Topic: Political Literature
Ron Paul's Biggest Issue Of All-- Some things are just too big to be truth.by Scott from Oregon
(Libertarian)
Sunday, December 30, 2007
I am a political fuzzy bear. I’m lovable and huggable and consistently bandied about by ideologues from both extremes while I grumble and snort my way around the middle of most political maelstroms with a gimbaled neck. My head tilts and turns and rotates, looking at many sides of issues, top and bottom, through the pertinent peep holes, using others as mirrors to gauge effect and after-effect.
But that is way more than enough about me.
Well no. There is a bit more.
I am supporting Ron Paul for president, even though many of his views are too extreme to fit into my regular political comfort zone. He is clearly and strongly for things I think people should not be clearly and strongly for. Many of these are issues the Right would call me a "Lefty Lunatic" over, which is something I’ve grown accustomed to. I don’t think government should dictate morality when it comes to birth control issues. Yes, that means abortion as well.
That’s my view. I think the moral issue remains within the mind of the person making the choice. I also think that the reason the issue has been contentious for so long, is because it is a moral dilemma. Moral dilemmas tend to abrogate easy answers. When that happens, I think it best that government get simply out of the way.
So Ron Paul’s stance on abortion bothers me (although, I must say, knowing he was an OBGYN, makes me have compassion and understanding for why he takes that stance). As do a few other things I’ve heard him take stances on. "No student Visas for terrorist nations." There is one that I can’t go along with. Who gets to decide what a terrorist nation is? And isn’t the point of student exchanges to promote understanding between people’s of the world? Is it not better to continue to promote tolerance by being tolerant, understanding by being understanding? I don’t understand this position at all. It seems contradictory to the grander, broader stances Ron Paul takes.
So I deliberate. In one pile I place the cons. Another the pros. I do a bit of eyes closed mind wandering and I come back with my choice.
Ron Paul’s biggest issue is the one that weighs the most, and it sits firmly in the pro pile.
Less federal government.
That’s the one painted in gold. That’s the ticket that gets me into Ron Paul’s encampment. I hold it tightly in my hand and I proffer it at the entrance. I want in. Yes. I want to belong to the political group that wants to remove power from a centralized monstrosity. I want my local government to have more of my money. I want my State to have more control of my surroundings.
All of the other issues tossed around this election cycle are pale tokens compared to this one idea.
And it is the reason I will vote Republican for the first time ever, and vote for Ron Paul.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 65 thumbs so far
2007 Scott from Oregon, all rights reserved.
Published: Sunday, December 30, 2007
Last modified: Sunday, December 30, 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.
it's great to see people come to Ron Paul for all different reasons.. all of them positive..
understandably, some are deal breakers for people.. but I firmly believe that should people hear his message.. most will agree with enough of his platform to support him, and that's what continues to make the difference.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2007-12-30 18:46:35
You want local control and/or state control of nearly everything except you want the federal government to hold sway on the abortion issue? That seems inconsistent to me a direct contradiction of the one principle you "paint in gold". Ron Paul is very consistent on his view of the role of the federal government; the abortion issue just follows his basic conservative approach to the application of the force of government upon individuals; is not a separate consideration all by itself. That approach is an arbitrary application of the force of government to enforce or suppress religious or moral convictions. To me this means banning or allowing abortion is definitely not an appropriate role for the Federal government per the US Constitution.
Leaving the abortion issue in the domain of the Feds serves to forever enshrine it as a divisive issue that the parties can use to divide and conquer movements like ours that are intent on reducing the size and scope of the federal government to constitutionally defined bounds. Putting this issue back in the hands of local communities nullifies the national emotionally divisive power that proponents from both sides of the issue continue to use to divert us from the real question" What is the role of the federal government?
I hope we get the chance to see Dr. Paul's principles at work.
I don't see what the problem with the ad is. The United States has every right to deny someone entrance for whatever reason it pleases, be it that the person is from what it considers to be a terrorist nation or a nation with a funny name.
Posted By: Scott from Oregon
Date: 2007-12-30 19:14:20
Actually Mr. Fire Eater, thatis a good point, and indicates I may not have been clear. In other words, I agree with you. The trouble with the man Ron Paul himself on the issue, is that he makes a clear stand for the states to outlaw abortion.
So while he advocates getting the feds out of the decision making process (which I agree with) he advocates that the states make abortion a violent crime, which I disgree with. WHy should a state dictate that kind of morality? If you are against abortions-- simply don't have one.
In my opinion, it all boils down to the states' rights. They have the advantage of proximity when dealing with moral opinion, which can vary from person to person. Everyone is against murder: that stance is engraved in all human societies; therefore, it is a federal crime. As far as abortion, the personal beliefs of millions of people simple cannot be condensed into some universal norm; therefore, our form of government was designed to have the states decide that kind of morality. While my personal belief is that abortion is wrong, I respect my neighbor if he/she believes it is not. I also respect that if a majority of my neighbors believe abortion to be moral, then they can defeat any motion to illegalize it in my state.
There is a fundamental balance of power that is obstructed when we allow there to be a federal law, for to secure or to outlaw, that dictates a moral decision. Morality does have its place in law, however. This is why own Constitution is a living document. If my state decides (through representation and the vote) to change its mind fifty years down the line, well that's the purpose of this living document.
He is at least determined to take the issue off the fed government. I consider this a gain. The others do not offer not even this. Later on, we can work to have the issue removed from the states gov.
It's somewhat disingenuous to frame the question like that.. 'morality', when you know full and well that they take it as murdering an unborn child (not as a question of morality, but of protecting the rights of a person that you are bent on _dehumanizing_).
Paul is fine with legalizing prostitution, hard drugs, gambling, gay marriage (he's personally against but has no problem with them being legal, and yet he recognizes that these too must be handled at the state level).. that's hardly 'legislating morality'.. and even the death penalty and abortion he would leave in the hands of the states (I'm complete against the death penalty - yes, an actual _real_ 'pro-lifer', lol).
What you ultimately want is the federal government to _force_ the states to legalize abortion (although I notice you don't state the details - partial-birth? 8 months? anything up until the umbilical cord is cut?).. this is the original sin, accepting centralized power for a 'good cause'.. and then when the Christian theocracy types (or neocon warmonger, or ) get a hold of the federal government and they start doing horrors in your name - you were complicit in this because you chose to give the federal government far reaching powers, just waiting for someone wanting to exercise them... because of course, it was for a 'good cause' at the time.
You wonder why your country is suffering from the worst of the left and the right, it's because the _one_ thing they both agree on is massive centralized power.. so they can force their crap on everyone else (and then they take turns at wielding it, sometimes one side is the 51%, sometimes it's the other). What's really disturbing though is this new breed of candidate (and what that represents in the people) - Hillary and Giuliani - warfare-friendly and welfare-friendly.. where they're now willing to tolerate the other side so they can get what they want. Of course you seem aware of this.. but only after it's all hit the proverbial fan. You might have already guessed what the 'original sin' was in America's case: Lincoln (keeping the union together - involuntarily).
"The trouble with the man Ron Paul himself on the issue, is
Scott wrote:
"that he makes a clear stand for the states to outlaw abortion."
How so? He opposes any influence by the Federal Government on the issue, and leaves it to the states or the people to decide. "Or the people" - who elect their governor, and have much greater influence. His personal opinion is acceptable and understandable.
There is a dynamic with Ron Paul that is often overlooked. Parents try to teach their kids to do the right thing by not doing drugs, no teen sex, etc., but in many cases the kids push back. "Why am I required to live up to standards, that even our own President and VP don't live up to. They lie, cheat and steal." There are many reasons I will vote for Dr. Paul, but the most important to me, is that our kids can look up to this nation's President again, we really need that.
I support Ron Paul. As a Republican of 40-years, regretfully leaving the RP in 2004 because I could no longer support their efforts, foresaw (or thought I could foresee) that extremists' had taken over the beloved works of Taft and Goldwater. It was my opinion then that the hijackers would mount a major attack on the U.S. Constitution and possibly bankrupt this nation. In 2004, I believed the right-wing faction (in collaboration with the apostate democrats holding office) would explode the Federal Budget and blow it off the radar screen. Today, it seems they have succeeded. For example, consider the purchasing power of the American dollar, and how that together, democrats and republicans have taken this country to war without the U.S. Congress officially declaring war. I'm not so much anti-war as I am anti-congress for giving full throttle authority to the President to do whatsoever he pleases, when it pleases, and to whom he pleases. [The Congress did not have the intestinal fortitude to delcare war. It was much easier of them to "Let George do it..." leaving them in a political posture to criticise, (somewhat like Pontius Pilate), with clean hands if the worm turned south as it did. As a result, in my opinion it seems the majority in congress and the president now show a disdain toward our most sacred document, the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, Democrat and Republican policies have indebted our children and grand-children (according to newspaper reports) to foreign banks. And just think, some of them may be of communists origin, a philosophy that many Americans spilled their blood defending us against. Together, they have turned the Congress of the United States on its head by allowing corporate lobbyist's, nationals and foreigners, to roam the hallowed Halls of Congress intimidating good and honorable representatives. To make a long story short, democrat and republican policy (in my opinion) have made our nation worse off, and less safe. Oh yea, I know the standard rebuttal. "They have kept us safe because we haven't had an attack on American soil since 9-11..." My response is,"There is more than one way to attack a nation." Consider the value of the American dollar. How much is it worth in the world today, and how about its' value at your local gas pump or your local supermarket? I asks, "Is not bankruptcy an attack?" Consider also the open borders and ports? I asks, "Are they not vulnerable?" "And who knows what long range war-planning material is coming through the open gates?" And finally without pontificating and boring you with *facts, it seems to me that the current crop of presidential candidates are a rehash of the past. Frankly, I exclude all except Dr. Ron Paul, and then only if mounts a 3rd Party challenge. Should he lose in that effort, I encourge him anyhow because his personal "moral base" is moored and grounded in the U.S. Constitution. [And oh, by the way, I make a great distinction in the term, "political moral base" as oppose to the "religious moral base" of the right-wing evangelicals, or the "situation-ethics moral base" of Dr. Paul's opponents]. To me, it's important we make that distinction and promote his idea because it seems our Founding Fathers did. *Facts: Those stubborn "things" that get in the way and become an obstacle to one's reasoning power?
Posted By: Ronald Woodhouse
Date: 2007-12-31 07:51:33
I too consider myself a "fuzzy bear" liberal and am inline with many of Mr. Paul's opinions but he and the Libertarians lose me on the " Federal issues". I doubt that the signers of the Constitution could begin to envision the huge population of this nation and the issues that would come with each succeeding generation. I cannot imagine how the leaders of this country could cope with mass unemployment, huge multinational companies that today control our Congress and the Presidency through legal bribery, the voting system, the two party system, and the many departments of Federal government. We do stumble along though, through the one entity we all have in common.
I would like to see how Libertarians would cope with these many issues when they disassemble Federal government.
Posted By: Sara DiNicola
Date: 2007-12-31 09:22:23
You said: "I don’t think government should dictate morality when it comes to birth control issues. Yes, that means abortion as well." HOW ABOUT MURDER?
To say that the founding fathers were "naive" or couldn't imagine the type of world we have today is a cop out. It's the number one argument people use to justify ignoring the constitution.
I would argue that at least some of the founding fathers knew full well what issues might arise in the future and wrote the document to cover those bases. Check out the antifederalist papers, where the current state of our governmental affairs was predicted quite accurately.
The title of this post is "Ron Paul's biggest issue of all" which isn't addressed until the end of the post where it's finally revealed that the issue is "less federal government". But the writer, Scott from Oregon, first brings up two issues (abortion and student visas) which really aren't Ron Paul's biggest issues. They are a part of it for sure, but they are not his biggest campaign issues that I've seen, and Scott only demonstrated that they are his biggest issues, not Paul's.
Immigration proceedures and the issueance of visas belong to the feds via Section 8 of the Constitution.
The issue of abortion will be much easier and quicker if left for the States to settle on their own. And since it wasn't a power given to Congress they have to stay out of it until they get an Amendment passed.
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.
2007 Scott from Oregon, all rights reserved.