is still flexing its muscles and as a new generation grows up with the internet and more and more people are turned off by the hypocricy and blatant misinformation and propagandizing on TV, new media will only grow stronger.
The way I see it, there are basically three ways of understanding why Ron Paul lost. 1) The corporate media, subservient to the military-industiral compex, created a Ron Paul news vacuum in which notable events in his campaign were ignored or given short shrift, and he was blatantly left out of discussions involving all the other candidates and their chances. Because of this no one heard about him and so no one voted for him. 2) People in general (i.e. 'the masses') are too ignorant or stubborn to recognize a good thing when they see it. America is lost and doesn't deserve the positive changes a Paul presidency would bring. 3) Not enough people are educated about the true state of the union and so although Ron Paul spoke the truth about foreign entanglements, people didn't recognize it and wrote him off as a 'crackpot'.
Personally, I see it as a combination of 1) and 3), although I'm sure that a lot of bitter Ron Paul supporters are going to be blaming 'stupid Americans' for his loss. I for one have great faith in all people, especially the American people. I think that we are basically decent folk, but we are under the influence of the most powerful and stealthy propaganda machine in the history of mankind. Waking up to that kind of evil takes a radical confrontation with previously unknown facts, accompanied by a pretty significant personal transformation, and most people just haven't gone through that yet. So let's not lose hope, and let's not give up on our fellow citizens. The work we have left is to be educators and to be supporters through the emotional stress that accompanies the kind of truth we're sharing.
And so the question remains: where do we go from here? The general answer is to continue on the path we are already on: we need to keep being media activists and call the major networks on innaccurate and unfairly biased stories, as well as diseminating the correct information alongside this critique. We need to keep spreading the word about America's disastrous and immoral foreign policy that includes a well-researched historical and economic perspective, and all this through whatever means are at our disposal: blogs, videos, e-mails, and most-importantly, face-to-face conversations with our friends, family, and those we meet.
Finally, the million dollar question: so who do we vote for in the presidential election in November? I'm sure that a lot of people are so closely wedded to the Paul campaign that they intend to write him in. However, personally I would recommend Cynthia Mckinney of the Green Party. The Green Party is not just for those too liberal for the Democrats--it is a haven for all those who are fed up with the two party system and want to see more choice in our electoral process. They, along with Paul, are crusaders against undeclared, immoral wars of aggression and for restoring the right and liberties in the constitution. They are for reduced military spending and an international military deescalation. They are also vocal supporters of impeachment and a new 9/11 investigation, which many Paul supporters wish he would have stood behind. But wherever you decide to go, and whoever you decide to vote for in November, keep fighting for truth and freedom and it has been an honor working alongside you in that struggle.
I am a 22 year old graduate of the University of Chicago, majoring in Philosophy with a minor in Ancient Greek. I have been happily married for 3 and a half years, no kids. I live in Springfield, Oregon where I am currently unemployed. I grew up the son of an evangelical minister but have completely rejected the institution of the church and the existence of God. I consider myself now to be an Atheist with a "spiritual" side. My wife says I'm a pantheist because I love nature so much. I was apathetic about politics for a long time, but the 9/11 truth movement piqued my interest again, and through that I learned about the patriot act, the military commissions act, the privatization of war, the genocide in Iraq, the manipulation of intelligence, and the great extent of voter fraud. I always knew that politicians were corrupt, but I was shocked to learn that it was so bad. Since then I have slowly become a crusader for peace. I think it's important to take our views off the internet and into face to face interactions. I have confronted my parents about the war, and was surprised and happy to learn that they were Ron Paul supporters. I also am actively involved in local peace movements and try to attend at least one action against the war a week. It's amazing how good it feels to hold an Impeach Cheney sign in one hand, and an American flag in the other, in front of rush hour traffic.
We must all continue to do everything possible to keep Dr. Paul speaking on these issues, himself, for as long as he's able, and willing, to do so. He is such an inspiration to everyone who hears him, he educates every single time he opens his mouth! Sign up to be a precinct leader - learn how to be effective - and donate as often as you can, to allow him to continue speaking! www.ronpaul2008.com
He is the "General Washington" of the 21st century, and every true patriot will continue to rally behind, and carry, his message of hope, freedom, liberty, & peace even in the face of media silence and a majority's disregard for the fate of their nation. (let us NOT forget the thousands who have cast their votes for Dr. Paul in every State thus far!) We will not stop because we are not fighting for just another "election," we are praying for a return to sanity, a return to freedom! ("Reinstate the Constitution!")
We will continue to learn, to read, to educate ourselves, and in that process we will become better equipped to speak to these principles ourselves. We will seek offices from local to national. This is a message that is worth standing up for, this is the "message" that made America great. We must never give up on seeing her return to that standard.
Peace to all, in liberty: ONWARD!
by
Dagny Taggart (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 at 10:55:58 AM
Thanks for your commentary. But why the Green Party?
Ron Paul and the Green Party are fundamentally incompatible. A Paul supporter cannot look to the Green Party. The specifics of Paul's platform come from a primary belief in the freedom of the individual, esp. with regard to government intervention. Free markets, fewer federal laws & regulations, no federal income tax, the freedom to enter voluntary contracts, private responsibility for healthcare and other services--these ideas of Paul's are the opposite of the Green Party's platform which advocates universal healtcare, federal "equal pay" legislation, federal protection for minorities, and a host of other welfare, entitlement, and affirmative action measures. The Green Party believes that government can legislate freedom and equality. This is unequivocally in opposition to Paul's ideas & philosophy.
by
Fran Neely (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 at 11:08:37 AM
Completely agree, Caleb! What do you think about a "write in" of Ron Paul if he is not put forward as the nominee?
No one else, in any party, is carrying the banner of constitutionally-limited government, repeal of the unpatriotic P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, return of habeas corpus, anti-torture, the end of entangling alliances and the endless wars they spawn, sound money, etc. Ron Paul, alone, is the entire package, no little "tweaking" here!
If he does not win the nomination, writing his name in would be making a statement, a statement that rejects the "politics-as-usual" that any other nominee would represent.
Peace, in liberty: ONWARD!
by
Dagny Taggart (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments)
on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 at 11:18:06 AM
Ron Paul, a fairy tale for unlettered progressives who flocked to his anti war ( isolationist) statements and the champion of real libertarians never really stood a chance. His appeal to most was primarily based upon his opposition to the war in Iraq, to any war in fact, was never a serious contender. Most single issue candidates suffer such a fate.
I believe in the American people, and that is why I think Paul never could hope to draw upon a large number of voters. At heart Americans understand the need to care for the elderly, to educate the children free of religous or other contamination, to pay a fair share of taxes in order to finance the social contract with our government, a contract most , when pressed, would admit to supporting.
Further, after the lesson of George Walker Bush , most Americans see a need to control the unfettered capitalism that has wrecked our economy, made us pariahs in the world and led to a shrinking of the middle class, the exporting of our jobs and thus Paul's mythos stands exposed.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 at 11:09:37 AM
It only makes you look even more foolish than does your support for a candidate and a political philosophy that appeals to selfish white racists.
By the by, had you bothered to care about fact, which of course, as a confirmed cultist you do not, you would have found me one of the severest critics of Israel in this forum.
Now run along little girl and let the adults alone.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Thursday, February 7, 2008 at 6:52:39 AM
You are mentally unbalanced, so sorry for you. Fear not, dear lady, the mental health profession has made grand strides in treatment and a cure is certainly possible.
Please try to keep the political discourse about the events on this planet, thanks so much.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Friday, February 8, 2008 at 7:04:07 AM
The "social contract" is not a contract of the people with the government, as you claim. The people have no contract with "the government." The people owe nothing to the government and have the right to cast it off when its usefulness or course has run out. The social contract is the voluntary association of the people, who form a government. To say that the contract is with "the government" is closer to the language of monarchy or socialism. It's not the language of the social contract.
You have faith in the American people? Maybe so. But then how is it that your faith prevents you from trusting that care for the elderly, healthcare, and other forms of social welfare, cannot be accomplished by the local people in their individual communities without Washington's meddling and oversight? I don't need Obama, Clinton, McCain, or Romney as my advocate and protector. I prefer to put my faith in myself, my family, and my community.
My faith in the people, like Ron Paul's faith in people, is quite different from yours, and my hope is that this country will turn away from the welfare & entitlement mentality and once again revive the pioneer spirit of its founders. Mind your business. Don't tread on me. Did the Culpepper Minutemen die so that Washington could take our money and run our lives?
by
Fran Neely (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 at 2:26:05 PM
Free spirits, the ambitious, ex-socialists, drug users, and sexual eccentrics often find an attractive political philosophy in libertarianism, the idea that individual freedom should be the sole rule of ethics and government. Libertarianism offers its believers a clear conscience to do things society presently restrains, like make more money, have more sex, or take more drugs. It promises a consistent formula for ethics, a rigorous framework for policy analysis, a foundation in American history, and the application of capitalist efficiencies to the whole of society. But while it contains substantial grains of truth, as a whole it is a seductive mistake.
There are many varieties of libertarianism, from natural-law libertarianism (the least crazy) to anarcho-capitalism (the most), and some varieties avoid some of the criticisms below. But many are still subject to most of them, and some of the more successful varieties—I recently heard a respected pundit insist that classical liberalism is libertarianism—enter a gray area where it is not really clear that they are libertarians at all. But because 95 percent of the libertarianism one encounters at cocktail parties, on editorial pages, and on Capitol Hill is a kind of commonplace “street” libertarianism, I decline to allow libertarians the sophistical trick of using a vulgar libertarianism to agitate for what they want by defending a refined version of their doctrine when challenged philosophically. We’ve seen Marxists pull that before.
This is no surprise, as libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society.
The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon’s wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments.
Libertarians try to get around this fact that freedom is not the only good thing by trying to reduce all other goods to it through the concept of choice, claiming that everything that is good is so because we choose to partake of it. Therefore freedom, by giving us choice, supposedly embraces all other goods. But this violates common sense by denying that anything is good by nature, independently of whether we choose it. Nourishing foods are good for us by nature, not because we choose to eat them. Taken to its logical conclusion, the reduction of the good to the freely chosen means there are no inherently good or bad choices at all, but that a man who chose to spend his life playing tiddlywinks has lived as worthy a life as a Washington or a Churchill.
The author of this article can no more diminish the inherent value of freedom than he can diminish the inherent value of nourishing food. It's preposterous that he is trying to, merely for the sake of attacking Libertarianism. What he ignores when he writes, "Nourishing foods are good for us by nature, not because we choose to eat them" is that we will not INGEST that nourishing food except by choice or force-feeding. The freedom to ingest nourishing food is therefore prerequesite to determining the nutritive value of the food: food is NOT nourishing if it is unavailable or unrecognizable.
Regarding ingestion, there are only two options: choosing, or force-feeding. Under our government, we are often force-fed, because laws protect poisons that sold as nourishing food, and consequently we eat foods that we haven't chosen: irradiated food that we don't know has been irradiated, and so on. This IS socialism: we have arrived. This is what you are fighting for.
But choices being made FOR us can never supercede the value of choices we make for ourselves: it's a matter of individualization and personal discernment. Food laws provide a classic example of socialism's casualties. Consider the Nazi food laws: while they may have been based on "good" intention, the results were in many cases deleterious to health. By forcing bakeries to incorporate whole grains into their breads, Nazi law ignored the needs of consumers whose digestive systems struggled with the sudden, not gradual, addition of bran to their diet. To the extent that we are socialistic and fascist at once, and have relegated or lost our power to distant dictators, food laws are likewise impacting our lives negatively here.
For example: laws created out of the fascist monster in Washington have protected the interests of GMO giants like Monsanto, so that WE CANNOT CHOOSE nourishing foods in the markets unless we can identify them. GMO labeling, demanded by consumers, still eludes us. Again, we see that our power of choice is more valuable than the nourishing food itself, because we cannot obtain nourishing food except through informed choice (in this case, the choice organic or homegrown foods.) But even the organic industry has been corrupted from within by government seizure of certification and subsequent degrading of standards, so that an organic chicken may not really be an organic chicken anymore. Cross-breeding with GMO organisms endangers organic crops as well; it's predicted that organic soybeans, inadvertantly cross-bred with neighboring crops, will soon be extinct. In a free market where labels are freely used and applied, lack of demand for GMO soybeans would have brought them to an early demise. Nobody chooses Frankenfoods on purpose.
Any thoughts, if you are capable of them? How do you justify voluntarily abdicating power over your own life to the so-called "authorities" in Washington? Or will you handle this challenge as you do all the others, be assuming a lofty position and dispensing some kind of insult?
by
Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 114 comments)
on Friday, February 8, 2008 at 11:14:55 AM
Apparently more so than you are capable of reading the thoughts of Mr. Locke, a very well known and respected conservative. Your prattle about his point on the inherent quality of foodstuffs shows little comprehension of the points made by the author and your manner and tenor give me no reason to continue to dialogue with you.
I could post many such critiques of your political philosophies but without your engaging a brain there is simply no point. Sufficeth to say that you selfish, white, racist buffoons are now and always will be a small minority in this country. The qualities that make this nation great completely escape the likes of you folks, and that may be sad for you but your political impotence makes it ok for our culture.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Friday, February 8, 2008 at 3:09:26 PM
You've shown no evidence of being capable of thought
Once again, you've just gotten on your high and mighty throne and threw out insults rather than intelligently defending your position.
Hilarious that you call me racist and presume to know who my "ilk" are when you know nothing...almost ZERO...about me. What a weak, but sadly common, way to debate with people: presume to know more about them than you really do and stereotype and attack them accordingly, ignoring the issues at hand.
What I said about Locke's silly little article stands. I don't have to accord respect to someone just because they are respected by other Republicans; how simplistic of you to insinuate I should. And I did read AND comprehend the article...but did you??
by
Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 114 comments)
on Friday, February 8, 2008 at 4:15:48 PM
as evidenced by your comment to Jeanette, above. So you have no moral authority to accuse people of racism, especially when they've shown no evidence of it whatsoever. You're the bigot caught red-handed here.
You and your friend Mr. Locke must think Patrick Henry was a real fool. He SHOULD have said, "Give me shelter, happiness, and a good family or death." All that fuss over liberty! Likewise Francis Scott Key had his priorities messed up when he praised America as being "the land of the free." What a selfish notion! If only he could have said, "The land of everlasting government protection for all." Yep, fighting for freedom and liberty ultimately boils down to a fight to preserve morally indiscriminate values, as Locke found out for us. Tiddleywinks, anyone?
Frankly it would have been better for many people if Churchill had kept out of politics and stuck to his real calling, oration, or another innocuous pasttime like tiddleywinks. Rather than screwing up the world as he did. And George Washington was much closer to the Libertarians in his ideology than to the socialists (Democrats) or Republicans of today. Locke can't claim him as one of his own.
by
Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 114 comments)
on Friday, February 8, 2008 at 6:18:33 PM
There are at least three problems with Robert Locke's arguement.
First, "altruism" by definition cannot be coerced by government or by any other organ. If someone is forced to give to another by law, then the ability to be altruistic is in fact taken away. You might argue that Robert Locke is saying that the collective will of the welfare state is "altruistic" irrespective of individual will, but if this is your tactic, it still doesn't change the fact that the individual no longer has the chance for altruism: If I don't want to pay my taxes and don't want to support the welfare state, I cannot be said to be "altruistic" simply because the law forces me. If I do wish to help another independently but am broke from paying taxes, then I must consider my taxes a form of altruism, which means that I must delegate my altruism to an institution, robbing me of the personal virtue of altruism.
Second, Robert Locke is wrong when he says that libertarianism denies that things are good in themselves. As Locke says, a thing does not become good because I choose it, but I can only be good if I am allowed to choose the good. If I am denied the freedom to choose the good, then I cannot be good. I cannot be virtuous by force. Yes, there are those things that Locke says are "good in themselves." What is good is really good in itself, independent of my choosing it. However, I cannot possess moral virtue if I am coerced to perform the good. I cannot gain the virtue of goodness if I have no choice but to do what is good.
Finally, and maybe most importantly, those things that are "good in themselves" are not more likely to be chosen by a central government than by the individual. It is false to say that a central government will do what is good, whereas the individual will not unless coerced by a central government.
The principle of the social contract that you mentioned earlier is built on the idea that the individual is primary. The individual exists without government, and government depends on the consent of the individual who can at any time throw off one form of government, return to the natural state of independence, and create a new form of government. The government has no natural rights. Only the individual does.
by
Fran Neely (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Saturday, February 9, 2008 at 6:11:13 PM
For showing me that all Libertarians are not as blatantly ignorant and shrill as the ones above.....I will never think your philosophy anything more than a selfish desire to keep what is yours without regard to the needs of yoru fellow citizenry but it is nice to see one who actually read the damn piece.
I would have only wished for a deeper introspection into the words and meanings of the author, but that would be asking far too much, especially in this day of a blatantly ignorant electorate as amply demonstrated by the heretofore moronic utterances of the two harpies.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Monday, February 11, 2008 at 7:17:16 AM
If you're concerned with selfishness, you shouldn't let Robert Locke speak for you. He says that society "requires selfishness to funtion"!
But selfishness is a vice, and no vice is "necessary." There's no such thing as a "necessary evil." If there were, the distinction between good and evil wouldn't exist because what is evil would have a context in which it could become good. If this were the case, Robert Locke wouldn't be able to say that some things are "good in themselves."
To tell the truth, I don't think you should wish for "more introspection" from me on Locke's article. Better to wish that Locke had a firmer grasp of the words he uses and that he were more aware of what he recommends as necessary for society. For him to say that selfishness is "required" is a contradiction of his idea that things are good or evil in themselves. He has found a "context" to make selfishness good: an untenable contradiction.
I'd give up on Locke as a spokesman for your views. Maybe you should lend more credit to the views of others, for in my libertarian view, which you disparage, there's no room for Locke's idea that some evil is necessary.
by
Fran Neely (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 5:09:44 PM
What was your last paragraph saying? Looking at the costly blunders of the Bush Administration doesn't expose Ron Paul's "mythos"- Ron Paul had nothing to do with Bush's great errors.
And socialism doesn't equal compassion, it equals slavery to The System.
by
Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 114 comments)
on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 at 7:40:58 PM
of Bush is not the same thing, whatsoever, as the free markets proposed by Ron Paul. You're talking about two entirely different schemes. Under Bush, big corporations expanded and colluded with government through lobbyists for laws that worked in their favor; in a free market, those restrictions that choke smaller businesses wouldn't be there, nor would the tax code be so biased toward corporations.
In a FREE market, we could, for example, find the natural sweetener Stevia in the grocery store next to the other non-sugar sweeteners, where it belongs. Because of big industries influencing laws, Stevia is only "allowed" to be sold as a health supplement. Consumers have limited access to this healthy alternative sweetener. Why? Because of the way the government worked under Bush. Which is the opposite of how it would work in a truly FREE market.
The "fetters" you want on capitalism are really just more chains on the consumers and the choices available to us. Better to have the people voting with their dollars to keep the companies they like in business than let the government pick and choose for us.
by
Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 114 comments)
on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 at 8:06:45 PM
that which you indict. Alas you do not, and , in such ignorance you obfuscate the argument and take it down paths of your own choosing and not of my intent. Not that I blame you as, like most of your ilk, you havent a clue.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Friday, February 8, 2008 at 7:57:19 AM
A good vocabulary (I'll give you 5 points for "obfuscate") doesn't redeem your socialist stupidity. Real men want freedom and independence, not a nanny government.
by
Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 114 comments)
on Friday, February 8, 2008 at 9:57:37 AM
Ron Paul is out for one reason, he was truthful. Americans don't want to hear the truth if it requires a change in status quo, until such time that status quo is personally painful.
Hillary, Mitt, John and Barrack for instance, require no action from the individual except thier vote. After which that individuals lifestyle will take a turn for the positive as a result of superior leadership.
Ron Paul and David Walker (GAO Chief) tell the truth, suggest massive change that requires action by the populous an
