Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Someone Like Ron Paul In a political environment where the more strictly a public servant fulfills his oath of office the more radical he is, very few honest men persevere and even fewer excel. Among them, one man stands alone: Ron Paul.by Dan Alba
(Libertarian)
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Divining the Greater of Two Goods... 'Reluctantly'
In a political environment where the more strictly a public servant fulfills his oath of office the more radical he is, very few honest men persevere and even fewer excel. Among them, one man stands alone: Ron Paul.
It is widely-known that Congressman Paul is a people's representative who, more so than any other statesman, does only what the Constitution expressly allows, even when it limits his ability to deliver for his constituents. As a matter of ethical principle, he constantly votes against bills in which earmarks for his district have been placed; nonetheless, he gets re-elected time and again. For that and other reasons — his ability to effectively enunciate his message, his master's command of pertinent US and world history, his positive and powerful humility, and his sage prescience in economic matters — Ron Paul is respected all across the political spectrum.
By the same token, however, he is detested and, in most cases, wrongfully marginalized. His more disingenuous and vicious opponents even have the gall to use backward logic in pointing to his adherence to the rule of law as a reason why he should not be a candidate for President of the United States.
That is not to say that some of their honest concerns are not plausible, but regardless, I argue the following.
If Ron Paul is not the most worthy presidential candidate in light of his four-decade track record of preserving individual liberty, states' rights, and national sovereignty; standing up to the Federal Reserve, the IRS, and special interests; and through it all, strictly limiting the bounds of his own power and that of the federal government by obeying the Constitution at every turn — if he is not the candidate who will address the ills by eradicating the cause instead of simply treating the symptom — then one doesn't exist.
Yet there are others, like Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, who, like Ron Paul, are against nation-building, the Iraq war and its escalation, and who are for restoring civil liberties by eighty-sixing the Military Commissions Act, Patriot Act, and the like. They even cite the Constitution on occasion — by far, more often than do any of the other candidates on either side, minus Paul. But therein lies a basic and vital difference between someone like Ron Paul and the Congressman himself: Ron Paul doesn't just reference the supreme law of the land when relevant to a particular position he holds; he zeroes-out his every legislative action at the Constitution.
It gives me no pleasure to focus on what divides those who are, in my mind, the two most honorable statesmen in Congress, but I feel it's necessary in light of recent controversy — namely, the ado surrounding Kucinich's effort to impeach Richard Cheney and Paul's perceived lack of support for it.
It's a subject we should all take very seriously. I, personally, desire the expedient removal from power those government officials responsible for deceiving and emotionally blackmailing us into illegal wars — be it Richard Cheney or the entire Bush Administration. But at the same time, I've reluctantly come to accept that it must be done in a manner that assures both due process and the absence of legal loopholes through which the perpetrators can slip; that means conducting the impeachment process according to legal protocol, no differently than the way past impeachments were handled. And much to the chagrin of many if not most Kucinich supporters, that's exactly what Ron Paul is calling for:
Mr. Speaker, I rise, reluctantly, in favor of the motion to table House Resolution 799, Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, of high crimes and misdemeanors, and in favor of referring that resolution to the House Judiciary Committee for full consideration. I voted to table this resolution not because I do not share the gentleman from Ohio's desire to hold those responsible for the Iraqi debacle accountable; but rather, because I strongly believe that we must follow established protocol in matters of such importance. . . .
[T]his legislation should proceed through the House of Representatives following regular order, which would require investigation and hearings in the House Judiciary Committee before the resolution proceeds to the floor for a vote. This time-tested manner of moving impeachment legislation may slow the process, but in the long run it preserves liberty by ensuring that the House thoroughly deliberates on such weighty matters. In past impeachments of high officials, including those of Presidents Nixon and Clinton, the legislation had always gone through the proper committee with full investigation and accompanying committee report. . . .
I noted with some dismay that many of my colleagues who have long supported the war changed their vote to oppose tabling the motion for purely political reasons. That move was a disrespectful to the Constitutional function of this body and I could not support such actions with my vote.
I was pleased that the House did vote in favor of sending this legislation to the Judiciary Committee, which essentially directs the committee to examine the issue more closely than it has done to this point.
When Ron Paul uses the word "reluctantly" when voting against a motion, you can be sure it means that he knows that there is damn good reason to actually vote for it. But in light of Dr. Paul's record, the above statement is clearly a testament to his ethical consistency in adhering to the rule of law even when it goes against his own preference.
Still, many commentators — including friends of mine who would call themselves progressives or die-hard Kucinich supporters — turn it 90° by charging him with selectively legislating, pandering to the base for votes, or even being a typical right-wing hypocrite. All of which are insidious assertions that fly in the face of empirical and authoritative evidence found in the above excerpt, all his past speeches, and his voting record.
As a matter of sidebar debate, much of the same could be pondered of Kucinich's intentions: Is he posturing for publicity by constantly reading the Articles of Impeachment and trying to rush the motion through? Is he selectively following the rule of law?
Those angled questions are irrelevant in the whole scheme of things, but can be posed to make a counterpoint to the charges against Paul, for they carry just as much weight in reasoning away the pointed charges. For the sake of advancing my greater thesis, let's assume that opposing sides cancel each other out on the impeachment issue.
Dennis Kucinich is an honorable Congressman for his principled bravery in the face of mercantilistic mafiosi and war-profiteers, and his humanitarian compassion is perhaps second-to-none amongst all presidential candidates. He and Paul were the only Members of Congress who defied AIPAC and other war propagandists by voting against the fraudulent Rothman-Kirk Resolution which called on the UN to charge Iranian President Ahmadinejad with incitement to genocide based on words he didn't even say.
He's a refreshing rarity in a Congress full of pandering partisans, hyper-statists, and outright traitors. I am proud to utter the words "Congressman Kucinich."
At the same time, though, his platform is spotted with good intentions that merely treat the symptoms. In some regards, they inhibit individual liberty by trampling the First and Second Amendments, compromise sovereignty, and in general, increase the size and reach of the federal government. His platform only selectively follows the Constitution and the advice of the Founders. Instead of consistently making central government less powerful and invasive, in some cases, his policies would do the opposite.
That is not to say that under a Kucinich presidency we will soon be fully enveloped and embroiled in socialism, that the UN will be running rough shod over our sovereignty, or that law-abiding gun owners will be disarmed in fell swoops. Compared to Ron Paul's platform, however, it does make evident the difference between A) a nominal constitutionalist and B) a strict one; A) one who is conditionally anti-state and B) one who is unwaveringly so; and A) a principled yet undisciplined pursuit of civil liberty and the rule of law and B) one that stays on message of original intent, even when it contradicts one's personal convictions.
So, for those who favor an anti-war platform spotted with big-government domestic policies treating the symptoms — for those of you who don't mind more of the same tax-tinkering, and who are attracted to the ethical tendencies reflected in choice "A" — Dennis Kucinich might be your man. Gravel, Richardson, et al., may even suffice.
But, for those who favor a non-interventionist platform buttressed by small-government and sound monetary policies striking at the root — for those of you who are tired of the status quo, hunger for a return to true individual liberty as outlined by the Founders, and are attracted to the ethical tendencies denoted by "B" — Ron Paul is the only choice.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 66 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Dan Alba only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Dan Alba 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 article was excellent. Kudos to Dennis Kucinich for wanting to hold the architects and advocates of the Iraq debacle accountable. Kudos to Ron Paul for wanting it done in a manner that assures due process and absense of loopholes.
I believe that Ron Paul is a man of honor and integrity, but I also believe he's got it wrong on most of the issues. Kucinich is a much better choice because Ron Paul is a Libertarian. Now, I'm sure that many who read this will finad that appealing, many of the Republican voters I speek with vote on Libertarian ideals. The problem is the idea that the free market can exist with no controls. This is a fallacy, as has been shown throughout history. A balance is required to provide a leveled playing field and encourage competition. Without it, monopolies abound. Corporations work hard to eliminate and suppress competition, that's their job. Who will insure that others can compete if not the government?
I certainly share your admiration for both statesmen.
I'm not the most well-versed on economics, trade, and such, but I'll try to give a well-sourced response.
In the sense that some level of checks and balances should exist, I agree that it's a fallacy that a free market can exist with no controls. But I also believe that from that springs a greater fallacy: that the central government should intervene in that capacity because individual consumers, non-governmental consumer advocacy groups, and the like, are not capable of pressuring service and goods providers to be more competitive for their business. You said that without government intervention, monopolies abound, which makes sense to me in a way. But upon further theoretical and historical study (the following excerpt, for example) I found that government subsidies and regulations produce the worst kind of monopoly:
"In Adam Smith's day, monopoly referred to a firm that enjoyed some government grant of exclusive privilege (e.g. the Navigation Acts of 1651 or the Tea Act of 1773)--the use of the power of government on behalf of one or more special, private interests, to hobble or preclude competition. One step further in this direction, of course, is an actual government monopoly itself whereby government says, 'We will do this work and will forcibly shut down anyone else who tries to compete with us.' First class mail delivery is a good example.
"Governments can do this in overt fashion as explained above, or it can indirectly accomplish some degree of the same thing (intentionally or otherwise) by burdensome taxation and regulation. Taxes and regulations usually hit newcomer or smaller businesses harder than the older, bigger, or politically well-connected firms; the effect is, to some extent, to limit competition and thereby confer a degree of monopoly privilege on the existing or larger firms. Many people today are candidates to start a business, perhaps in competition with large existing companies, but they do not do so because the tax and regulatory barriers discourage them from the start.
"When governments, by one method and to one degree or another, limit competition by the various means described above, the result is a coercive monopoly for those producers who benefit from the limitation of competition. This is the kind of monopoly to be concerned about because it breeds a situation where a company (or the government itself) can get away with abuse that would doom a company in a truly competitive, consumer-responsive market.
"The other kind of 'monopoly' some of us refer to is known as an 'efficiency' monopoly. It is simply a situation where a company gets a high market share not because of any government grant of exclusive privilege, subsidy, special tax treatment, or the like, but because it simply does the best job. I think Eastman Kodak may be a good example. To my knowledge, Kodak doesn't get any special goodies from the government, but it nonetheless sells the great majority of film in this country. If Kodak ever became sloppy and complacent, it would be like hanging out a sign reading 'COMPETITORS WANTED,' and that's precisely what it would get.
"A free market system provides powerful restraints against any company abusing its customers or its competitors. (It even whittles away at coercive government monopolies: by my communicating with you via e-mail, I am undermining the Postal Service's legal monopoly on first-class mail.) In a free market, the following constitute some but not all of the ways an abusive firm is disciplined:
"A. Free entry--the fact that another entity (a newcomer or an existing firm that may not even currently be in the same business) will find it attractive to enter a market in which consumers are unhappy with the current major supplier.
"B. Competition of substitutes--the fact that for most goods, there is some reasonable substitute. Breakfast cereal is a good example.
"C. Foreign competition--the fact that simply opening the borders to free trade is enough to imperil the monopoly position of almost any domestic producer. Once, many considered that Detroit would dominate the automobile industry with its powerful market share forever, but Japan found a way into the market, and slowly chipped away at the big three's hold on consumers worldwide.
"D. Competition of ALL goods for the consumer's dollar--the fact that if I don't like the air fares charged by the airlines, for example, I may take that disposable income and buy the washer and dryer I've been thinking about. In that case, United Airlines competes directly against Maytag.
"I would be remiss if I did not also mention the simple matter of the 'price' mechanism. Should any firm or firms establish a dominant market share of any industry, let's say, airlines--for instance--any rise in price and profits acts as an instantaneous signal that alerts other aviation entrepreneurs to an opportunity for profit."
In introducing a bill to Congress, Ron Paul explains how government hurts consumers and parts of the cable and satellite service industry [stress mine]:
"My office has received numerous calls from rural satellite and cable TV customers who are upset because their satellite or cable service providers have informed them that they will lose access to certain network and cable programming. The reason my constituents cannot obtain their desired satellite and cable services is that the satellite and cable 'marketplace' is fraught with government interventionism at every level. Local governments have historically granted cable companies franchises of monopoly privilege. Government has previously intervened to invalidate 'exclusive dealings' contracts between private parties, namely cable service providers and program creators, and has most recently imposed price controls. The Library of Congress has even been delegated the power to determine prices at which program suppliers must make their programs available to cable and satellite programming service providers.
"It is, of course, within the constitutionally enumerated powers of Congress to 'promote the progress of Science and Useful Arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the Exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.' However, operating a clearing-house for the subsequent transfer of such property rights in the name of setting a just price or 'instilling competition' via 'central planning' seems to be neither economically prudent nor justifiable under this enumerated power. This process is one best reserved to the competitive marketplace.
"It is impossible for the government to set the just price for satellite programming. Over-regulation of the cable industry has resulted in competition among service providers for government privilege rather than free market competition among providers to offer a better product at a lower price. . . .
"This bill also repeals Federal laws that force cable companies to carry certain programs. These Federal 'must carry' mandates deny cable companies the ability to provide the programming their customers desire. Decisions about what programming to carry on a cable system should be made by consumers, not Federal bureaucrats.
"The Television Consumer Freedom Act also repeals Federal regulations that mandate that all TVs sold in the United States contain 'digital technology.' In complete disregard of all free market and constitutional principles, the FCC actually plans to forbid consumers from buying TVs, after 2006, that are not equipped to carry digital broadcasts."
Back in 2001, he explained how government intervention was ruining health care:
"Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to explain why I oppose all versions of the Patients' Bill of Rights. Once again Congress is staging a phony debate over which form of statism to embrace, instead of asking the fundamental question over whether Congress should be interfering in this area at all, much less examine how previous interferences in the health care market created the problems which these proposals claim to address."
There's too much to list in that speech, but it's a good read if you want to understand how the increasingly larger hand of government in health care has made things increasingly worse for patients, doctors, and insurance providers by taking away choice, raising prices at many levels, and worst yet, keeping people from being healthy. 30 or 40 million people without health care is hardly a result of free market economics, as we haven't had a truly free market in health care — or anywhere, really — for who knows how many decades. It's been more bureaucracy to correct failing bureaucracy, which is insanity.
I say, let's elevate toward what made this country great before the State and corporate pirates and monopolies started divvying up the Treasury amongst themselves while restricting our choices. How nice would it be to have access to cheaper foreign goods and services like medicine (even marijuana, which is ridiculously illegal)? Oops. Too late. The dollar is on its death bed — another consequence of federal manipulation. More federal government involvement has decidedly and consistently benefited those entities connected to government and select corporations/monopolies.
Think about it. The State subsidizes war and it profits from it, while the People suffer and die; the same is true in domestic venture-conquest, only not so overtly, directly, or violently. Government entities are as good at subsidizing terrorism and terror-prevention by creating more terrorists as they are at subsidizing illnesses and health care by making sure diseases are never cured and not all people are getting well.
I'm sure we can agree that the State (or rather, entities thereof) will not engage in any venture not required by law without profiting — in most cases, at the cost of civilian lives and liberties. I know that Dennis Kucinich is a true humanitarian, is looking out for us little folks, and is not a profiteer, but I still lean toward the free market approach, based on strict constitutional principle and libertarian theory. I'll raise my glass to you and fellow Americans if he is elected, nonetheless. (Of course I'll cry with joy and get ****-faced drunk if Ron Paul is! :))
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.
