Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
False Gods Create False Hope When American support false change agents they end up maintaining the political staus quo.by Joel S. Hirschhorn
(Centrist Liberal Libertarian)
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The good news is the huge pent up public demand for political change. The bad news is that presidential candidates have made a mockery of the concept of change while ignoring true political reforms. Missing are details about fixing the corrupt, dysfunctional political system and restoring balance among the three branches of government and between the states and the federal government.
So what kind of change do people want? The Wall Street Journal-NBC News survey last month of both Democrats and Republicans found 24 percent of voters favor "small adjustments" in America, 29 percent want "moderate corrections," but 46 percent thankfully seek "major reforms" and a "brand-new" approach.
When people rally behind false change agents something worse than being disappointed and having their hopes killed happens: the national energy for real change is wasted. In the end, false change agents protect the status quo political establishment. Hope is replaced by despair for disaffected anti-establishment masses. The worst false change agent is Ron Paul.
An early sign of trouble was that Paul supporters seemed to worship him as if he is the long-awaited savior for America, akin to one of our Founding Fathers. In their writing and behavior they seem like members of a cult, not thoughtful political activists open to new information. They don't appreciate the need to have disagreements without being disagreeable. Though their hero speaks of persuasion, his supporters express obnoxious in-your-face anger, disparagement, and intimidation. They show disdain for others that want major political change but do not support Paul.
For years before he became a Republican presidential candidate I had admired Paul for his maverick behavior in Congress and had a very pleasant meeting with him. But I had doubts about most of his policy goals, and his use of pork spending earmarks to get billions of dollars for his district was troubling. Paul remains a change talker, not a change agent.
The more I examined what he wanted to do as president the more he looked like the emperor with no clothes. He never produced detailed plans on how he would use new legislation, presidential actions or constitutional amendments. This is especially important for his drastic changes, such as eliminating much of the federal government and putting the country's currency back on the gold standard. His supporters never seem to demand details. Paul and his supporters exhibit therapeutic activism: activism that makes them feel good but lacks details necessary to convince others.
Yes, I have advocated a Second American Revolution and Paul's supporters also want a revolution. But a revolution requires leaders that can communicate so effectively with diverse Americans that massive public support results. Paul and his supporters give freedom their highest priority, but do not welcome the exercise of freedom by Americans to reject their beliefs. As Gary Wood, a Paul supporter correctly observed: "You will create more damage to our cause than good if you continue to spew hatred and poisonous venom rather than reason and kindness. Threats and nasty vile hatred will not spread our message; only detract from the importance of liberty and freedom."
Paul, the professed champion of the Constitution, brings it up in virtually every public statement and claims to believe in a strict reading of it. But he refuses to honor what is in Article V: the option the Founders gave us to have state delegates in a convention consider proposals for constitutional amendments. The one and only numeric requirement in Article V has been more than satisfied, as explained at www.foavc.org. Yet Paul has not demanded that members of Congress obey Article V and their oath of office to obey the Constitution. This is no trivial matter.
You would think he would honor the purpose of the Article V convention option: a way to circumvent an ineffective federal government and restore balance between it and the states. Paul should use his candidacy to make a public commitment to get the nation's first Article V convention. That would be revolutionary.
Nor has Paul not forcefully criticized the two-party stranglehold on the political system, despite once losing as a Libertarian Party presidential candidate pushing the same policy ideas. Nor has he clamored for the impeachment of George W. Bush, whose foreign policies contradict Paul's isolationist beliefs. No reason for Paul to be concerned about Bush supporters, only 4 percent of Republicans support Paul. And thankfully, citizens in Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire (a Libertarian stronghold), and now Michigan have not succumbed to Paul's demonology. Despite having considerable money Paul has won no delegates.
Whether other candidates are true reformers remains doubtful. Obama's glib talk of more bipartisanship smacks of protecting the status quo political establishment. Huckabee's religiosity and Romney's automaton personality are plain frightening, as are McCain's and Giuliani's bellicose beliefs. Edwards looks like the real thing, but like Kucinich has been out spent by Obama and the ever phony Clinton whose change priority is moving back into the White House.
Like others, I want Mike Bloomberg to enter the race as an independent candidate, if only to mount a serious attack on the two-party stranglehold on our political system.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
2008 Joel S. Hirschhorn, all rights reserved.
Published: Thursday, January 17, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, January 17, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Joel S. Hirschhorn only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Joel S. Hirschhorn 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.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
2 US 419 (February 1794)
Chisholm v. Georgia
Chief Justice: JAY, JOHN
Argued: February 5, 1793
Decided: February 18, 1793
... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty ... Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and preeminences; our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens.
--
(we need a Constitutional Convention like we need a hole in the head.
It doesn't matter what the Constitution says when virtually every elected official in the country disregards it as a guiding document, after swearing to abide by it. The exception being Dr. Ron Paul of course.
Now find another issue to harp on, the convention ain't gonna' happen. Get over it.
A well written argument with many good points. Here is one I'd like to respond to: "His supporters never seem to demand details."
There is a reason for this. I believe it was Thomas Paine who said "That government is best which governs least." Ron Paul believes in a smaller federal government. The reason he doesn't have many details is because he isn't going to replace the institutions that he wants gone. For example, Paul and Huckabee both want to get rid of the income tax. Paul doesn't have more detail than that because he doesnt need any. All he wants is to get rid of that tax. End of story. Huckabee, on the other hand, has more "details" than Paul because he wants to replace the income tax with a different one.
In this day and age of the US government intervening in almost everything, the best presidential candidate does not have to be perfect. He just has to be one who will finally get the federal government out of our daily lives. Ron Paul, like him or not, is the only candidate with the record that shows he is most qualified to shrink the federal government.
I'm going to be as nice as I can, this is NOT meant to be a hate-mail! I can respect someone else's opinion as well as anyone, and I'm about as open minded as they come, according to my family & friends.
Just some notes on your facts: - PORK? Paul asks for part of the budget to be distrubuted to his district because he's part of a corrupt system that will not re-elect him if he lets his taxpayer's money go into that system without a fight. If they don't get it, the Executive branch spends it at it's discretion. To top it off, to express his belief that system shouldn't even exist, he votes against it. If all his cohorts followed suit, the whole corrupt Pork Barrel Spending situation would cease. But, since he's the most honest among them - John McCain said so himself - he stands alone.
- CHANGE? It's staring us all in the face, but the CFR-approved candidates, and journalists like yourself don't want Americans to see it. It's simple logic. We're just about broke, and it's because of our empire, our nation-building exploits & resulting blowback, and the FED devaluing the dollar to pay for it all. It's plain, simple, madness to continue. Unless we want to be another developing serfdom in the kingdom of the world, we need direction from someone outide the globalist CFR. The guy with the best shot at it is Ron Paul.
- DETAILS?Paul's plans do have details. You just can't compress them into short conversations, let alone 30-second sound bites that are made to look good but in the end mean little or nothing. Dig deeper, answers are there, mostly in existing laws either in the Federal or State level. Everyone says "cut the fat, cut the fat!" Now they scream bloody murder when someone actually is bold enough to say "let's get it on!" and it's not the person they hoped it would be.
- ANGER? You paint all supporters with the same broad brush. We Americans ALL have plenty to be angry about, and people that don't get their facts straight piss us off even more when they push their flawed opinon, because people too easily buy those OPINIONS without further research. How's this for a rebuttal: Journalists that make a living pushing opinion pieces to mold the public mindset are the worst sort of yellow. Does this apply to you? If not, then you should not be offended by my saying so, right?
It's just MY opinion of course, but you're about as far out as you accuse us of being. Paul should call for a Article 5 convention? Yeah, like the media hasn't already gone overboard trying to make him sound bonkers. You REALLY want to lock-in that "crazy" buzzword, don't you! Of course, if Rudy or McCain said it, well, Fox News would call them pure genius!
Good luck with that Bloomberg run. He should have started by now if he wanted to have a chance to be something other than the gadfly this season. What's he stand for by the way, direct me to some links. I only know he's rich, which offhand puts him in company with Romney as another guy that might think he can buy Americans votes.
I'm not sure that I don't hear more than a little anger in your tone and I'm sure I sense a little closed mindedness as well. In my 35 years I have voted once, for Ross Perot. I didn't agree with him on everything, but I hated my other options. Now I'm starting to suspect there aren't any true options left. Our government is beginning to look like a tyranny dressed as a democracy. I am convinced that any of the candidates that are dressing themselves as being for change are just going to continue the lie to their own advantage. Paul is not advocating change, but a return to our roots. My great-grandparents all came here to escape the tyrannies in Europe, this country is looking more and more like what they fled. Suspensions of our rights were advocated by Clinton and McCain, Obama has not mentioned repealing any of the legislation that has been passed that has suspended habeas corpus and freedom of speech. No one else in the running has been such an outspoken critic of the war or smart enough to address the looming financial crisis in a way that may actually help us middle class folk. Let's look at the facts shall we, many good people will suffer because of the socialist policies of Clinton/ Obama and even more will suffer from the interventional policies of McCain. I'm personally tired of war and losing half my paycheck to pay for other peoples food,medical care, school and housing. And if Paul was on the cover of Newsweek or Time , if he was given a fair platform to voice his ideas and not branded as a loser or kook we would see what he would do in the polls. If elections were still held in a way that results were accountable to the public, with paper ballots or at least a paper trail, the results might be far different. They have proven that the Diebold machines are easily manipulated and that certain precincts the votes are literally tossed aside. Against the odds we at least are trying to support someone we believe in and not just trying for the lesser of two evils.
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.
2008 Joel S. Hirschhorn, all rights reserved.![""]("http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/components/com_jomcomment/smilies/guest.gif")