The idealism of Ron Paul supporters reassures us that the desire for liberty survives in the United States, but they should expect a hard slog, not a "R3VOLUTION." by Charles Platt
(libertarian)
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Anyone who expects a full-blown Ron Paul "r3volution" is going to be disappointed. Historically, a true revolution occurs only when people feel seriously threatened. This is not yet the case in the United States.
I am old enough to remember the last time that federal policies caused an American uprising. During the Vietnam war, many young people faced the intolerable prospect of being drafted to fight in a conflict that was morally wrong and militarily stupid. Their lives were being threatened for no good reason, so they took to the streets and expressed their defiance, despite the risk of being beaten and jailed by riot police.
It's no coincidence that military conscription was subsequently abandoned. People who seek power are well aware that they retain that power by consent of the people. Legislators took note that forcing their constituents to fight unethical, unnecessary wars led ultimately to a president being driven from office. Thus, today, our leaders have to settle for second-best methods to assemble an army. TV ads make military service look as exciting as a video game, while recruiters bribe inner-city teenagers with more money than they can make behind a counter at McDonald's. This is sleazy and unethical but at least it stops short of coercion.
There are two lessons to be learned, here. The first is encouraging: Past experience shows that a grass-roots movement really can force changes in national policy. We, the people, are not impotent. We simply have to be realistic about the timeframe in which change can occur.
The second lesson may seem rather depressing to idealists who seek a more just society. Rapid change simply does not occur so long as most voters feel reasonably comfortable; and (so far, at least) gradual processes such as the erosion of civil liberties and devaluation of our currency have been insufficient to create discomfort on a large scale.
Incremental change is unexciting and unsatisfying. It's the political equivalent of trench warfare. But right now, there are no quick fixes.
Instead of becoming disillusioned by the lack of instant gratification, Ron Paul supporters should face reality and recognize that to achieve even some of their objectives they may have to engage in a struggle that lasts another four, eight, or twelve years. If they are unwilling to engage in this struggle over the long term, we will have to conclude that their idealism was only skin deep.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 4
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Charles Platt only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Charles Platt 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.
Incrementalism is what has slipped the chains of indentured servitude around our ankles. Only a quick strong blow will break the irons. Incrementalism is the policy of the ever encroaching state; its power lies hand in hand with the method of divide and conquer. Individuals have neither the fortitude nor the lifespan to wage such a war. The state, on the other hand, manages to ever live off its last victim whilst plotting against the next.
No, individuals must mass, storm, and overthrow in as quick a fashion as possible, lest they flail helplessly against the unassailable twin ramparts of political inertia and apathy.
Posted By: Charles Platt
Date: 2008-01-22 00:08:15
On the contrary, people do (or used to) have the stamina to fight long, hard battles to achieve idealistic goals. As a prime example in the United States I cite the struggle to achieve genuinely free speech via a series of test cases involving literary works. Ultimately the Supreme Court was compelled to admit that it couldn't define obscenity. The freedom of speech we enjoy today was inconceivable during the 1950s. Any impatient attempt to achieve this would have failed.
Just how do you plan to strike a "quick, strong blow" without widespread popular support?
Anyone who expects a few money bombs and a couple of primaries to trigger a mass realignment of public opinion is going to be disappointed. Exaggerated, unrealistic expectations are a recipe for disillusionment, and people who become disillusioned are not going to be effective.
Mr. Platt, look at the carnage in the markets that occurred Monday. There is nothing idealistic about survival. I proffer that the "quick, strong blow" will be the ongoing implosion of the world supply of credit. What has expanded, must now contract.
The left side of the population bell curve that loots siding off their houses before abandoning said structures to their creditors are trying to tell us something. It is easier to destroy wealth than it is to create it; and some people would willingly facilitate the former so long as some portion of the remnant value is transferred to their own pocket.
Now that a critical mass of political plunderers have arrived on the scene, the public is beginning to see them for what they truly are-- crooks and liars. Eventually the public will look inwards and see their own complicity (docility or passive assent), then they will become angry and look for scapegoats. There are plenty of cloned scapegoats running for POTUS08.
