Encouragement for the continuing revolution by RickH
(libertarian)
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
I have been a Ron Paul supporter since his 1988 campaign, and there is no danger of that position being changed. I would, however, like to express some ideas related to talking points which I believe the campaign could improve.
I have no desire to address the repetitious and unfounded issue of Dr. Paul's alleged racism, I think he is handling it satisfactorily, and that it will eventually be recognized as the non-issue that we know it to be. One brief suggestion, though, to those of you who have not tired of it. Dig around the internet for a recording of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Beyond Vietnam" speech, listen to it, and see what candidate you think he would be supporting in this campaign.
There are a few other issues, though that I think could be addressed in more positive ways than I have generally seen.
1. Why are "fringe element kooks" attracted to the Ron Paul campaign?
People who espouse politically unpopular ideas are, for obvious reasons, very concerned about the protection and defense of the U. S. Constitution. Without the respect commanded by that document, the tenets they hold dear could not be publicized. Racists, conspiracists, and even satirists depend on it to protect their ability to share whatever silliness they can dream up. When a movement to increase the visibility and adherence to the Constitution arises, it is to be expected that they will gather in its support. The fact that the "movement" itself may be completely opposed to their special interests is not at all significant ... only the fact that its success will strengthen their ability to continue to promote their own goals.
Even in the case that the movement despises and would prefer to reject their participation, there is an insurmountable Catch-22 in place. Supporters of the constitution can not do anything to mute the undesirable voices.
In truth, It is best for all concerned that these people should be encouraged to loudly and publicly proclaim their ideas in an environment in which it can be heard, analyzed, and rebutted as necessary. A true idiocy can not spread far in the light of public discussion. An unpopular opinion which can not be satisfactorily and easily dismissed probably deserves additional exposure anyway.
2. What the heck does Austrian economics have to do with the US?
Those of us who have been exposed to Ron Paul and the broader libertarian movement are not at all intimidated by the good doctor's regular references to Austrian Economics. But, unfortunately, building a broad base of support in the American electorate requires a few 30-second issue summaries that can be easily grasped. Repeating, ad infinitum, "We have got to stop spending more that we have!," is helpful, but not enough. Surely among all the intellectuals around the campaign, there must be a few who can reduce the primary positions of Austrian Economics, as opposed to their Keynesian counterparts, to 30-second soundbites. Sort of an "Austrian Economics for Dummies."
Putting such concepts into the mouths of babes would be a powerful tool, indeed. It has long been my observation that people with a fresh grasp on new knowledge just can't stop themselves from sharing it with anyone they can get to listen. Teaching individuals real economic concepts will benefit them personally, and the only way they will be able to share that benefit in everybody's favorite subject of conversation, politics, is by addressing the presidential campaign of you know who.
3. "Electability," Dr Paul, "Do you have any?"
When that question was recently sarcastically thrust at him by a greasy haired, shifty eyed, tool of the MSM, I think Dr. Paul creditably listed the points that make him a good Republican, but perhaps not the real point of the question. There is no doubt that our man is the real candidate of change, but change on the scale proposed by Ron Paul is initially frightening to the average American.
I believe that part of the necessary educational effort needed to move people from bemused interest to active support is an appeal to courage. On the left-right axis of political thought, which is the only reference known to the common voter, Dr Paul is definitely on the conservative wing. His positions on the economy and the wars on Iraq, drugs, and terrorism are based on the arguments of conservatism. But, in order for the average person who considers himself a conservative to consider those arguments, it will require a massive rethinking of what constitutes conservatism.
Courage is the key, here, and the example of Ron Paul displays it in spades. We have a candidate who has veritably put his life on the line to endorse changes that will truly change America in ways aimed at improving the life of every American, to the consternation of the few, the powerful, and the self-defined elite. Unless regular Americans are willing to join him in that courageous calling, the "revolution" will continue, but it will be a long and tedious trek. American voters can stimulate this transition NOW, but they will have to exchange the timorous habit of voting for the lesser evil, for the courageous position of a profile in courage, a vote of conscience.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 10
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of RickH only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
RickH 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.
