It's too bad Ron Paul is so extreme in some of his personal views, because the grand majority of his political views I agree with. Feels weird to type that, but it's true. He keeps talking straight to the sacred lies held by both parties -- he points out that the "war on terror" is just wordplay to justify endless war; that the Federal Reserve prints money with no backing, thereby taxing through inflation; that income tax would be unnecessary if the government would get the hell out of other countries' business and tend to its own; the list goes on and on.
Here's a little bit of him, it took me forever to find a couple decent videos to show, but if you cruise a bit you may find some surprisingly honest and frank discussions coming out of his mouth. And then, every once and a while, some good ol' fashioned Texas religious fundamentalism and thinly veiled bigotry. A shame really, because most everything else his platform is built on is absolutely reasonable. Some folks excluded from his personal worldview support him anyway because of the clarity of his politics and the respect in the individual those politics support.
Ron Paul in Congress, "Terrorism is a tactic, you can't have a war against a tactic."
Chris Matthews gives me the creeps, but this is a great interview:
Enjoy the insiders who are speaking out,
Bp
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Hi --
Which of Ron Paul's personal views do you consider "extreme"?
You link to a video of a gay man, but Paul's views on gays seem pretty middle-of-the-road. In his speech at Google he only mentioned gays twice -- once saying that grounds for dismissal from the military for a disruptive sex life should be the same for any sexual preference, and once to say he supported DOMA because he wanted government out of the marriage business, but that if gays wanted to enter into a contractual relationship and call it a marriage it should be treated like any other contract. I would not call this "excluded from his personal worldview".
As far as "religious fundamentalism", I am an atheist and nothing Ron Paul has said about religion has bothered me in the least. In fact, his overt "live and let live" philosophy is rare and refreshing these days.
I have learned that *anyone* who starts "talking straight to the sacred lies held by both parties" will soon be labeled a racist anti-semitic extremist kook. In Paul's case, there may really be some view he holds that is deeply incompatible with your own. But since you know the hits are coming, please take the time to double-check the whole truth of any negatives you hear.
Anyway, if you think it's important to have somebody in the race speaking out about the cost of empire, please consider donating a couple of bucks to the campaign on December 16th. This is the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Since money is the only language the establishment understands, some of the grassroots are planning a big donation day as a way of giving them the finger.
Thanks for listening.
I won't judge Paul's positions as extreme or not, but I will call out a few that are anathema to me:
1. Paul is s strong supporter of state's rights. Historically, this position has been the refuge of scoundrels, who wanted to negate federal authority in the area of civil rights. Paul wants to leave abortion rights, marriage rights, same-sex adoption, and gun control decisions (among others) to the states.
2. Paul is supports the current exploitive cmpaign against illegal immigration. The emotionalism around this issue is a thinly veiled disguise to stir people up and distract them from the real goal of immigration control: to legalize continued exploitation of cheap foreign labor. Companies want to be able to bring foreign (read: Hispanic) labor into the country without being subject to (most? all?) US labor laws, and without the burden of funding a social safety net for these workers or their childern.
Let us recognize these positions for what they are: racist, sexist, exploitative, anti-gay.
While I appreciate many of Paul's positions, I am loathe to let a man who has such fundamentally different opinions from mine, opinions which I find dangerous and offensive, weild the power of the US presidency. Yes, I know that Paul's libertarian positions speak to limiting presidential power. But even if we give Paul the benefit of the doubt and assume tht he will not be subject to the corruption that comes from power, he will still retain the bully pulpit of the presidency, and will, as part of his stance on limited federal and presidential power, push his states' rights agendas. He is also of the opinion that immigration is a federal level issue (I am curous as to why this, too, is not left to individual states) and will push his racist policies there.
OK, now you've got me pissed off: Palouse Diary: Palouse Diary: The racism of anti-immigration policy
Howdy anonymous,
I wrote that post late at night and really had to think about how I phrased the sentence you point out. I can stand by the words however.
There are videos that illustrate my point, but I was wanting to highlight the positive and enlightening ones from him more than the ones that disturbed me. He is a breath of fresh air in many ways, and I wanted to accentuate that. Good political news is hard to come by, and I relish it.
Watching many hours of footage on Ron Paul gave me an appreciation of many of his political platforms, but it also reminded me where he came from and what he is as a person.
This is a conservative Christian white doctor from Texas. When it comes down to brass tacks, he believes gays are sinners, he is anti abortion, he is pro "immigration reform." The fact that he pushes most all decisions off to the states except "immigration reform" is telling, it's some kind of exception to the rule for him.
As Stu pointed out -- the grand majority of what is being touted as "immigration reform" is just mediaspeak for a new racism. Just as the term "family values" is mediaspeak for homophobia.
I simply wasn't raised this way, and to support someone for President with these views creeps me the Eff out. I can't do it, no matter how much of his platform is refreshing.
I will say I'm happy as hell to have him out there speaking, and busting lie after lie in the Demoblicrat (one party) media circus. I'm elated actually.
He got into the forums and debates, so at least one person is injecting some bracing Truth into the bullshit storm that is the stumping season.
Hmmm. "A Neophyte Attempt at Public Musing"'s (subtitle of the blog) content perfectly supports that very subtitle. And yet we can't simply read, enjoy, and respect one person's words - well-put verbiage, mind you - about his feelings and thoughts. The content is varied and amusing. So take your fight elsewhere; just ponder, think, research, and then start one's own blog if something bothers.
Hey thanks for the props Chaz. No worries about constructive debate in the comments -- it's all good (Wow, in print that phrase sounds ridiculous).
I try to veer away from contentious issues in the blog and stick to things that spark my interest -- but this guy sparked my interest and in he goes. I'm fine with folks challenging what I say in the blog, as long as it's constructive and reasonable. It's my kingdom, however, and if someone is being a butthead (as defined by me) I'll simply delete their comment, no problem.
"I try to veer away from contentious issues in the blog and stick to things that spark my interest"
You know, it's telling that things have gotten SO BAD with Dubya that I can say the sentence above after posting the Olbermann ripping The Resident a new one. It's not even contentious to most of Americans.
Weird.
Ron Paul is way too extreme in so many places for me to appreciate much of anything he has to say. I know I know the message not the messenger.
I'm much more supportive of Kucinich myself. While some feel he's extreme he's much more in line with my views on things and doesn't support some of the racist overly capitalistic view on things. Kucinich has always been consistent and supportive of the rights of the people. He's stood up to many of the same corporate interests as Paul but with the right motivations, while Paul I believe does it with many of the wrong motivations. (in my opinion they are misguided, they aren't wrong just wrong for me)
At the end of the day Paul believes the market will fix it in almost all areas. I just fundamentally disagree with allowing the market to decide what good policy is. There's a telling interview on salon.com with paul that very clearly lays out his obsession with the free market as a solution for many many areas.
Kucinich has been my go-to candidate for years, and I aught to give him some space on the blog soon. Thanks for the comments sir.
Good luck on the wedding preparations.
Micah,
I'm in complete agreement with you on the free market thing; I think it is naive, wishful thinking to believe that the interests of the market and the interests of the people coincide.
By definition the market cares about one thing: near-term profit. Concerns such as long-term effect (or even short-term effects in some cases) or the public weal are only of interest to the extent that they coincidentally increase profits.
Consider: labor practices (both historically in the pre-labor-union US and today in the third world factories of the multinationals; pollution and toxic waste (rmember Love Canal?); the current sorry state of our health care systems; tobacco; I could go on and on.
While it is true that managed economic systems have not always worked well, I think that is a problem of complexity not of basic intent. I'd rather be part of a noble experiment that failed than a greed-ridden, destructive free market.
The most enthusiastic free marketeers are the wealthy or their political stooges.
(I wonder if any government agency known by a three-letter-acronym is listening. I know I have been pulled aside for a 'random' check the last three times I flew.)
Post a Comment