
Who were these strange men and where did they get those fancy wigs?
My wonderfully intelligent and news addicted girlfriend sent me a link
to a blog post explaining why she isn’t entirely on board the Ron Paul
train like I am. After reading the post, I have to say that there are
several important positions that I also do not agree with. There are
also a few issues which have been misrepresented or distorted in some
way. You should probably read the entire post first, and then come
back and read my response.
http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/ron-paul-is-not-a-great-candidate-were-just-so-in-love-with-him-that-were-not-paying-attention
I have taken certain excerpts from the post
when necessary and will be responding to them in kind.
While I don’t consider Ron Paul to be the most uber-ultimate-supreme-
being politician that could hope to save us from ourselves, I
certainly respect his deep philosophic views on the role of government
as intended by the framers of our constitution. It is with that
fundamental belief that I have found myself to be such a strong
supporter of the Congressman from Texas. I think one would be hard
pressed to find a candidate as consistent in his beliefs and philosophy
as Dr. Ron Paul. His record in the Congress speaks for itself.
I submit the following rebuttal in order to clarify what I believe to be
some very common idealogical misunderstandings in regards to personal
liberty vs. big government. I will also comment on any items which I do
not agree with in the same context. If you support more government
spending, more government oversight, and more government control, Ron
Paul is NOT your candidate. I think this is the biggest hurdle that
many potential Ron Paul supporters must first successfully navigate in
order to fully appreciate his platform. His ideas are really nothing
new…in fact they are hundreds of years old. Sort of like how the Ancient
Egyptian Astronomer, Eratosthenes, mathematically proved that the world was round, but somehow that information
was lost, only to be heralded as revolutionary many centuries later.
Let us not forget that while Ron Paul is entitled to his own personal
beliefs, his message of liberty has no place for tyrannical laws
mandated by the Federal government to the states and its citizens. Let
us be realistic for a moment and understand that what might be good for
a state like Arkansas, might not be very popular in Oregon, and vice
versa. In other words, the idea of states rights remains crucial for the survival of our nation.
“The founding fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously
tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that
would eclipse the state in importance.” A “robustly Christian” America?
That’s what he thinks the founding fathers wanted? Ouch.
Let me preface this by saying that I am not religious.
It is rather unfortunate that there are people, like our current
president, who claims to be a Christian, when in fact, is most
certainly not. Anyone who supports the war in Iraq is NOT a true
Christian. How could they be? Ask Ron Paul if he thinks George Bush
is a Christian.
Just as there are abuses in the name of the state, shall there continue
to be abuses in the name of the church. Sometimes both are abused
concurrently, as is the case with President Asshole.
To ignore the role of religion throughout history is a mistake. The
church was an integral part of society for centuries, and it served to
create moral boundaries for many people. Yes, there are plenty of
people in our society who NEED that type of direction. If a church can
provide it to them, and keep them from bothering me, then I think its
bloody well worth it!
Many churches used to run hospitals in this country, and nobody was
ever turned away for not having insurance or enough money, and nobody lost their house if they could not afford
to pay. Can the same be said of our current health care system which
exists due to federal laws passed in the 1970’s? The state does much
more to control your life than the church ever will.
Should the church ever infringe on our rights again as much as the state has,
I would gladly be against it. I just don’t see how that makes Ron
Paul’s view on the role of religion in society so horrible. The
Government cannot legislate morality, any less than the church can
manage a large hospital with affordable health care…um…bad example…NEVERMIND!
He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education
He wants “the community” to provide education to the public. He
regularly mentions churches when asked about how this will come about.
He spoke at Google recently and he was asked at least once how the poor
are supposed to get an education if the government doesn’t provide one
free of charge. He has no good answer. He admits there will be
inequality but says that it’ll be better than what we have now. I
disagree.
The key word here is “Federally”. Each state should have the right to
its own education model, as not to be held hostage by federal funding
(which DOES NOT contribute anywhere near the majority of money) for
shitty programs like “no child left behind”. Why should the Federal
government set the standards when our public education system has been
circling the drain for many decades now? Once again, the Federal
government has proven itself a burden on the American education system.
Why should the government, actually YOU, the tax payer fund subsidized
college loans? Do you really trust that the government is going to
manage this system as well as everything else? One could just as
easily set aside money saved not paying the Federal income tax, and use
that to pay for school. Granted, I think education costs are probably
too high, and that also needs to be addressed.
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? As with most of his other libertarian views I agree with him in
principle. Ideally it wouldn’t be a national plan. This is simply a
matter of practicality given the problem we’re facing. Look at the
countries who are handling it better than us. What are they doing? Are
any of them separated from the national government? Why not?
This is probably the most interesting point in the article. I think
alot of potential supporters of Dr. Paul are put off by this view on
National Health Care, I certainly was at first. He is a doctor that is
against national health care! He must be crazy! No, not really. We
certainly have the weirdest health care system on Earth currently. It
is managed in a half-ass manner by the government with the HMO laws
passed in 1973 and with the other half of the ass in control by the
blood sucking greedy corporations. The costs of health care keeps
rising because of the enormous and needless infrastructure that is the
health insurance industry. They are a for profit industry that are
reaping the benefits while the doctors and the patients are getting
screwed. This is how Dr. Paul sees it. The only difference he would
have with Michael Moore is the approach on keeping costs down. I
certainly would be in favor of socialized medicine if the government
could prove to keep costs down so as not to end up taxing the shirt off
my back. Anyway, If we get rid of those corporate HMO assholes,
patients will be able to have a direct relationship with doctors and
the prices won’t be inflated like they are now. Lately I have lost my
faith in government to manage anything more than a 5th grade soccer
game. While just about everyone agrees that we need health care for
everyone, we just differ in how to get there.
He Would Abolish Federal Consumer Protection Groups Like The FDA
Hell yes! Lobbyists for big corporations like Con Agra in Washington
have the FDA in their back pocket when it comes to the free market. I
would much rather get my beef from a small organic farm than some
inhumane BHG-pumped, franken-meat operation. Read “Fast Food Nation”
and then get back to me on this.
He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned
I disagree.
-States rights, just go to New York and get your abortion in the worst
case scenario. I still hope this never happens though.
No More Federal Environmental Protection. If GiantFooCorp Does
Something Wrong, Sue Them/He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made
Global Warming Is Convincing
The EPA is manipulated depending on which party controls the oval office. It is a waste of
time and money. I really think anything else, away from government
control (which is connected to, ahem…big business) is a step in the
right direction. I disagree with Ron Paul on global warming however.
I think we SHOULD overreact just in case. I would be very happy if
environmentalists were proved wrong after decades of us being good
stewards of the environment as opposed to the alternative.
Ultimately the author of the blog states that he will still vote for Ron
Paul…like there is any other choice!?
-Ron Paul 2008