Topic: Election 2008
Politically Homeless As a Ron Paul supporter, a lot of people seem to be gunning for my support. Here are one individual's musings on the matter.by Beatnik
(libertarian)
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
I am one of the unwashed masses who has had a political awakening in the last two years. I too recognized Dr. Paul for the transcendent politician he is. I too became involved where I was not previously, and I too am looking for a home now. I see frequent online arguments about where we should be roosting. Here is my reaction to the major players.
I shall not support the Democratic Party.
These are definitely strange times. Times so strange that I am recently forced to look upon the 90's and reevaluate several of my beliefs. I used to believe that it was possible to find a president who would not go crazy with spending and coincidentally watch the economy boom, and yet also avoid prompting the media to introduce an entire generation of kindergarteners to the finer points of oral sex during the evening news.
Indeed, times are strange enough to cause such as me to cast a more favorable eye on Clinton, of all people. For a sound dollar, I'd almost be willing to put up with his shenanigans, and throw out my TV in an effort to postpone the daddy-daughter discussion on oral sex another decade.
And yet, with the all-but-guaranteed upcoming Democratic presidency and Democratic congress, I am looking forward to confiscation of my paycheck, confiscation of my guns, and with the push to reverse global warm... I mean coo... I mean climate change, probably even confiscation of my van. And in return, I'll receive a lower standard of living, less personal safety, and no way to move furniture or lumber or more than four people.
Democratic rhetoric consists largely of either blatantly claiming this as the party goal, or gratuitously denying the proof that their policies have this effect. So there's no hope of my supporting them.
I shall not support the Republican Party.
They've gotten some blind votes from me in the past. Tom Davis got my vote, before marrying a gun-grabber and then showing that he had no intention of stopping the more ridiculous actions of the House Oversight Committee. And I'm one of the shameful persons who thought that Al Gore and John Kerry were more preposterous candidates than GW.
But if there is one thing that our favorite Texas representative has managed to drive into my thick skull, it's that the lesser of two evils is still evil. And election year appearances of the evil of a candidate and his party are not necessarily grounded in reality, as we have all seen. The evil I was trying to avoid a decade ago simply doesn't compare to the evil we ended up with.
Oh, there's the Paul movement still alive and kicking, trying to change the Republican party from within. It's admirable, and it makes me want to join in the fray. But the RP has stated unequivocally that it does not want me. It has even broken the law to try to keep the likes of me out. I've left churches for less.
There may be hope of my getting involved with the RP... but only after it receives its full and just punishment. They got us where we are by convincing me, and millions like me, that it would be worse if I went with the other guy. Well, I'm not so sure now. And after their crushing, humiliating defeat this fall, they will blame me. And my immediate response will be this: I will not be browbeaten anymore. I will not listen to you. You will listen to me. Because I am now a million strong. And from now on, when you don't listen, you will lose.
If they hear what we say, there may be hope for the Republican Party. If they don't hear me, there's no hope of my supporting them.
I shall not support the Constitution Party.
Oh, but they say so many things that I can get behind. Support of the Constitution. Noninterventionist foreign policy. State Sovereignty.
But then, they also say other things. Things about Jesus, which are supposed to appeal to me. Things which make me wince.
The CP has, more than any other party, managed to point out an inherent problem with the party system which I had never before been able to verbalize. It's a trap every party falls into. They are interested in getting power for one unspoken reason: to force government to do its wishes. All of the Constitution talk evaporates the second the subject turns to gambling, or gay marriage, or drug use, or pornography.
The CP doesn't ask that I evaluate it on its adherence to the rule of law. It asks that I evaluate it on its adherence to Christ. Fine, I'll do it in four words: You are all heretics. I do not forget that you and I maintain irreconcilable theological differences over which our ancestors traded matchlock volleys. And I do not think for a second that if you were to get into power, those theological differences wouldn't be the next target on your radar.
The separation of Church and state isn't a 20th century American secular invention meant to push evolution in schools. It's a millennia-old Christian tradition which was meant to protect you and I from each other. If you figure that out, your website will read much differently.
But until the CP figures that out, there's no hope of my supporting them.
I shall not support the Libertarian party.
At least not now. But the LP is changing.
During my first introduction to the LP, I read that one of the federal agencies on their hit list was the US Coast Guard - which was at that time a model of how efficient a government agency can be, and without which we would have no constitutionally authorized federal maritime law enforcement. It was back in the days when one of their slogans seemed to be "abortions for everybody". The days when personal drug use seemed less of a campaign issue and more of a membership requirement.
The LP is much more attractive these days. The federal agencies under attack now are limited to those not specifically mandated by the Constitution. What I formerly perceived to be a policy of wanton fetus slaughter has been almost removed from their site, relegated to a couple sentences in the official platform. And the War on the War on Drugs now seems to employ more facts and figures, and less appeal to my desire to get high.
Oh, I know I'm driving Libertarians crazy right now. I know that what I wrote in the previous paragraphs is all perception, and that the LP has battled some of those perceptions for some time. Perhaps LP proponents have improved their pitch. Perhaps the birth of a truly unbiased medium has allowed me to see the truth. Perhaps Dr. Paul struck the fatal blow to my Republican armor, opening the crack that's allowing all these ideas to finally seep in without bias. But let me put forth one perception which the LP has yet to change.
The word "constitution" does not appear in lp.org's six indroductory pages... not once. It is only mentioned in the rest of the site in relation to civil liberties. The LP should realize that adherence to the US Constitution was, is, and will continue to be the draw of Dr. Paul's message. That is what is missing from all the "Paulite" candidates being pushed right now. That is what is going to prevent us voting for the lesser of two evils this time.
We were drawn to that message because it fills in so many blanks.
Abortion? Check the Constitution. Not in there? 10th Amendment.
Gambling? Check the Constitution. Not in there? 10th Amendment.
Nation building? Global Warming? Drugs?
Et cetera.
Where the party platform should come in is where the Constitution is ambiguous or doesn't seem to address the issue. What do we do about taxes? Well, taxes are constitutional. lp.org comes so close to what I would consider a correct party platform - repealing the 16th Amendment - but it stops short by saying simply "abolish the income tax". How do we handle radioactive materials? A party platform would be more like a suggested Constitutional amendment to address the issue, rather than just decrying the existing solution, however unconstitutional.
In the Libertarian Party platform, the US Constitution is appealed to much less than it is in the Constitution Party's platform.
The LP doesn't seem to realize that America is not made up of idealists. America is made up of people who want to be able to get a job, have their garbage hauled away, buy new cars once in a while, go to church, play XBox, give to charity, watch their kid's soccer games, and write crappy opinion pieces on the internet. They only respond politically when that model is interfered with. It's getting seriously interfered with these days, so the LP currently has a brilliant opportunity to push into the political scene by supporting the original protection for that model, which coincidentally also happens to be current standing law. Barr is kind of talking this way, but I don't think it's enough.
The message I'm currently perceiving is that the LP stands for the exact same thing as the other three parties mentioned. Join us, and we'll make the government do what you want... but in this case, it's nothing. I would rather have justice over nothing.
The LP seems mainly concerned with individual liberties, yet individual liberties are guaranteed by the Constitution. The Party of Principle has yet to transform that libertarian principle into Constitutional pragmatism. Until they do, there's little hope of my supporting them.
And so I'm politically homeless for now. I guess there's a chance the Republicans could kick out all the neocons, or the Libertarians could start appealing to the Constitution, or some other minor party would reject all the anti-Corvair kooks out there and ask to be taken seriously. Any of those events would make a difference. But I suspect that in the near future, there's also an equal chance Ron Paul will actually win the presidency.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 23 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Beatnik only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Beatnik 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.
As a Libertarian, I'd have to say: Good call on the Constitution. I've bookmarked your article for one I'm writing, but I wll try to get my thoughts down here.
Why there's so little (if any) talk in USLP literature is because of something called the Dallas Accord , which was adopted in 1974. Under that agreement, LP platforms etc. must be compatible with both the minarchist (limited-gov't) and anarchist visions. While minarchist libertarianism is basically the constitution, with some amendments (eg the Liberty Amendment), anarchists see it as something to oppose. (Some even consider the original convention to be a statist coup, the beginning of the end of the Republic and the start on the road to Empire.) Consequently, the LP says little or nothng about it.
That kind of underscores my point about America not being made up of idealists. I'm starting to get more knowledgable about the theories of anarcho-capitalism, and they are intriguing. But I won't be thinking about that tonight: I'll be remaking the knees on the replica 15th century German armor I'm fighting in in three weeks, which is a little different from playing XBox but still in the same vein. I'm not usually thinking about politics. I got stuff to do.
Anarchism isn't a holy grail for America. It's a more serious disruption to me remaking my knees than I want to deal with.
I think in the end massive numbers of Republicans jumping ship and joining the LP would be the best thing to ever happen to the LP. Sure, the Anarchists would be forced out, the exchange of ideas would suffer, and they'd end up looking more like the other parties in the end - but they'd start getting votes, too.
What's so good with a text that led to the United States of today?
My opinion is that constitutions are dangerous because, just like any other government artifact, they sooner or later become tools to legitimize crimes by government people.
I just got your comment. My article wasn't a response piece. I read your article and want to say you made many a vaild point. It's interesting to me that according to your chart you seem very libertarian and yet not want to be part of the party and I think you did a fine job of explaining why. The problem with any large group of people is not every one is going to agree on everything.I love parties ,just not political ones.
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.
