First off, let me just say that I am a serious Ron Paul supporter. I’ve blogged about him, spammed promoted him to friends and family, and even put a Ron Paul 2008 bumper sticker on my car (I don’t do bumper stickers). I’ve been resisting the call to write this piece for some time now, but I can resist no longer.

It’s time for us, as Paul supporters, to stop pretending his flaws do not exist. We are ignoring his more extreme and illogical views because we’re so smitten by his good ones. This is a problem. Our ability and/or willingness to evaluate him as a complete candidate is being suppressed by our surprise and appreciation for his views on foreign policy and personal freedom.

In short, we’re so in love with him that we’re focusing only on his positives while ignoring his negatives.

Not only will his weaknesses get him thrashed during a primary, but we need to have a serious discussion about whether or not he’s too extreme to even get anything done as president. Here are the main positions that trouble me:

He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government.

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. — Ron Paul

A “robustly Christian” America? That’s what he thinks the founding fathers wanted? Ouch. And the separation of church and state has no basis in the constitution or the writings of the founding fathers? How about this?

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. — Thomas Jefferson

How did he miss that? I’m definitely not with him on this, but I am at least comforted by the fact that he would never force his views on anyone at the federal level.

He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education

He wants the state and local government to provide education to the public. He also regularly mentions churches when asked about how this will come about. He spoke at Google recently and he was asked how the poor are supposed to get an education if the government doesn’t provide one free of charge. The audience members worried about the rich getting great educations while the poor got none. He has no good answer on this, and if he does he’s not telling anyone. He admits there will be inequality but says that it’ll be better than what we have now. I disagree.

I also fail to see how state governments will have an advantage over the federal government when it comes to providing education to the public. To me it looks like his solution simply creates smaller chunks of corruption and waste rather than one big one. Furthermore, I do think something can be said for having a standard that we as a nation strive to live up to. Ideally it would not federal law, of course, but one has to wonder how else it would come about if everyone was allowed to go off on their own tangents. Is it ok for Kansas to decide that math is evil and strike it from their curriculum? Does the drive to be perfectly constitutional outweigh the need to have us all meet a certain standard? It’s worth having the discussion.

Yeah, That Means No Federal College Loans

He didn’t get any loans to go to college and he doesn’t think you should either. Again, he doesn’t think the federal government should be involved with education at all. Many of the people in the room he was speaking to at Google used federal loans to make it through school and to Google in the first place. Again, I agree that this shouldn’t be necessary, and that it’s unconstitutional. My problem is with simply stopping the program and hoping (or praying) for another solution to materialize.

Having hundreds of thousands of young people who need a college education turn to “the community” is not a solution. This sort of transition would have to be incredibly well orchestrated — with state, local, and charitable infrastructures coming into existence right as the federal one was being dismantled. I simply lack confidence in our ability to pull this off. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, but it does mean that we can’t just run out and pull the federal systems without considering the consequences very carefully.

Once again he is right in concept but I fear the extreme tone in which he speaks about the issue. I’m not getting the feeling that he realizes how catastrophic it would be to stop these programs without having something in their place. What I am hearing from him is, “It’s the right thing to do, so whatever happens happens.” I simply cannot accept that despite feeling his position is ideally correct.

He’s Not For National Health Care

Again, not the role of government. His basic view is that the market will find a way. He openly admits that many people will fall through the cracks, but he responds to that by saying that it’ll be better than what we have now. Does this seem hopelessly optimistic to anyone but myself? This is just like the education thing: ideally it wouldn’t be a national plan, but this is simply a matter of practicality given the problem we’re facing. We simply have too many people that need health care right now.

Look at the countries who are handling it better than us. What are they doing? Are any of these highly successful programs completely separated from the national government? Why not? Is there a working model for this anywhere? I just feel like we have to explore the realities very carefully before taking rash actions. This is the type of language I’m not hearing from him.

He Would Abolish Federal Consumer Protection Groups Like The FDA

You think that food you bought at Safeway or Publix is safe? Well, he doesn’t think that’s the role of the federal government to help you with that. Leave it up to someone else. He things some community groups will spring up and organize to help us fill the void, and I agree that will happen to some extent. But in the meantime there will be no standard for determining whether something is safe to consume or not. Imagine the fun the corporations will have with this. They’ll sell all kinds of crap that causes serious harm to uneducated consumers.

He says the answer is consumer groups and litigation. How many people are going to meticulously check consumer reports before buying food and drugs? Does he not see how easily this will be exploited with ill effects? Think of the money to be made by corporations with no oversight. This is precisely the type of policy that will allow the powerful and immoral to stomp all over those who are less educated. The libertarian answer to that is caveat emptor, and that I simply cannot accept.

The extreme libertarian view here is that if people are too stupid to do their own research before consuming dangerous products, they deserve what they get. I agree that’s fine for an ideal society where people would be educated and able to fend for themselves, but it’s simply not a humane approach given how many ignorant people would suffer in the country we live in today.

No More Federal Environmental Protection. If GiantChemCorp Does Something Wrong, Sue Them

He wants to handle pollution in a purely “property rights” fashion, i.e. people who infringe on other peoples’ property rights would get sued. But there wouldn’t be any federal oversight of the matter. No regulation at the national level whatsoever. Again, this sounds great in an ideal world but it neglects the reality of the situation. The fact of the matter is that if corporations can get away with something they will. Oh, you want to sue? Be serious.

So GiantChemCorp dumped something in Bob and Shirley’s backyard? Great, get a lawyer. Exxon will show up with their team that’s paid millions a year. Oh, Bob and Shirley can’t afford a good one? Perhaps they can get help from your local church or consumer group. Please. This is yet another example of having exactly the right idea for an ideal society but not grasping that the reality we’re presented with works differently. Again, the powerful would trounce upon the weak with impunity.

He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned

I have become increasingly concerned over the years that the pro-life movement I so strongly support is getting further off track, both politically and morally. I sponsored the original pro-life amendment, which used a constitutional approach to solve the crisis of federalization of abortion law by the courts. The pro-life movement was with me and had my full support and admiration. Those who cherish unborn life have become frustrated by our inability to overturn or significantly curtail Roe v. Wade. — Ron Paul from a House of Representatives Speech

He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing

He regularly says things such as, “I think it [the case for man-made global warming] is overblown.”, and “There’s still debate on the issue.” Overblown? What part of the massive IPCC study where over two thousand climatologists from 130 countries agreed on the matter does he disagree with? I find his rejection of this overwhelming scientific consensus to be disturbing. And before you think to retort with the number of scientists who disagree with the report, consider the concept of scientific pseudosymmetry.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that Dr. Paul has significant flaws just like the other candidates, but on different issues. He simply takes things too far given the world we live in. We’re endorsing him because we’re infatuated with his views on foreign policy and personal freedom. We’re in love with the fact that someone will speak out against the absurdity that is the current status quo. But is that enough? Can we still back him if he’s lacking in other important areas? Where’s the line?

Again — I have to repeat this — the problem is not with his views given an ideal world. I agree on most points that his vision embodies the way America should be. That’s why I’m behind him. My point is simply that our country has strayed so far off the path that to try and return it too quickly would cause great amount of suffering.

His overwhelming belief that “the market” will somehow make everything o.k. is naive at best. He trusts this libertarian ideal with an unsettling and almost religious level of faith. Does anyone truly believe that if we remove the safeguards that provide for the poor and uneducated that everything will somehow work itself out? He has to address this question sufficiently in order to get to the next level.

I am not going to stop supporting him and I am not taking the sticker off of my car. I am not going to stop talking about his campaign or about how he’s igniting the political interest of so many young voters. I will continue to speak about his overwhelming positives. But in the back of my mind I’m secretly hoping that he’ll get the message that his more extreme views (or at least how he’s communicating his views) will destroy not only his campaign but his very ability to help our ailing country.

Please wake up, Dr. Paul. This country desperately need you at full strength. You have to show us exactly how you intend to take us from the horrible mess we are in to the ideal you speak of (and we support) without causing so much suffering that you lose your support nationwide. If you are not as extreme as you appear to be on these issues and you do have good plans for transitioning with minimum suffering, you have to communicate this information much better than you are now.

Let’s work out these issues among ourselves before we get hit with the same questions by our opposition.:

But he won’t get the Republican nomination.

And since he can’t win without that, he’s lost. But even if he did win it probably wouldn’t matter. Within the next few months Al Gore is going to enter the race, and he’s going to win. Let’s review:

1. Has the perfect image of concerned citizen pursuing just causes outside of Washington.
2. Was actually elected President by the people, but got robbed of it.

gg.

His election will by a symbolic gesture by the American people — us handing him back what was stolen from him. Now all he needs to do is convince Ron Paul that he can’t get ahead in the toilet that is the republican party, and convince him to join his ticket as Vice President.

Now THAT would be truly awesome.:

In situations like this, I think there should be committees in place at an international level that convene and agree to isolate and punish countries that act in this way. And yes, this includes the United States where applicable.

The problem is that unevolved (selfish) cultures/economies/countries will do ANYTHING to get ahead. They don’t think about anyone but themselves in the present time, let alone in the future. The sad truth is that these people must be regulated; they simply lack the sophistication and decency to regulate themselves without outside influence.

This sort of hard-line policy from the international community needs to be supplemented with actual help in doing the right thing as well, since we can’t retard someone’s growth perpetually on account of environmental concerns.

I consider the destruction of the rain forests to be another such situation. The problem is that those motivated by selfishness and greed cannot be allowed to control natural resources that yield benefit to them financially or otherwise. And the difference between having a strong moral compass and ignoring it vs. not having one really matters very little in the end. But at least in the former case you can appeal to one’s sense of decency, whereas with the latter bribes and force are really your only options.

Either way, something must be done.

[ Link: Unacceptable Pollution ]

If you are into Ron Paul and willing to do something to show support, I urge you to head over to cafepress.com and pick up a couple of these ($2.99). The lesser-known candidates need our support.

[ Link: Ron Paul Bumper Stickers ]

• He’s a conservative libertarian who’s running as a traditional republican, i.e. he’s for small federal government, individual liberty, and states rights.
• He voted against the Patriot Act.
• He’s for re-implementing the gold standard so that our money actually means something again.
• He’s a medical doctor (M.D.), served as a flight surgeon in the Air Force, and is an active congressman from Texas.
• He’s known for impeccable honesty and for not flip-flopping on issues.
• He is pro-life, but doesn’t think the federal government should have any say in legalizing or banning abortion.
• He doesn’t believe gay marriage is a Federal issue either, and thinks they should stay out of it.
• He’s also against capital punishment for the same reason he’s pro-life (he’s pro-life).
• He’s for lowering taxes.
• He introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
• Supports the medical use of cannabis (marijuana).
• Believes in allowing the hemp industry to thrive.
• Doesn’t believe in the effectiveness of a “war on drugs”.
• He doesn’t participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
• He wants to get out of other peoples’ business and focus on our own problems.
• He is against the Iraq war, and always was. He wants us to come home as soon as possible.
• He’s serious about fixing the immigration problem.
• He believes in, and has voted consistently for, an open and free Internet.
• He strongly supports the concepts of privacy and personal freedom laid out by the forefathers of this country, and would rigorously defend Habeus Corpus.
• He’s strongly pro-second-ammendment.
• He also supports property rights and the eminent domain, meaning the government shouldn’t be allowed to simply confiscate people’s land and homes out of greed.

My point to those of you reading this is simple — get involved this time around. 2008 is the year for you to participate, and the best way you can do that is by weilding the Internet to share ideas.

There are so many of us out there who bitch and moan and don’t do anything about it. We have representation in congress and in the senate, but we don’t contact them. Many of us don’t even vote. Well it’s time to get involved. There is momentum behind the little guys with big ideas this time. Let’s not waste it.

If Ron Paul is the type of candidate that actually inspires within you a glimmer of hope in our democracy, the way he does in me and many others, I ask you to please pass this link, the sources below, his videos on YouTube, etc. on to others. Watch the debates, learn about the candidates, get involved.

If we fail, we fail. But at least we will have tried. We can’t complain about a failed democracy in which we never participated. Please participate.

References:

Ron Paul Website http://www.ronpaul2008.com/html/Issues_fx.html

The Political Positions of Ron Paul http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

Austrian Economic Theory http://www.mises.org/

The Ron Paul Archives http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

I called. Someone answered on the second ring. They were happy to take my comments and I was happy to give them. I implore those of you out there who don’t participate in the political system — those that care and are tired of Bush but don’t get involved…

Please call.

• People are dying needlessly.
• Our tax dollars are being wasted.
• Our country is becoming a laughing stock because of this administration.

(202) 225-0100

I was done with the call in like 20 seconds. It was so simple. Just tell them you’re for impeachment and you know many others that are as well. I’m pleasantly suprised to even see them put the number out there to listen to us. Please make use of it. Take the opportunity. Seriously.

[Edit: I just sent her this email as well; here's the link] http://www.speaker.gov/contact/

Mrs. Speaker, Please pursue impeachment. It’s time — honestly. It’s more than our troops and money that are being wasted unnecessarily here. It’s this country’s reputation and respect. And *that* is going to make us far less safe (both physically and economically) than any threat that we can attack with a weapon. We need our dignity back, Mrs. Speaker, and that starts with showing the world that we don’t agree with what President Bush has done with our country. Impeachment is the clearest possible display of that sentiment. I implore you to move for this. Kind regards, -Daniel Miessler

How To Destroy America

This is the main topic I’d like to see discussed during the next presidential election. Of course, that’ll never happen. Plus, the Republicans have made people cringe when they hear this kind of language because it’s often associated with negativity and hate.

We need someone to separate necessary truth from bigotry and isolationism. I hope someone capable of doing this shows up soon and starts a discourse. We desperately need one.

• He’s a libertarian
• Against the war in Iraq (always has been)
• Pro second amendment
• Wants to replace the current tax policy
• Supports the free, open Internet
• For reinstating the gold standard
• Against the Patriot Act
• Proposed an industrial hemp bill
• Open to better (fewer) drug laws
• Thinks Bush has created a police state
• Wants to reinstate civil rights (a novel idea)
• Hated by mainstream Republicans (probably a good sign)
• He’s an M.D. with time in Vietnam

The guy just looks really impressive. I have to admit to being a bit hesitant, however, as the last guy I got behind thought he could hover.

I’m going to do more research and as things start heating up I’m going to pick someone and offer support. I’m going to do my best to wield the Interweb(s) as a tool for positive change during big elections. My first such effort may be trying to get this guy elected in 2008.

Obama is cool, but I don’t think he’s this cool.: