I recently read an article about the Ron Paul Revolution that was printed in the Boston Globe. As a Ron Paul supporter, I’d say that overall it’s not particularly bad (any exposure raises awareness), but of course feel it doesn’t do him justice. My obvious bias aside, I find it interesting that the article states, in reference to the June 5th GOP debate, that Giuliani won “patriotic points” by telling Ron Paul (and in effect the CIA as well as the 9/11 Commission Report) he was wrong. Though I am not doubting Giuliani’s good intentions in the general (and apparently uneducated) sense, I believe that Cathy Young (writer of the referenced article) and the average American have a perverted idea of what patriotism in fact is because of how it has been branded (take for example, none other but the infamous Patriot Act). As Ron Paul so eloquently puts it, “The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power.”
Although this article portrays Dr. Paul in a generally favorable light, it gets me down a bit - starts making me feel like I’m somewhat of a dreamer, lost in the legacy of the founding fathers and out of touch with the reality of, as Ms. Young puts it, the “age of bipartisan Nanny Statisim.” But I refuse to believe that a principled, pro-liberty message of small government and Constitutional ideals is outdated. It is timeless, and furthermore, it is correct. Myself, like so many other Ron Paul supporters I’ve had the pleasure of speaking with, cannot identify as a either a neo-conservative Republican or seemingly socialist Democrat, because both parties seem, as a whole, so painfully out of touch with what they are supposed to be upholding as American political entities: liberty, the rule of law under our Constitution, and TRUE American ideals of freedom, not government control as a means to acquire and “spread democracy.” If we are not bestowed with the miracle of Ron Paul becoming our next President, I truly worry about the path this country is headed down. The optimist in me does have faith in the character of the American people, and sometimes I think, maybe, just maybe when it gets really bad, the majority of us will wake up. But my fear is that it is going to have to get that bad for a wake up call to arm the American people against tyranny (metaphorically of course, as the Second Amendment will likely have been repealed by then *knock on wood*). George Washington warned us to “guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.” I hope that as a people, we have the ability to do that. It may take longer than an impatient young optimist like myself can even conceive of, but I do have faith in what our Founding Fathers gave us. Individuals like Ron Paul help to justify that said faith. The reality of his grassroots support is highly motivating as well. Even if Ron Paul doesn’t win in 2008, at least I know that there are thousands, if not millions of Americans who refuse to go down without a fight. And this is not by any means the last battle.
Share This Sphere: Related Content
(Amazon)
Posts
Writing about education, John Taylor Gatto said this: “First we need a ferocious national debate that doesn’t quit, day after day, year after year. We need to scream and argue about this school thing until it is fixed or broken beyond repair, one or the other.”*
To that general end I emailed Time Magazine tonight to ask why Ron Paul is not listed with the other presidential candidates on their “definitive cheat sheet on all the candidates’ best-selling and not-so-best-selling books.”** Ron Paul, whose titles include “The Case for Gold,” “Gold, Peace, and Prosperity,” “A Foreign Policy of Freedom” and “Freedom under Seige,”*** is not listed there.
Yet these are topics that should be part of our ferocious national debate.
Take heart, though, for in the words of Leonard Cohen, “…they’ve summoned, they’ve summoned up a thundercloud and they’re going to hear from me…”****
* http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/john_gatto.html
** http://www.time.com/time/
*** http://www.mises.org/store/search.aspx?Keywords=Paul,%20Ron
**** http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/leonardcohen/anthem.html
The article was, as Corie characterized it, upbeat and generally positive. That is (from the perspective of a New Hampshire ‘patriot’) - unexpectedly good treatment from the Boston Globe.
Let me explain what I think is so good and so encouraging about this. The Globe may be responding to Ron Paul’s message of peace. I believe that the people, including Globe writers, who consider themselves to be ‘leftish’, have always opposed war, at least rhetorically.
Even the fact that the reporters (I refer to USA Today, AP, Wall Street Journal - each of late has printed a positive Ron Paul article) betray a lack of knowledge, specifically about Ron Paul and generally about the integral whole of the Ron Paul REVOLUTION (okay, I like the word and it is appropriate), they are reaching out, extending themselves.
We should remember that the reason reporters have not been covering Ron Paul is that they have not been assigned. It seems that is changing. As they cover the campaign (revolution), meet us and interview this group of supporters, they will become better informed (hip to the facts).
The reports will continue to improve for us.
Thank you for pointing out the weakness in pretended patriotism also, but I just want to emphasize the positive - excuse me for using the word - SURGE - in positive reporting over this weekend.
That’s a good way to start September.
Just one more quick remark. I think (unlike with Gresham’s Law) real, informed and serious patriotism displaces the phoney, ignorant pretended type. The reason for that is that the real patriots, like Corey, Ron Paul, Linda, Chris, Jennifer, Ian, all the people I have worked with through the meetups; are very serious about restoring our honor and our government to the people. They will drive the pretenders into the shadows - where they always belonged.
Thanks Corie. Thanks Sue.
Rich
I believe Rich is referring to Gresham’s law without the refinement Dr. Gary North and others give it, to wit “…bad money drives out the good money only when the government says the two are equal in value, and enforces this decision with the threat of punishment.” (“Honest Money,“ Christian Liberty Press, p. 53)
In other words, the currency artificially overvalued by a government will be spent (circulated) while the artificially undervalued currency will be hoarded (not circulated).
As it stands now government and the MSM overvalue phoney, ignorant pretended patriotism and undervalue that which is real, informed and serious.
Historically - and logic bears this out - the only solution to this conundrum is to bring the good stuff back, the good stuff being gold and silver on the one hand and the united States under law on the other. So Rich is right, and I think his prediction about reports improving is right on too.
Let the shouting match begin (just kidding, no need to shout when you have Reason on your side).
~Sue
Corie,
I can see why this article makes you “feel like I’m somewhat of a dreamer.” The “[he] doesn’t have much chance of winning” attitude that Cathy Young uses to sandwich this otherwise positive piece has the effect of making the reader feel that Ron Paul is unqualified for the Presidency. It writes him off as an idealist out of touch with the real world. Rather than shout MSM conspiracy, however, I will give Ms. Young the benefit of the doubt and assume that she simply doesn’t want to risk her professional reputation by appearing to back a candidate who she does not feel is viable.
I do believe, however, that she is mistaken. As a 10th term Congressman, Dr. Paul is not the naive, idealistic yokel she paints him to be. When she writes that “there is a strong argument that….totalitarian movements rooted in religious extremism would inevitably threaten US interests and safety if left unchecked by American power,” she only gives the slightest hint that this is in fact the heart of the issue. In fact, Dr. Paul convincingly argues that the threat posed by religious extremism is a consequence of our foreign policy, rather than some arbitrary force of evil we must destroy through more of the same policies (as it is popularly portrayed in the media and by the likes of Rudy Giuliani).
The Globe article is a start, but we won’t hit a tipping point of Ron Paul awareness until this issue is addresses directly, rather than obliquely, in the mainstream media. It is the only issue on which he can win, and it is of critical importance to his campaign.
Peter
The Globe has such a wide audience I expect the editor will receive letters commenting on this article. I hope he will publish at least one of them.
Sue,
This is a good point, and I think some of the regulars here are better suited than most to write in about this article.
Click here for submission guidelines & procedures: https://bostonglobe.com/newsroom/Editorial-Opinion/letterstoeditor.stm. You can email it in to letter@globe.com or through the above link.
“Letters are limited to 200 words, are subject to editing, and are not guaranteed to appear in the paper.” Today’s letters can be found at http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters (registration required).
Peter