Topic: Ron Paul
Ron Paul: Too Much Change for America to Swallow? Americans are clearly asking for change in the 2008 presidential primary. Does Ron Paul offer too much for the average American to swallow?by World
(libertarian)
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
In the 2008 presidential primary, the platform of change has motivated record numbers of voters to visit the polling booths in Iowa and New Hampshire. Barack Obama speaks often of change, and his rivals Hilary Clinton and John Edwards subsequently mimic this lip service. Those who have "googled" Ron Paul know that his platform promises more change than any other candidate from either party would dare to consider. One of Dr. Paul's most admirable attributes is how firmly and consistently he stands behind his principles and ideals of freedom, limited government and a humble foreign policy. Many small groups of individuals are strongly drawn to Dr. Paul for his stance against the IRS, repeal of the Patriot Act, or simply extracting ourselves from Iraq now.
One of the major arguments against Dr. Paul's platform is that it would be impossible to implement all of the far reaching changes proposed due to the expected resistance of both parties in the congress and senate. That argument has likely kept many skeptics from fully embracing the Ron Paul Revolution and has also led me to wonder, if Ron Paul were elected and could only address two or three major issues in his presidency, what would he focus on?
After watching the multitudes of debates in this year's primary, countless YouTube videos, and scouring the Ron Paul webpage, I was unable to come up with a good answer. He seems to support all of his ideals with a similar strong passion. Withdrawal from Iraq and a sharp change in foreign policy would be issue number one with most supporters I would think. Not only has this helped to draw Democrat and Independent support to a fiscally conservative candidate, but this could be easily achievable by the commander in chief without an extended battle with congress.
The economy tends to rank right up there with the war in current polls of peoples top concerns. Defusing the Federal Reserve Bank and Fiat currency might have strong opposition from some powerful players in the financial community, but most Americans would probably not even notice at first. President Paul might even get congress to sign on to that plan with the political capital from winning the election. As for abolishing the IRS and slashing the entitlement system, the resistance would be overwhelming. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." It has been a tough sell in past years to even push through a balanced budget amendment, or to alter the rate of inflation adjustment (cost of living increase) in social security payments just the 1% it would take to ensure its fiscal stability. I appreciate his enthusiasm for the constitutional role of government, but my feeling is this issue is what causes many media to label Dr. Paul "fringe".
After these two issues, I think his support becomes fractured into smaller groups, who desire stronger 2nd amendment protection, strong border security without amnesty, repeal of the Patriot Act, and American sovereignty. I have heard the phrase "image wins primaries, not issues". I don't know whether I cringe when I hear that because media and political pundits believe Americans actually believe this, or because we apparently, as a nation, do. I fear the Ron Paul campaign receives so much negative attention because despite their calls for change, mainstream America, ironically is afraid of too much change. If Dr. Paul put forward a simpler focused plan of change that addresses primarily the issues of foreign policy and economics, for which his stances are in striking contrast to his competition, I feel he could extend his support beyond the loyal 10% base he already has into an image that mainstream America could become enthusiastic about without the distracting their attention from the core issues of this election.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 10 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of World only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. World is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
This is a thoughtful post. However, I don't see how he could stick to only a couple of issues any time there's any kind of Q&A - welfare, healthcare, social security, education, etc.
I was referring mainly to his advertisement campaign and issues page on the website. In particular, his advertisements on healthcare and immigration which showed around the New Hampshire primary. Thanks for you comment Ivan.
Idea. Rather than boiling down to a couple of ideas, what about saying what he will do no matter what (bring troops home, etc.), and what his top three priorities would be. After that, then here is his wish list, but that would depend on Congress.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
