The Good:
- Firstly, this man is an unwavering Constitutionalists - even when it comes to sticky issues. Regardless of the popularity of the vote. This may make him unpopular in normal times - but these are not normal times at all.
- Actually believes that Liberty, above all else, is the essential American component.
- The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information.. His solution is to pull out, yesterday. I don't think the solution is that simple - but what are the chances of a successful outcome in Iraq? Simply leaving really is a viable choice.
- His platform states: The biggest threat to your privacy is the government.
- The political disconnect in America is growing. It's no longer just apathy - but anger.
- Has a certain "Ross Perot" attitude - it's very appealing to reformist, but may turn off voters. I think it will be an asset in 2008 - people are looking for change.
- Is easily attacked on issues such as the UN, NAFTA, security, poverty welfare, and other soft and social issues. People on the dole are not going to like him one bit. Nobody wants to pay the fair price for a happy life if the medeocre life is free.
What do you think?
5 comments:
I've grown a little more sympathetic to libertarians over the years, but the one thing that keeps me away is the one-sided view towards the identity of tyranny. As you mention, Ron Paul says, "The biggest threat to your privacy is the government." This may or may not be true, but private entities, such as insurance companies, banks, etc. are rapidly catching up to the government in this respect. To take aim at one source of tyranny while ignoring others just lets one side win.
I think that sound-bite is a bit short-sighted, though it sounds good - he seems very concerned with privacy. You're correct that libertarians tend to be black and white, always using the "formula."
Ron Paul isn't a pure libertarian , and he's not a neo-con Republican either.
There's already a soft form of "commercial tyranny" at work already - but I don't think elected officials can accept all the blame for this. People can and should vote with their dollars.
Ron Paul sure has my interest. I have been a long-time libertarian, but I know that in terms of getting any real national debate going about the size of the federal government and what it ought to be doing rather than what it is doing is going to require an 'in-between.'
I have voted several times for a Libertarian candidate, but Mr. Paul was a favorite. I actually did not feel bad when he went to the Republican Party, because a true republican, in my mind, and a libertarian are only a few degrees of difference.
If you want to argue that capitalism has dangers, I do not disagree. If you want to argue that the Feds have a better solution, I may have to differ. Capitalism with NO control is not a good place to be, but, that being said, voting with dollars can always work in the end run. Reagan also warned us that the job of the government was to stay out of the way as much as possible.
Ron Paul is LP. He ran as LP, won as LP, and then only switched party ID to Republican so he wouldn't be snubbed for committee assignments in the House. Republican leaders see the LP as a threat to the Reagan Coalition and will not brook competition in the House. After all, the Republican Party got its start as a third party and is sensitive to such challenges.
I think any party in power is sensitive to challenges.
Post a Comment