As per the only request garnered from all three of my readers out there, I'm going to be analyzing Ron Paul as a potential candidate for my vote during the 2008 election. If anyone out there that thinks this guy deserves my vote, please feel free to comment on it and fill in any gaps you may find with what you read below.
And, as always, you are more than welcome to comment with your suggestion on who I should consider next.
First, an interesting fact about Ron Paul: he refused to allow his children to accept federal student loans to pay for their college tuition, nor does he currently accept his congressional pension plan, as both of these are taxpayer-funded.
Now that is someone who sticks to their principles.
As pointed out in my post yesterday, the three main issues that will lend true credibility to the next president of the United States of America are as follows:
- Illegal Immigration
- War in Iraq (War on Terror)
- Shrinking the Federal Government
Anyone who is willing to turn down student loans for their children, let alone a congressional pension plan, based on the burden that the taxpayers of America face is more than likely to fit the bill on the third item on that list.
One of the problems with our ever-expanding federal government is the fact that it is spending us into the poorhouse. Most politicians cite this as something that needs to be immediately addressed - but rarely do you hear any of them speak as frankly on this matter as Paul appears to. "When the federal government spends more each year
than it collects in tax revenues, it has three choices: It can raise
taxes, print money, or borrow money. While these actions may benefit
politicians, all three options are bad for average Americans." How, then, are we supposed to make up for the money that we're spending if we can't tax it, print it, or borrow it? Cut out the spending, of course. "We need to understand that the more government spends, the more freedom
is lost. Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be
debating whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the
budget should exist at all."
Amen, brother!
If the 2008 election was only about reversing our current trend of growing our government to massive proportions, Ron Paul would have earned this vote in just two quotes. Unfortunately for him, that's just not the case.
In the past, Ron Paul has stated that he would withdraw our military from Iraq (indeed, from everywhere) as quickly as possible, were he to be elected. This, of course, only jives with those Americans out there who share his overwhelmingly non-interventionist perspective on foreign policy. However, leaving Iraq completely isn't going to change the status quo. In fact, it will lead to further problems.
Of course, most Americans believe the nightmare in Iraq simply cannot
get much worse. Wrong-it most certainly could. Advocates of a "phased"
withdrawal of our troops must reckon with the certainty of a serial
disaster: a full-blown civil war spreading a contagion of violence
across the region, with Iran virtually uncontainable. Our enemies, as
the president said, would emerge with new safe havens, new recruits,
and new resources. The head of the CIA, Michael Hayden, put it starkly:
"An al Qaeda victory in Iraq would mean a fundamentalist state that
shelters jihadists and serves as a launching pad for terrorist
operations throughout the region and against our own homeland." A
premature pullout would condemn Iraq and the region to unbelievable
horrors. It would be a historic victory for our Islamic enemies. If
America is defeated in Iraq, a victory in the broader war on terror
will be impossible. And unlike what happened after Vietnam, the enemy
will undoubtedly follow America home.
I've pointed it out previously, as well - we can't just pack up and go home. We need to see this thing through whether it was the best choice in the first place or not. On this, the second most important issue facing the next President, Ron Paul most certainly fails to face the music.
The single most important issue facing our next elected leader, however, is going to be Illegal Immigration. Whether the American public, our representatives in the legislative branch, or our bordering nations want to recognize it or not, illegal immigration is threatening the very infrastructure upon which America currently rests. And what is Ron Paul planning to do about it? "I see the immigration problem as a consequence of our welfare state. We
encourage people not to work here, but the welfare we offer the people
who come--they get free medical care. They get free education. They
bankrupt our hospitals.
Our hospitals are closing. And it shouldn't be rewarded. That means you
don't give them citizenship. You can't solve this problem until you get
rid of the welfare state, because in a healthy economy, immigrants
wouldn't be a threat to us." Again, Ron Paul takes the cake on this issue.
(Update 1/14/08: I don't know why I didn't do this originally, but I think that I should probably consider the controversies attached to candidates as well as their stands on important issues. The following paragraph has been added to fill that gap.)
Two out of three really isn't that bad when it comes to the political atmosphere that America has thrust itself into. However, if a politician doesn't have any controversies dragging their name through the mud, then they really aren't a politician, are they? Ron Paul is no different. As mentioned by Urban Lenny in a comment to this post, Paul has a series of political newsletters that posed something of a problem for him back in the 90s. Written under his name with no bylines provided, these editorials were curious insofar as they were written in the first person - leaving one to assume that they had been published under Paul's watchful eye. James Kirchick over at The New Republic, a publication that I don't normally pay much attention to, did an extensive review of the content of these letters:
In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther
King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,"
"seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil
rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists
who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that
"Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were
better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp,
if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of
forced segregation with the evil of forced integration..."
Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, "Whether it
was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects,
or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters
little..."
I would encourage you to take a look at
the article. I can't vouch for the accuracy of the Kirchick piece, but, unlike Paul and his newsletters, it wasn't originally published under my name.
Now, I haven't really delved too deep into other issues that are less damaging to America as a whole, but from what I gather, I don't have much to disagree with the guy about. Really, I'd love to hand him my vote, but my apprehension over how he is likely to endanger millions and millions of people following a massive pull-out from Iraq is something truly striking to consider. Beyond that, the guy doesn't stand a chance of winning the Republican nomination. If he runs, he'll have to run as either a third party contender or an independent. Historically speaking, neither of these options will give him any feasible chance at taking the Presidency. However, if he does choose to run in that capacity, I believe that he certainly could put a Ross Perot shaped dent into the electorate. I just happen to think that the majority of those votes would be likely Democratic voters, not Republicans.
Ultimately, Ron Paul fails to capture my imagination, despite his principled and logical stands on most of the issues that will define the upcoming presidency. Too bad.
Recent Comments