Archive for the 'Democrats' Category

Why I Quit The Democratic Party For Ron Paul

Today I received an Acknowledgment Notice from the Boston Election Department via the US Postal Service. It was a standard, unassuming, laser-printed form letter informing me that they received my affidavit of voter registration. Nothing out of the ordinary.

Nothing, that is, except for one phrase which gave me a sudden mental shock and made me gasp every time I looked at it: “Your party affiliation has been changed from DEMOCRAT to REPUBLICAN.”

This was not a mistake. This was a decision I made after a long, excruciating deliberation with myself. Which is exactly why it was so shocking to me.

I grew up in an upper-middle class area of New Jersey and attended a highly regarded private school there for nine years. Though I hardly appreciated it at the time, the education I received was excellent and I am thankful for it. In fact I didn’t appreciate the breadth and depth of my learning until I went away to college (unlike nearly half of my private school classmates, I did not attend an Ivy). Yet I have also come to understand that the education I so highly value came with its own biases, not unlike the regional biases that came with growing up in the Garden State.

Most people in my little part of New Jersey didn’t like country music, for example. So I too, by default, grew up believing that I didn’t like it without ever questioning why. I’d complain when the bus driver played it without ever giving it a chance. Later in life, while attending a small liberal arts college located in the poorest county in New York state, country suddenly became cool. Nearly all of my friends and acquaintances (most of them being preppy kids from prosperous New England towns) instantly and without warning embraced this seemingly alien genre of music. I too grew to love it, and it soon dawned on me that perhaps I was more a product of my environment than I liked to believe.

I experienced a similar epiphany with politics recently. Many of my private school classmates (despite their wealthy and often Republican parents), and nearly all of my teachers, held very liberal views. Even our graduation speaker was an outspoken critic of the death penalty. And so it was that I grew up proud to hail from an environment that seemed to care so deeply about social justice.

My outspoken Republican classmates, which I could count on one one hand, were acknowledged by the rest of us to be either sociopaths or unassuming victims of brainwashing by their parents. Their attitude toward the underprivileged was hardly empathetic, and we felt justified in demonizing them for this reason alone. And if Republicans were the enemy of the underprivileged, it seemed to follow that their Democratic counterparts were their saviors. Of course this conclusion was based on fallacious logic, but this did not occur to me until much later in life. I did not realize at the time that good intentions do not automatically lead to good results (in fact, they rarely do).

When I discovered Ron Paul last year, I was forced to rethink my world view. It was a painful experience, but I slowly learned that the traditional Republican values of small government (which have since been abandoned by the Grand Old Party) and low taxation do in fact have merit. They are not, as I used to believe, merely a rationalization that the privileged use to justify their grip on money and power at the expense of the lower and middle classes. In fact, I would learn that some of the Federal institutions we don’t often think about, such as the Federal Reserve, play a far more important role in increasing the gap between the rich and the poor than the rich do themselves.

I was also forced to consider the possibility that most federal programs and departments, no matter how well-intended, do not benefit The People. More often than not, in fact, they are money pits which exacerbate the very problems they were intended to address. I was shocked to learn that prior to 1913 there was no national income tax (nor was there inflation), and that we did just fine without it. And when I learned that the Founding Fathers warned us against the very dangers we face today as a result of an increasingly centralized and powerful Federal government, I came face-to-face with my liberal biases and realized that I could no longer justify my old views. But I wasn’t ready to embrace Republicans of the Giuliani and Romney variety either. They were not true conservatives. So where did the small-government Republicans go?

The problem with our two party system is that is forces each party to take a side on one issue. This results in parties which have arbitrary values that are often inconsistent. How, for example, can you justify a pro-life view when your party also promotes the death penalty? It comes down to the same thing–state sanctioned death is either right or wrong. To endorse one form of death but not the other means that you either hold a double standard or that you are a hypocrite. In fact, most people do not side completely with one party or the other but feel compelled to choose the closest fit or simply go with the party that supports the issue that is most important to them. This allows politicians with ulterior motives to exploit the resulting gap between personal and party values, or worse, allow themselves to be bribed by lobbyists that seek to exploit this gap.

This has resulted in a worrisome shift in party values. The small-government Republicans disappeared because they were of no use to the lobbyists, who depend on a strong Federal government with a healthy source of revenue. Thus in the modern Republican Party, greed has usurped values.

I see only two solutions: we either need to get beyond this two-sizes fit all model and provide some competition to the existing parties (which would unfortunately require some dangerous tinkering with our Constitution), or we can simply change the parties from the inside out with our votes. The good news is that the GOP in its current manifestation has been so damaged by the Bush Administration that it must change or it will cease to exist. This isn’t the first time a party’s values would change drastically. The Republican party of today would be hardly recognizable to a Republican from 1854 (the year the GOP was founded) or even 1954 (prior to the Civil Rights movement).

We have a chance to help change the Republican Party change for the better and I intend to do so; the Democrats are stuck in the status quo to such an extent that they are not seizing a golden opportunity to regain power by taking the bold anti-war stance which voters are demanding. Since neither party is giving the American people what they want, we will see some radical changes in party politics very soon. This is indeed a rare moment in history: we have an opportunity to restore values to politics.

It will take some time for me to get used to calling myself a Republican. The ick factor isn’t likely to go away soon. But I know it is the right thing to do, because here is what I have learned about our two-party system:

Democrats have the right motives (social justice) but the wrong approach (central government). Republicans have the right approach (free market) but the wrong motives (maintaining a plutocracy).

Ron Paul is unique because he has the right motive and the right approach. He really does care about the middle class, and it would benefit greatly from his Presidency. I also happen to believe that Ron Paul represents the future of the Republican Party, whether he wins the primaries or not. He is in the right place at the right time, delivering a message that Americans are hungry for. I feel lucky to be a part of it.

I sincerely believe that Ron Paul represents our best hope for a better future, but to me its more personal that that; Ron Paul represents my own hope to proudly call myself a Republican.

Sphere: Related Content

A Vote For Hillary Is A Vote For War

Two weeks ago, Hillary Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment in support of military actions against Iran. Democratic rival Mike Gravel immediately called her out on it in a nationally televised Presidential debate. Her response? Laughter (cackling, actually).

Frankly, I am baffled. Why aren’t Democrats outraged by this? Hillary has said that she wouldn’t have voted for the Iraq War if she knew then what she knows now. Yet here she is, voting for war again. Are the Democrats’ attention spans really that short? I took her Iraq vote to mean that she didn’t have the balls to stand up to the President, but she just proved me wrong by virtually coming out of the closet as a Neocon.

And where are the anti-war Democrats? Ron Paul raised over $5 million in Q3, why can’t Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich or Chris Dodd do the same? Why are Democrats blindly goose-stepping behind their war-mongering front-runner, even after she revealed who she really was? I can’t believe for a second that Democrats are suddenly pro-war. So what gives?

Ron Paul got it right in last night’s MSNBC debates when he said that a nuclear Iran does not pose a threat to us. Think about it, China has nuclear plants and nukes. What makes Iran, a much smaller and weaker country than communist China (which happens to own us, by the way), more dangerous? Furthermore, what gives the US, “the greatest violator of the non-proliferation treaty,” (thank you Mike Gravel) the right to tell Iran what it can and can’t do? They have not declared war on us, nor have they threatened to.

There is only one possible way for the “same people who told us Iraq would be a cakewalk” (thank you Ron Paul) to sell their next war to us, and that’s to convince us that they are evil and dangerous “Islamofascists.” But what if they’re right? Can we risk another 9/11?

Lucky for us, they couldn’t be more wrong. Iran is simply pissed off, and with good reason.

First we overthrew the democratically-elected administration of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq in 1953 because he wasn’t friendly to our oil companies. Then, thrity years later, we gave our buddy Saddam next door hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment and billions of dollars in economic aid to support him during the Iran-Iraq war, conveniently looking the other way when he used chemical weapons against Iranian civilians and even his own people. Now we are harassing Iran about wanting to build nuclear reactors that they are legally allowed to build. Wouldn’t you be pissed off too?

Guess what? They also hate us for everything we have done in the rest of the Middle East, not the least of which are the Clinton-era sanctions and bombings which killed 500,000 Iraqi children (Madeleine Albright even went as far as to say in a 1996 CBS interview that it was worth it; how does that make us look?).

This is not just about the Bush Administration. Our foreign policy has been corrupt for longer than you can imagine. I am currently reading Blowback by Chalmers Johnson, about the history of our Imperialistic foreign policy. In the first chapter he asks why we still operate cold-war era military bases in places like Italy. Does anyone stop to think why we are behaving less and less like a Beacon of Liberty and more and more like an Empire?

So here’s the other thing about Hillary. She’s being advised by Richard Holbrooke, a slightly toned-down version of Norman Podhoretz, Giuliani’s neocon foreign policy advisor (the same guy who goes around ranting about how the Islamofacists are out to kill us). Is this who the Democrats want deciding their foreign policy?

You may be wondering why I would want to bring up Hillary on a Ron Paul blog three months before the primaries. Two reasons: first, I think that many open-minded, rational people who voted Democratic in the past (like me) would in fact support Ron Paul if they took an honest look at him and forgot for a second that he is (gasp!) a Republican. Maybe they’ll finally notice that Hillary is a neocon (quietly being advised by Bush) and realize that maybe, just maybe, a non-interventionist Republican is preferable to a war-mongering Democrat. Second, Google Trends tell us that we are in for a Hillary-Paul Face Off. We need to prepare for the bizarre but increasingly likely possibility of an anti-war Republican underdog taking on a pro-war, insider Democrat.

The Bush Administration still hasn’t told us the real reason we went to war. Was it really about oil or national security? Perhaps it was about spreading democracy at the barrel of a gun? Or maybe it was to stop Islamofascim from destroying America?

Don’t believe any of this for a second. These are are rationalizations at best, lies & propaganda at worst. The truth is that this war and the next one are about empire building. Hillary Clinton is part of that empire, whether she knows it or not. I hope Democrats realize this before it’s too late.

I leave you with this quote from Hermann Göring, a leading member of the Nazi Party, second in command of the Third Reich, and commander of the Luftwaffe:

Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. …Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

Sound familiar?

Sphere: Related Content




Close
E-mail It