Stuck In The Middle Review
columnist: Scott from Oregon

Topic: Political Parties
Dr. Ron Paul Can Cure A Bleeding Heart

---

How Ron Paul's ideas can draw in more of the "far left" by simple exposition.

---

by Scott from Oregon
(Libertarian)
Tuesday, December 18, 2007

When the probes of a political meter get inserted into my ears the dial tends to go a little haywire. It bounces around like a compass needle in a magnet factory. Eventually, it settles partially down and one can get a reasonably accurate understanding of my politics by guessing the middle point between vacillations.

"Somewhere in the middle".

And yet I support Ron Paul, a decidedly Republican candidate, attempting- for the first time in my 45 years- to actually aid a candidacy by writing my very unprofessional column everyday (and beating those I work with over the head with a smaller government, less foreign intervention two by four).

Being a blue statesman, I tend to run in liberal circles. I am friendly with the way-out-there liberal hippy side of life. I know those who need shaves and haircuts and wave placards at "No Blood For Oil" rallies. I know them well, as they are counted as dear and close friends of mine.

And since I know their minds, I can tell you they are an easy Ron Paul vote waiting to happen (if you can convince them to actually register and vote- damn hippies, anyway!) Simply tell them Ron Paul wants to do away with "the man" and they will look your way.

"Get rid of "the man"?"

"Yes."

"Cool."

"And no blood for oil, either."

"Wow. Far out! Who is this dude, Ron Paul, anyway?"

"A Conservative Republican."

"Now way, man. That just blows my mind."

Harder to convince are the bleeders, those we’ve labeled "bleeding hearts" for their views that government needs to be the great equalizer and protector of the poor and underprivileged. If you come across that mindset, and many people have it, then the argument gets difficult. Like religion, you are stepping on emotional impulses- the impulse to be caring and humane- and these seem rather impenetrable, especially when one agrees with them in principal, like I do.

I watched Bill Clinton give a speech about his work in AIDS relief for Africa. The one statement he made (A paraphrase and NOT a quote) is that his organization can provide the services they do at 15% of the cost of the US government.

That statement and number struck me for a couple of reasons.

One, because his wife is running on a platform where the government is to provide MORE services to Americans, (which seems extremely contradictory to what her husband is revealing he has learned by operating a private sector charity group.)

Two, because I imagined how much further a bleeding hearts’ dollar would go if it was not churned through the federal money grinding and dispersal wheel and then doled out through the hands of bureaucrats who gleefully take their cut? If the charitable impulses of Americans were made direct and not through mandatory taxation, then the bleeding hearts would have a net increase in the amount of charity they could influence with their generosity and kindness. More available charity cash plus an 80% reduction in implementation cost. How can anyone not see the benefit in that?

Obviously, this argument produces oppositional views and there is no doubt many will be legitimate. What oversight for private NGOs? What if the charitable desire dries up?

Sure. There are drawbacks aplenty, but this smaller government view relies on an American spirit that I believe is still strong in this country. Those who argue that the safety net for the less fortunate will disappear if the federal government doesn’t provide it, are saying we Americans are selfish and self-centered without the coercive presence of "the man". It says bleeding hearts have cynical views about the humanity they profess to stand behind. This contradiction- that American humanity is selfish and can’t be humane without the liberally applied coercion by a heavy handed government- I believe, is the worm that will get to them.

Imagine, I say, how much good your mob of office workers in just your building can do in the world if your taxes stayed in your wallets and you could CHOOSE to spend it on helping people? Who would you help? How much could your collective hearts do?

I’ve been reading the Constitution lately. I’ve been following along with the debates on both sides of this presidential cycle. There is this one candidate, this kindly older gentleman who used to be a doctor, who believes in the great generosity and kindness of the American people like I do. His name is Ron Paul, and he doesn’t look like he is against "the man", but he is. He believes the American people can do better without a central, big government nanny taking their money by force and then spreading it around. He believes in the America I believe in. The America full of kindness and largesse, the America the rest of the world used to admire.

I think I shall vote for him. I wish you would.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
20 thumbs so far

2007 Scott from Oregon, all rights reserved.
Published: Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Last modified: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

The views expressed in this article are those of Scott from Oregon only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Scott from Oregon 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.

Report violation by Scott from Oregon of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.