Archive for the 'Republicans' Category

Ron, Ron and the Republican Party

Watching the Republican candidates for the 2008 party presidential nomination talk gets kind of repetitive after a while.  Most of them support the War in Iraq, want to continue President Bush’s neoconservative policies and liken themselves to Ronald Reagan.  “I’m a true Reagan conservative.”  “No!  I’m a true Reagan conservative.”  Many of the candidates of today’s Republican Party like to characterize their leadership and platform with the Reagan Era-the supposed Golden Age for Republicans.  Ron Paul is different.  Ron Paul supported Reagan before it was the cool thing for a Republican to do-as a delegate to the 1976 national convention when Reagan challenged incumbent president Gerald Ford.  Ron Paul also does not refrain from criticizing Reagan in the places he went wrong-huge deficit spending and intervention in South America.

 

The infamous modern welfare state manifested itself during the 1930s under FDR.  The welfare state, which is a precursor to socialism, called for ever higher tax burdens on the American worker and increased government intervention in people’s lives.  The supposed “conservatives” in much of the 20th century made peace with the welfare state.  Coming to what would be known as the “Reagan Revolution” in the 1980s, President Reagan halted the growth of the welfare state.  With a little charisma and much-needed common sense, he said “government is not the solution, government is the problem.”

 

A “revolution,” by definition, must bring something new to the table.  This is not present in other Republican candidates-they are the same old business-as-usual.  While they claim the general platform of the Reagan Revolution, they do not innovate or expand upon it.  Just as Reagan helped to halt the growth of the welfare state-Ron Paul can finally shrink it.  This includes the neoconservative philosophy of policing the world-another form of welfare state.  Instead of mimicking Reagan like the other candidates like to do, therefore chasing after an impossible ideal, Ron Paul expands and innovates on what the Reagan Revolution helped to accomplish-thus creating a revolution of his own.  I assume that many of the readers of this blog have seen the “Ron Paul Revolution” signs.

 

Both revolutionary candidates were preceded by more mediocre Republicans.  Nixon campaigned on ending the Vietnam War-which he started to do originally-but later expanded it.  Our current president also campaigned with the promise not to intervene like with Kosovo, but we all see how that turned out.  Reagan employed an out-with-the-old, in-with-the-new philosophy that I am hoping Ron Paul will do as well.  Reagan had no need for the old elite that dominated the Nixon and Ford administrations.  “They have experience, yes, but it is experience in screwing up.”  Instead he hired young, enthusiastic believers in limited government (like many of Ron Paul’s supporters.)  This can help a revolution work.

 

There are still many naysayers of the Ron Paul Revolution.  I’d like to compare the current election campaign in 2008 to that of 1976 for a moment.  The 1976 campaign also featured a candidate far behind the frontrunners who came from behind to win the nomination and the presidency: Jimmy Carter.  For the record, Ron Paul is not comparable in any way, shape or form to Jimmy Carter as a politician-only his place in the electoral contest.  Carter, as disappointing a president as he was, learned to exploit an advantage for himself that gave him the edge over “top tier” candidates seeking his party’s nomination.  For Carter it was the new primary system and the modern media.  For Ron Paul it is the internet.  Ron Paul entered this race a long shot candidate-but has built a grassroots campaign largely through online popularity-which has helped him fundraise, get interviewed by the media and build the support of a recognized major candidate.  After all, what has happened so far in the Ron Paul campaign has been nothing short of phenomenal.

 

So how has the internet helped this dark horse candidate so much?  The internet is the newest, most personalized and most interactive form of media technology and it is a good medium to get to voters.  Arianna Huffington, former candidate in the California Recall of 2003, said “It was clear to me, the 2008 campaign was going to be dominated by what’s happening online — new technologies, new media like never before.”  Ron Paul saw an opportunity and capitalized on this resource, more than other candidates have.  This resource has not been a factor in past elections so it is only natural that they overlook it.  I believe that in all future campaigns the internet will play a stronger roll.  After all, the thought of a major candidate disregarding the primary or the news media in today’s elections is unthinkable.

 

So once he wins the nomination…there is still the general election against a democrat (probably Hillary.)  During the general election, people will already know much of Ron Paul’s platform from the nomination race.  I think once he has time to go over it more in depth in the debates, a victory will be in sight.  As certain fellow campaigners of mine have said, “I cannot wait to see Ron Paul debate Hillary.”

Sphere: Related Content

FreeRepublic.com Doesn’t Dig Free Speech

This morning I commented on a rather illogical anti-Paul post by ‘connell’ on the Free Republic website. My two comments, #59 and #60, posted under my username ‘rudynoir,’ were removed within 30 minutes. I am unsure what to make of this, since I felt that my comments were rather mild compared to some others. They did happen to represent an opposing viewpoint, though. Could it be that the “conservatives” on this site can’t tolerate an opposing viewpoint? Judge for yourself:

Deleted Comment #59 (in response to Comment #17)

To: MNJohnnie

MNJohnnie,

The world situation certainly has changed since 9/11, thanks to us. Iran supported us after the attacks, and we turned our backs on them. Now instead of having a treaty with Iran, we will be invading them. Good call, Cheney. Glad to know that my kids will be inheriting never-ending war and unchecked executive powers.

Oh and Iraq? Everyone knew there were no WMD. Well, everyone except for people who listen to fearmongers. Too bad that was almost everyone, including the likes of Hillary Clinton. Now those same people are “warning” us about so-called Islamofascism. Americans are not going to keep buying this, guys. Contrary to what Norman Podhoretz might have you believe, Iranians don’t actually want to chew on our eyeballs so they can suck out our souls.

This is why Ron Paul raised $5m last quarter and will outraise Romney in Q4. Americans want integrity and trust back in government. They also want their Constitutional rights back.

You’ve been warned.

Peter | RonPaulNewEngland.com


Posted on 10/28/2007 12:20:52 AM PDT by rudynoir

Deleted Comment #60 (in response to Comment #51)

To: Dead Corpse

Dead Corpse,

So you’re saying that covert US intervention like our overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government in 1953 had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks we’ve seen over the last 40-50 years?

Interesting theory. But how is it based in reality?

Peter | RonPaulNewEngland.com


Posted on 10/28/2007 12:26:40 AM PDT by rudynoir

Sphere: Related Content

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




Close
E-mail It