 |
|
Add to My Group
|
November 15, 2007 at 11:58:17
Ron Paul: The Pragmatic Choice by Mike Mejia Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
|
Of the multitude of mainstream 2008 Presidential candidates, there are only three who are truly antiwar. Two of them are running as Democrats, one as a Republican. The two Democrats have little money in the bank, are polling in the low single digits and are clearly headed nowhere fast. The antiwar Republican was in much the same boat as Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel the first few weeks of his Presidential bid. But now his campaign has started to gain momentum: he has broken through the media wall of silence with recent fundraising success and his poll numbers are moving up in the early states of New Hampshire and Iowa. That candidate’s name is Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. This poses a dilemma for any liberal who opposes the Iraq war and the overall war-mongering and empire building of the United States government.. As I wrote in a previous article, a typical liberal will be opposed to Ron Paul on most issues, though Paul is very ‘liberal’ on the questions of war and peace, civil liberties and drug laws. Yet Paul is the only candidate besides Kucinich and Gravel that can be trusted to keep his word and bring the troops back home immediately. And Kucinich and Gravel are simply not making any headway in their respective campaigns. How can liberals balance their desire for the social programs proposed by Hillary and gang against the near certainty that candidates such as Clinton and Obama will continue Bush’s Middle East war policies, albeit on a scaled-down level? Which should be more important, ending the military conflict and bringing the troops home or expanding the welfare state? The choice seems difficult one, until one digs a little deeper.
The first point I would to make is that even if antiwar liberal’s plans on voting Democratic in the General Election, it does not hurt the Democrats chances in November, 2008 to switch over and vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary. The defection of large numbers of Democrats to vote for Paul would send a very clear and unambiguous message to the eventual Democratic nominee: take an antiwar stance or risk losing liberal votes to a Third Party candidate.
The more important point I would like to make, though, is that even if Ron Paul were to ascend to the Presidency, it would not at all be a bad thing for liberal social policy. Paul is opposed to the income tax and wants to eliminate host of federal agencies, ranging from the IRS to Homeland Security. He is ardently pro-gun ownership, anti-choice and would definitely veto any bill that would expand health care benefits. Yet, none of these domestic positions he holds would likely have a practical impact on the actual functioning of government were he to take office in 2009. As President, he would hold no authority to unilaterally eliminate federal agencies or cut taxes or benefits. Any changes would have to take place with the approval of Congress.
But here’s the thing: if a war-mongering liberal Democrat takes office, there still will be no expansion of welfare programs that liberals love. The ‘catch’ with voting for a candidate such as Clinton or Obama, is that their policies on war and defense budgets will likely crowd out any attempt to make a significant expansion of government programs to help the poor and middle class. A prime example is health care. I, personally, am much more in tune with Hillary’s view on health care than I am with Ron Paul’s. Yet, with the current budget deficits and the expansion of the U.S. military expenditures, where is Hillary or Obama or Edwards going to find the money to expand health care coverage? The answer is: they won’t. Health care in America will remain the same, whether under a liberal Democrat or conservative Republican. Any changes that might take place will be at the very far margins.
However, with a Paul Presidency, there might be some hope for some of those programs in the distant future. Because a President Paul could unilaterally start bringing American troops back home. Not only from Iraq, but also from Afghanistan and Kosovo and Korea. A Paul Presidency could finally result in the long sought after ‘peace dividend’. Let’s face it, from a liberal perspective; the expansion of the welfare state can only happen if America scales back its imperial ambitions. Though Ron Paul does not advocate any expansion of the welfare state, he would undoubtedly do much to downsize the American Empire.
This brings me to the abortion issue and the larger issue of who gets to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice. Although some may feel that Paul would appoint a Scalia-type, I do not think this is a real danger. One must recall that Paul’s philosophy is not really conservative, but libertarian to see what kind of justice he would appoint. President Paul would be unlikely to appoint a justice that would rubber-stamp torture or the Supreme Power of the Executive Branch. This, in my view, would eliminate most Scalias and Thomas’s from his consideration. And the judge’s that would most likely fall in Paul’s political philosophy may or may not be anti-choice. But they certainly would be better than the choice’s presented by any other Republican.
Granted, Paul is not the perfect candidate for anyone who believes there is a strong role for the federal government to play in enhancing the social welfare. But in a world of imperfect choices, and faced with Democrats that have never seen a bloated military budget nor a new war they wouldn’t vote for, Paul just may be the most pragmatic choice for any voter who understands the American government cannot be a force for ‘good’ at home until it stops being a force for mischief abroad.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 18 comments |
|
One big thing missing
If only this self-professed champion of the Constitution would be the first presidential candidate to support having the nation's first Article V convention as specified in the Constituiton, and for which the one and only stated requirement has more than been satisfied; learn more at www.foavc.org. This is a question of Paul's integrity. by Joel S. Hirschhorn (141 articles, 50 quicklinks, 65 diaries, 546 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 15, 2007 at 12:37:55 PM  (0+)
|
|
Reply: What the heck are you talking about?
Dude, chill. I'm sure Paul would be interested in something like that. That's exactly the kind of stuff he talks about. by Greg Albert (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 34 comments) on Saturday, Nov 17, 2007 at 1:10:35 PM (0+)
|
|
I like Ron Paul
I agree with you I registered from independent to democrat this election so I could oppose Clinton but Kucinich who I support is far behind and Gravel non existent. Now it looks that is a waste because I live in Florida and they are not going to have delegates at the convention if they hold their primary early like they plan. I support Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy and constitutional issues entirely. by Michael Chavers (53 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 198 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 15, 2007 at 4:20:23 PM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul, a crossover candidate
I see voters from both sides of the aisle voting for Paul. I am an independent and have looked for a truth teller for many years. I don't believe the country will stand another main stream politician for four years. We need leadership that plainly tells it like is and someone that most Middle Americans can line up with. I was previously a Republican and I can tell you that there are MANY moderate Republicans who would vote for Paul if he were running on the Democrat ticket. by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Nov 15, 2007 at 5:47:25 PM (0+)
|
|
Time to pick sides, the Revolution has begun
Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like "America Deceived' from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason. by Lorring II (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 87 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:29:50 AM (0+)
|
|
Brilliant article!
Thanks for an outstanding article. This makes perfect sense. I can now see why there are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, Constitutionals, etc. at all of Ron Paul's rallies. It's truly amazing how RP's simple ideas can cross party lines and unite America back into following the principles on which she was founded. by BugMan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:33:11 AM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul enjoys widespread support
Americans are supporting Ron Paul regardless of their previous party for very simple reasons. He is honest, has integrity and we can see that. Most people are not fooled by politicians that dance around questions and tell us what they think we want to hear. We have been waiting for someone with common sense and there he is. Thus he has enjoying widespread support. I have created a website to prove that he is a "top tier" candidate in spite of the main stream media label that he is a "long shot" candidate. Please visit www.thecaseforronpaul.com and judge the evidence for yourself. by Cleaner44 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 10:59:51 AM (0+)
|
|
Social Programs
Sorry, but the assumption that we need more big government to help the poor and the middle class is just wrong. What we need to do is: - Get rid of the federal Reserve, so that the money in our pockets doesn't constantly shrink. - Get rid of the IRS so the politicians stop taking our money and giving it out to innefficient bureaucracies, special interests, and the military-industial complex. - Quit penalizing successful free enterprises. Companies create JOBS. All able-bodied people be working. - Stop spending taxpayer dollars on the building the USA empire. Quit meddling in the affairs of other countries! It just makes the world resent us, and rightfully so! Socialism doesn't work, people. Freedom Does. Vote Ron Paul! by CGlenn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 11:18:01 AM (0+)
|
|
Great article
Once people get past all the BS from the MSM they will see that the word "electability" means anointed by special interests. This last Democratic debate was a real eye opener for me. John Edwards was foring on all cyclinders but after the debate the usual suspects procliamed "Hillary won the debate" WHAT? ah, excuse me I watched the same show you saw and Hillary didnt sink herself but Edwards won that debate. The "Gerge" interview afterwards was pretty pathetic as well. David Gergen worked for Bill Clinton, cant you find an unbiased source to talk about the debate? Ron Paul's message of personal liberty rings true with anyone who has a reasonable sense of right and wrong. Its not real complicated as some want you to believe. He hasnt been "anointed" as the rest have, which is good if your a freedom loving American, that means he wont pander to those elites we are trying to rid this Govt with now. I really urge people to look into Dr. Paul his message doesnt fit any party line but follows the founding principles of this country, you love this country you will love Ron Paul. Don't put a different face of the same Big Govt back in office, its time all Americans took some responcibility for the country in which they live, get active in politics again and take this country back!! by Patriot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 11:22:31 AM (0+)
|
|
You should switch over
I've been arguing this point with a lot of democrats for some time. The only next step is to show you how social programs run federally don't actually help the poor; they hurt them severely. The advantage is, Ron Paul knows this but also knows that Corporate welfare is far worse at this point than social welfare. We need to correct ALL of the problems in order for freedom to finally start working for people. by Jason Walls (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 11:27:30 AM (0+)
|
|
Absolutely Correct!
Actually, I'm in about equal agreement with both Paul and Kucinich. I admired both men greatly for their integrity. I believe that either one of them would make the best president we've had in a hundred years (if not longer). However, as you point out, Kucinich has been even more marginalized by the Democrats than Paul has been by the Republican (and that's saying a lot). I originally backed Kucinich, but have recently switched to Paul, because, of the only 2 candidates for that job that I'd support, Paul has, by far, the best shot (even though it's still a long road, with many obstacles to overcome). The fact remains, though, that, policy-wise, I'm in about equal disagreement with both men. The difference, though, is that both have unimpeachable integrity. What difference does it make what a candidate says -- even if you agree with his stated positions -- if the candidate has no integrity (which NONE of the others really do)? Short of it is that I'm backing Paul, and I encourage all other principled liberals to do the same. Since Kucinich and Paul are both good friends, I think Dennis will understand. by Dems4Paul (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 12:45:32 PM (0+)
|
|
Paul and Kucinich
There's a reason Paul has raised a lot more money than Kucinich. Paul is financed by big business and the religious right. Kucinich sells out to no one. If you want to support the con man Ron Paul who says one thing but does another then thats your right. What is this garbage that Kucinich isn't a viable candidate. The polls say that Ron Paul isn't a viable candidate either but I guess you only choose to believe the polls on the democratic candidates. Its time for the American people to get some integrity and vote for the best candidate and not base their voting on phony polls designed to manipulate the elections. by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 1:56:15 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: I Don't Believe Paul Is Financed By Big Business
The candidate receiving more big business money than everyone is probably Hillary Clinton. Big business typically puts their money behind the candidates most likely to win. Clinton, Obama, Romney, Guliani, McCain and Thompson should be getting most of the corporate funds. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it. by Mike Mejia (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 2:09:30 PM (0+)
|
|
Kucinich
Kucinich's campaign is doing very well. I read he's in 4th place nationally. Kucinich won the Democracy For America poll in a landslide. Kucinich was also in 2nd place in California. by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 1:59:46 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: "Kucinich"
Hey Ty ...do you think bashing Ron Paul is winning Kucinich any votes? Get Real! Great Artical Mike! by Jeff Avitabile (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 2:55:03 PM (0+)
|
|
Impressive article
Mike Mejia, thank you for this outstanding article. This is one of the most well written articles regarding Ron Paul and our nation. I have been watching Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich campaigns closely. I must admit I was registered as a Dem, but have changed to a Republican recently in order to vote for Ron Paul. You covered the outrageous war spending and empire building we have done, to the social programs that we will not be able to maintain or enhance if the war is to continue. We need to bring our troops home from all over the world and take care of America. I do believe that Ron Paul is the only candidate we can trust to do that. I really like Dennis, and I would love to see Paul as President with Kucinich as Vice President, that would be awesome. by Tess Carroll (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 3:24:45 PM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul - NO BIG BUSINESS
For Ty: "There's a reason Paul has raised a lot more money than Kucinich. Paul is financed by big business and the religious right." by N H (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 5:54:49 PM (0+)
|
|
Religious Wrong
Rudy = Pat Robertson by N H (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 22 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Nov 16, 2007 at 5:56:39 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
