I don't hide the fact I support Ron Paul. Probably many of your first reactions to this statement though are "who is he?" or "are you crazy?" In fact, when I first started following Paul about 6 months ago I thought he was a little crazy myself, but I loved how consistent and honest he was. He's never cared what the current direction of the Republican party is, or how he can get more votes, he just votes in favor of a strict interpretation of the constitution. I liked this characteristic despite the fact he has some pretty radical ideas given our current political climate.
However, the more I research him and other candidates, and the more I think about the issues facing our nation, the more and more I like him. I really, really want him to win the nomination, and the presidency for that matter. I don't trust anyone else running. All the other Republican candidates seem to be pretty much a continuation of the current administration. Sure, they may change a few things here or there, but there is no honest to goodness indication they will change how Iraq is being handled or how to spur the economy (although Mitt may have a little sway in that regard, but I don't know how he'll accomplish that if he continues to support the war).
I want to like Obama on the Democrat side, but I really can't support any of the Demo candidates. It scares me to death to give the government any more control, and with the economic plans, universal health care ideas and gun control (to name a few) that all the Demo candidates are proposing, we would be giving the government far too much control. In fact, the government already has too much control! That is why I like Ron Paul so much. He would really work to get the government out of our lives as much as he possibly could. It will always be harder to get back any control we give to our government, so let's not exacerbate the problem.
At this point, I'd like to make a disclaimer. I'm neither Republican, nor Democrat. I actually despise the fact that there are many who identify with either party based solely on two issues: gay rights and abortion. While they are important issues, they are not the only issues we should consider, but I digress. I wish there were more parties to choose from. I can't identify myself with either very well. I am most closely aligned with the Libertarians, but even they can be a bit extreme for my beliefs. So, I guess I am forced to choose a fringe candidate who hangs with neither the mainstream GOP or the Demo's. Actually though, I don't feel forced to follow him. What he says really resonates with me. He wants to change the economy - that's kind of his obsession, but he's very brilliant in economics. If he could implement the changes he's proposing our country would be in a lot better shape.
One things about his platform that I don't entirely agree with is his foreign policy. He is basically an isolationist. He wants to remove all our troops off of foreign soil. I think he's right to some extent. We have too much presence, but we need to consider carefully who we move and why. He's probably right in that we shouldn't have put our noses into other countries' affairs and we should just try to be friends and leave them to do their thing. However, we didn't and we can't just burn the bridges we built, so I think we'd need to have some more strategy in regards to how we deal with foreign relations.
An extension of his foreign policy is his opposition to the war in Iraq and his desire to bring the troops home immediately. Of course, this is a far cry from any of the other Republican candidates and he has some good points for believing the way he does, but I don't believe we should have an immediate pull-out in Iraq. I am not going to pretend I know much about military strategy or foreign relations, but it doesn't seem like an immediate pull-out would do any of us a favor. I was on my mission when we first went to Iraq, so I didn't really get the war sold to me, and really didn't pay much attention to it until I got home. The first few years I was home I even supported the war, thinking it was wise for us to spread democracy. However, as I have researched and thought about it further, from my very limited understanding and perspective, it was pre-emptive and we should have never gone in (however, I do recognize a lot of good things have come into Iraq as a result of the war, like schools and infrastructure, etc.). That being said, we are there, and we can't just leave it in a quagmire. I don't know what we should do necessarily. I don't like McCain's plan of being there indefinitely, but I don't think we should leave right away. My personal opinion is we should let the Iraqis vote on whether or not they want us there and then do what they ask us to do. It's their country after all and we all over here speculating about what they want. Why don't we let them tell us, but again, I digress. Anyway, that's my main concern with Ron Paul, but the good part about us bringing home our troops would be more money because it wouldn't all be thrown at the military in foreign countries.
So, there you go...I support Ron Paul. He's a long shot candidate, but oh the things he could do! I hope if you don't know much about him, you will at least do a little digging to find out more. However, I am not here to convince, just state my opinion. In fact, I'd love to hear who you are supporting and why. It's good to get others' opinions, especially about important issues, such as presidential elections, so please comment away. Educate me because, in November, Brett and I just may be living in state where our vote actually counts.
9 comments:
The Ron Paul Revolution has moved to Provo, eh? Just a comment on one thing that you mentioned - most of the United States' foreign presence (up until the Bushes) came not from "putting our noses into other countries' affairs" but from being attacked in World War II. The United States largest overseas military bases are in countries that forced the US's involvement in that war or other wars (i.e. Germany, Japan, Philippines, Korea). Like you said, though, he [unfortunately?] won't be more than a fringe candidate.
While I must say that I like some of Paul's ideas, I think he has too many radical changes that he wants to enact. Presidents are generally not as powerful as many people think, there is still a whole division of legislative branch that they have to get most of their ideas approved by. I think getting rid of personal income tax is an impossible feat, at least at the moment. I agree with you about the social issues, they are totally back burner for me, but it seems to be how the parties like to align themselves. My only real concern with Paul is that while he has some pretty good ideas that he is clearly passionate about, his track record for actually getting other politicians to agree with him is less than stellar. Right now we already have a problem with the battle between the Executive and Legislative branch, I fear that Paul may exaggerate that even more. Though I do like the guy, and I respect his consistency.
So, have you got Brett this confused too? While I couldn't help but enjoy the way Paul destroyed McCain in the debate last night, there are two significant reasons for concern. (Laying aside that every bit of interest Ron Paul gets is interest that should be working to destroy Huckabee/McCain, instead of quixotically pretending that you can do whatever you want and it will be well in the end.) 1. He is not right on foreign policy. Isolationism sounds good, but as a practical matter it just never seems to work.
2. He is not right on economic policy. An inflation free currency standard[*] while much closer to correct than what we have now, is not a tractable way to run an economy of very prideful people. For example, in a period of very minor economic downturn a company might need to cut salaries to maintain employment. However, since practically no one will accept a pay cut in our age, a fair amount of inflation allows for subtle taxation and pay cuts in an acceptable way.
Even so, if you like Ron Paul's ideals, laying aside the economic shortcomings and kookiness, you should still work to strengthen the conservative wing of the Republican party, for therein lies your best chance to get close to them. [Unless, you mean legalizing marijuana, cause if that were your Ron Paul issue, the conservative wing of the Republican Party is a poor choice.]
As an aside, I don't see how you can so easily overlook his newsletters. Even if you accept his story (which is fairly dubious) the irresponsibility of allowing hatefilled drivel to go out under your name without even reading it should be worrisome.
[*] The reason gold standards typically don't fare as badly as the theoretical, is that gold is being mined. Thus like monetary supply, the supply of gold increases. This is a subtle form of taxation but instead of flowing to the government it flows to the gold mining companies. Of course, the monetary policy of the United States can be controlled by a monetary board or a mining company, and I fail to see how that's a compelling reason to vote for Paul.
Thank you for the support. I hope to continue to get more votes that Giuliani. But that can't be too hard. Keep up posting about the Ron Paul Revolution!
Wow, your blog must be super popular! I want a famous person to comment on mine.
Ron Paul Revolution!! I have soo many things I could respond to, but I just don't have time, nor do I like debating via blogger comments. I agree with alot of what you said about Ron Paul. I absolutely hate the two party mentality too! Ron will at least get alot of people thinking about what they believe, and where they stand.
OK, I couldn't just leave it at that. I had to make a comment about our involvement in Iraq and other nations where we desire to "bring democracy". As Elder Dallin H. Oaks says, "Democracy does not ensure peace. When a nation is governed according to the voice of its people, its actions will mirror the righteousness or wickedness of its people." (I think I'll leave it at that.)
Unfortunately my favorite canidate hasn't made any headway at all. He was a republican who calls himself Jesus. He'd spent some time in prison and there were many quotes confirming his mental instability. I think this is the fourth time he'd tried to run for president...? After a good minute of goggling I still haven't found a link to his profile...but if you happen to find info on him it's some highly entertaining reading.
More than who we're voting for, we've given money to Mitt Romney...why? Because Brian's brother-in-law is one of Mitt Romney's regional finance managers. And as a side note on that...the Romney campaign has spent more mailing us stuff asking for more money than we donated in the first place.
That's all I have to say right now about the election.
Post a Comment