Historically, attempts at top-down political change have been short lived. A recent example is the Reform Party of Ross Perot. Galvanized by Perot's campaign for President in 1992, supporters created the Reform Party and fielded candidates in all fifty states in 1996. In 1998, the Reform candidate Jesse Ventura won election as governor of Minnesota - the highest office held by a "third" party in a hundred years. And then the party basically collapsed, fielding only a handful of candidates in each election since.
People who desire long-lasting change are advised instead to start at the local level. Field candidates for local office, it is said, build up support for the platform, and then there will be established infrastructure to gain support in national elections for decades to come. There appear to be two major problems with this advice. First, through the history of the United States, the only third party to be successful with this strategy was the Republican party (the party was founded in 1854, its candidate Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860). Second, the federal government is so powerful now that platforms for change may take issue only with federal policies and programs. Local officials cannot effect change in these areas.
Ron Paul's Presidential candidacy offers a different approach: change an established party from within. Many journalists have written about how the Republican party has lost its way. It would be difficult to find a more diverse group of candidates than that found on the Republican slate. The party is looking for a strong leader in a new direction, and if they want, Ron Paul is ready to lead us there.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
He respects the political process
Like all serious contenders for the nomination, Ron Paul has positions on many issues. His foreign policy and belief in the need for balanced budget are priorities, and he also has a long history of working on health care, tax reform, and immigration issues. But unlike the other candidates, many of Paul's positions are outside the mainstream political discourse. He disagrees with so many bills presented to Congress he is known by his colleagues as "Dr. No."
Some have argued that a Paul Presidency would bring the federal government to a standstill as he vetoed every bill he disagreed with (probably most of them). A commentor here suggested:
However, Paul's record shows that speculation could not be further from the truth. While in a campaign advertisement Paul promised to veto any unbalanced budget, his past actions show a deep respect for the bills passed by Congress. A few specific examples I've come across:
More broadly, Paul has worked in Congress for twenty years: introducing and voting on bills, talking to his colleagues, talking to his constituents, and in general using our political system the way it was designed to work. It is important to Paul not to impose his will on the American people, but to talk to them and, as they become convinced on each point, work through Congress to enact legislation. Paul has filed to run for his 11th Congressional term in the 2008 elections, indicating his willingness to continue advancing his positions as a Congressman. While he is a long shot (possible, just not the most likely) to win first place in the Presidential primaries, a strong showing will certainly increase his influence in the House.
Also reflect on Paul's ten terms in Congress: his constituents have elected him ten times. People do not vote for someone to represent them if he gets nothing done. If a final budget bill is unbalanced, Paul will vote against it. But when House committees set budgets, Paul will earmark some of the budgeted money for programs in his district (earmarks do not increase the budget for federal programs - they direct the programs to use some of the already-budgeted money in specific ways.) Paul has been working in Congress for decades. He has proved he believes in working within the system toward his goals, and accepts that the slower pace of this method means he will not live to see many of them realized.
Paul believes in a balance of powers between the three branches of government, and strongly disapproves of the power-grabbing Bush has done. A Paul Presidency would have a domestic policy in line with his foreign policy: engage in diplomacy, make deals, and do not impose your will on the American people by force.
Some have argued that a Paul Presidency would bring the federal government to a standstill as he vetoed every bill he disagreed with (probably most of them). A commentor here suggested:
My best guess is that President Paul would use the veto power to force Congress to conform to the Constitutional scope of government.
Any President could force Congress to reconsider the size of the federal government by vetoing spending budgets until lack of funds forced a Dept to stop operation.
However, Paul's record shows that speculation could not be further from the truth. While in a campaign advertisement Paul promised to veto any unbalanced budget, his past actions show a deep respect for the bills passed by Congress. A few specific examples I've come across:
- When Congress debated making flag burning illegal (which Paul opposes), he pointed out that the proposed bill was unconstitutional. To help his colleagues, Paul proposed a Constitutional amendment that would allow their bill. Even on an issue he opposed, he wanted any Congressional bill that passed to hold up to court challenges.
- Ron Paul has stated:
If we have a healthy economy, I think we could be very generous on work programs. People come in, fulfill their role and go back home.
Paul has voted to expand guest worker programs and his campaign website calls current immigration policy "incoherent and unfair." But he opposes amnesty, which retroactively ignores laws Congress has passed. If Congress passes a law, that law should be enforced. If the country disagrees with the law, it should be repealed - not ignored.
I’m not worried about legal immigration. I think we would even have more if we had a healthy economy.
More broadly, Paul has worked in Congress for twenty years: introducing and voting on bills, talking to his colleagues, talking to his constituents, and in general using our political system the way it was designed to work. It is important to Paul not to impose his will on the American people, but to talk to them and, as they become convinced on each point, work through Congress to enact legislation. Paul has filed to run for his 11th Congressional term in the 2008 elections, indicating his willingness to continue advancing his positions as a Congressman. While he is a long shot (possible, just not the most likely) to win first place in the Presidential primaries, a strong showing will certainly increase his influence in the House.
Also reflect on Paul's ten terms in Congress: his constituents have elected him ten times. People do not vote for someone to represent them if he gets nothing done. If a final budget bill is unbalanced, Paul will vote against it. But when House committees set budgets, Paul will earmark some of the budgeted money for programs in his district (earmarks do not increase the budget for federal programs - they direct the programs to use some of the already-budgeted money in specific ways.) Paul has been working in Congress for decades. He has proved he believes in working within the system toward his goals, and accepts that the slower pace of this method means he will not live to see many of them realized.
Paul believes in a balance of powers between the three branches of government, and strongly disapproves of the power-grabbing Bush has done. A Paul Presidency would have a domestic policy in line with his foreign policy: engage in diplomacy, make deals, and do not impose your will on the American people by force.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Why I'll Vote for Ron Paul: 5 Reasons
This post is in response to a meme successwarrior suggested on Daily Paul. His response is here.
Since this entire blog is a very long essay on why I will vote for Ron Paul, I'll make this post a summary version, and emphasize the points most important to me.
1. Ron Paul would balance our budget.
When a household budget is not balanced, they run up credit debt. Generally, a household can continue going deeper into debt for many years without serious effect. But for a saddening number of people, the debt payments become overwhelming and they may lose their house, be refused medical care, and any number of other devastating consequences.
When a country's budget is not balanced, it runs up credit debt. Our country's debt currently amounts to $30,000 for each man, woman, and child in the United States. We have been running up this debt for decades without serious effect. But now our interest payments alone are $217 billion per year - that's 8% of the total budget. Almost 1 in 10 tax dollars pays not for any government service, or even bureaucratic waste, but for interest on the debt. This is becoming overwhelming, and continuing on this path - as almost all other candidates propose - will have devastating consequences.
2. Ron Paul would make us safer.
Ron Paul supports peace-promoting diplomacy between governments and economic ties between countries. He opposes spreading our military ability thin in attempts to further U.S. policy - which compromises the military's ability to respond to true threats to our security and spreads the "hate America" meme.
3. Ron Paul would be a President to all America.
When 49% of Americans voted against him, President Bush saw a mandate to forge ahead with an unmodified agenda. By contrast, Paul values national consensus-building as expressed through America's Congressional representatives. Ron Paul's agenda is very wide, but his presidential platform consists of only two things: balance the budget, and withdraw troops from Iraq as quickly as the military believes reasonable (Paul suggested within six months). Everything else he would promote and lobby for, but ultimately respect the decisions of Congress. Not only would this foster political goodwill from both parties in Washington, I believe it would result in a more productive government. Paul did not get elected to Congress ten times by not getting anything done!
4. Local governments are more accountable.
Higher levels of government are more likely to abuse power. While many candidates promise to reverse the abuses of power committed by the current administration, only Paul proposes reducing the power held by the federal government. Should Paul be elected I believe there would be the national and political will to pass measures supporting a portion of his agenda, and also any Supreme Court justices he appointed would have a narrow interpretation of the U.S. Constitution's Article I, Section 8. I believe that is the only effective long-term solution: as long as the current levels of power go unchecked, the path to Big Brother's creation is uncomfortably clear.
5. A vote for Paul will advance his agenda within our political system.
While I believe a Ron Paul Presidency is a real possibility, I understand the more likely outcome is some other candidate receiving the Republican nomination. But even in that case, every vote for Paul will have a positive effect on the direction our country is going. Paul is a respected member of Congress, and the more people that vote for him in the primaries, the more traction he will have on Capital Hill and within the Republican party.
Since this entire blog is a very long essay on why I will vote for Ron Paul, I'll make this post a summary version, and emphasize the points most important to me.
1. Ron Paul would balance our budget.
When a household budget is not balanced, they run up credit debt. Generally, a household can continue going deeper into debt for many years without serious effect. But for a saddening number of people, the debt payments become overwhelming and they may lose their house, be refused medical care, and any number of other devastating consequences.
When a country's budget is not balanced, it runs up credit debt. Our country's debt currently amounts to $30,000 for each man, woman, and child in the United States. We have been running up this debt for decades without serious effect. But now our interest payments alone are $217 billion per year - that's 8% of the total budget. Almost 1 in 10 tax dollars pays not for any government service, or even bureaucratic waste, but for interest on the debt. This is becoming overwhelming, and continuing on this path - as almost all other candidates propose - will have devastating consequences.
2. Ron Paul would make us safer.
Ron Paul supports peace-promoting diplomacy between governments and economic ties between countries. He opposes spreading our military ability thin in attempts to further U.S. policy - which compromises the military's ability to respond to true threats to our security and spreads the "hate America" meme.
3. Ron Paul would be a President to all America.
When 49% of Americans voted against him, President Bush saw a mandate to forge ahead with an unmodified agenda. By contrast, Paul values national consensus-building as expressed through America's Congressional representatives. Ron Paul's agenda is very wide, but his presidential platform consists of only two things: balance the budget, and withdraw troops from Iraq as quickly as the military believes reasonable (Paul suggested within six months). Everything else he would promote and lobby for, but ultimately respect the decisions of Congress. Not only would this foster political goodwill from both parties in Washington, I believe it would result in a more productive government. Paul did not get elected to Congress ten times by not getting anything done!
4. Local governments are more accountable.
Higher levels of government are more likely to abuse power. While many candidates promise to reverse the abuses of power committed by the current administration, only Paul proposes reducing the power held by the federal government. Should Paul be elected I believe there would be the national and political will to pass measures supporting a portion of his agenda, and also any Supreme Court justices he appointed would have a narrow interpretation of the U.S. Constitution's Article I, Section 8. I believe that is the only effective long-term solution: as long as the current levels of power go unchecked, the path to Big Brother's creation is uncomfortably clear.
5. A vote for Paul will advance his agenda within our political system.
While I believe a Ron Paul Presidency is a real possibility, I understand the more likely outcome is some other candidate receiving the Republican nomination. But even in that case, every vote for Paul will have a positive effect on the direction our country is going. Paul is a respected member of Congress, and the more people that vote for him in the primaries, the more traction he will have on Capital Hill and within the Republican party.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Global warming and the environment
Ron Paul has stated that he's not convinced global warming is caused by humans. Paul also has some unconventional ideas for improving the environment:
Pollution as property rights violation
Ron Paul is a strong advocate for property rights, and this includes the right to not have your property polluted. His definition of property rights violation includes contamination of water supplies, wafting smoke, and particulate matter, trespasses that have only in recent decades been recognized as property rights violations by the U.S. court system. Paul supports making it easier for regular Americans to successfully sue polluters through the courts, instead of having to be reliant on the federal bureaucracy to stop the pollution. He does not support a return to the environmental conditions of the industrial revolution, and strongly criticizes the governments of that time for allowing such pollution to occur. (More on this topic at Grist that I found via Green Piece Blog)
Local activism
There is a perception that it is the federal government's responsibility to handle all environmental issues. So if a person wants to make a difference in the environment, they have to be able to influence the federal bureaucracy. How intimidating! Ron Paul believes less federal intervention would encourage local programs - which are much more accessible to people who care about the environment. In his interview with Grist (linked above), Paul cites the cleanup of industrial pollution done by the city government of Pittsburgh as the model he would like the rest of the country to follow.
There are ways a Paul presidency would definitely help the environment, however:
Hemp
25% of the world's insecticides are applied to cotton crops, and the U.S. is a major world producer of cotton. Industrial hemp, a cousin to marijuana, is also known as "weed" because it grows so easily with no insecticide applications. Growing industrial hemp is currently illegal in the United States. Ron Paul supports removing the regulatory barriers to this environmentally-friendly alternative to cotton.
Eliminating oil subsidies
Oil companies are taxed at a lower rate than other corporations. The U.S. Department of Energy does research and development for oil companies at taxpayer expense. And other tactics are employed to help oil companies - Earth Track goes into more detail. These subsidies have the effect of making alternative energy sources artificially uncompetitive.
The federal government has attempted to compensate for preferential treatment of the oil industry by subsidizing ethanol - which is only one of many potential alternatives to oil. Wouldn't it be easier to figure out the most economical energy alternatives if the market weren't clouded with complex and competing government subsidies? Ron Paul supports this leveling of the playing field.
Forcing consumers to pay the true, unsubsidized price of oil would lower demand. Lower consumption of oil is the best way to fight global warming.
Military energy use
Ron Paul supports using our military to protect America - he supported the war in Afghanistan to overthrow the state supporters of Osama bin Laden.
But the U.S.'s attempts to spread its ideals at gunpoint are huge wastes of our energy resources. The military-industrial complex benefits at the expense of the country as a whole. The huge amount of oil consumed in the war in Iraq, and our military presence around the world, drives up the price of oil. Because oil is a non-renewable resource, long term oil prices are only going to go up. But a Paul presidency would stop military wastage, slow down the depletion of oil reserves, and give the market more time to implement alternatives.
Pollution as property rights violation
Ron Paul is a strong advocate for property rights, and this includes the right to not have your property polluted. His definition of property rights violation includes contamination of water supplies, wafting smoke, and particulate matter, trespasses that have only in recent decades been recognized as property rights violations by the U.S. court system. Paul supports making it easier for regular Americans to successfully sue polluters through the courts, instead of having to be reliant on the federal bureaucracy to stop the pollution. He does not support a return to the environmental conditions of the industrial revolution, and strongly criticizes the governments of that time for allowing such pollution to occur. (More on this topic at Grist that I found via Green Piece Blog)
Local activism
There is a perception that it is the federal government's responsibility to handle all environmental issues. So if a person wants to make a difference in the environment, they have to be able to influence the federal bureaucracy. How intimidating! Ron Paul believes less federal intervention would encourage local programs - which are much more accessible to people who care about the environment. In his interview with Grist (linked above), Paul cites the cleanup of industrial pollution done by the city government of Pittsburgh as the model he would like the rest of the country to follow.
Paul's model is to enable people to better fight pollution that affects them, and emphasizes local government over federal government. Because he votes against environment regulation at the federal level (he believes it serves only the politically well-connected, not the average person), Paul scores poorly with environmental watchdog groups - 5% from the League of Conservation Voters (this stat from OnTheIssues). But discussing the merits of the approach is just an academic exercise: implementing this vision is not part of Paul's goals as President (in the unlikely event of his election). As he told Grist, "I'm trying to stop the war, and bring back a sound economy, and solve the financial crises, and balance the budget." That's plenty to fill up a four-year term in office.
There are ways a Paul presidency would definitely help the environment, however:
Hemp
25% of the world's insecticides are applied to cotton crops, and the U.S. is a major world producer of cotton. Industrial hemp, a cousin to marijuana, is also known as "weed" because it grows so easily with no insecticide applications. Growing industrial hemp is currently illegal in the United States. Ron Paul supports removing the regulatory barriers to this environmentally-friendly alternative to cotton.
Eliminating oil subsidies
Oil companies are taxed at a lower rate than other corporations. The U.S. Department of Energy does research and development for oil companies at taxpayer expense. And other tactics are employed to help oil companies - Earth Track goes into more detail. These subsidies have the effect of making alternative energy sources artificially uncompetitive.
The federal government has attempted to compensate for preferential treatment of the oil industry by subsidizing ethanol - which is only one of many potential alternatives to oil. Wouldn't it be easier to figure out the most economical energy alternatives if the market weren't clouded with complex and competing government subsidies? Ron Paul supports this leveling of the playing field.
Forcing consumers to pay the true, unsubsidized price of oil would lower demand. Lower consumption of oil is the best way to fight global warming.
Military energy use
Ron Paul supports using our military to protect America - he supported the war in Afghanistan to overthrow the state supporters of Osama bin Laden.
But the U.S.'s attempts to spread its ideals at gunpoint are huge wastes of our energy resources. The military-industrial complex benefits at the expense of the country as a whole. The huge amount of oil consumed in the war in Iraq, and our military presence around the world, drives up the price of oil. Because oil is a non-renewable resource, long term oil prices are only going to go up. But a Paul presidency would stop military wastage, slow down the depletion of oil reserves, and give the market more time to implement alternatives.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Marriage
The government of the United States currently defines marriage: States issue "marriage licenses" and the federal government uses these certificates of marriage to determine, for example, how federal taxes are calculated.
But for many Americans, marriage constitutes something different than what the government recognizes. The Catholic Church, for example, considers marriage a sacrament that cannot be undone by divorce. Orthodox Jews believe that a cohen cannot marry a non-Jew or a divorced woman, and that children of such a union are mamzers. And yet, our government is perfectly willing to declare such a couple married, in defiance of the Jewish halacha. Similarly, it places no obstacles in the path of a Catholic couple seeking divorce.
Holding the government to be an authority in determining which religions have the "correct" definition of marriage is, to me, the wrong way to go about things. Recognition of the validity of a marriage is best handled by individuals, their families, and their religious communities: not the government. Ron Paul is the only candidate who supports government recognizing contracts between individuals - meaning, allowing two people to place themselves under the laws affecting property, taxes, etc. that current apply to married couples - but to not define marriage. I believe this would result in more respect for both the American government and for the faiths of our citizens, and I am grateful there is a candidate I can support on this issue.
But for many Americans, marriage constitutes something different than what the government recognizes. The Catholic Church, for example, considers marriage a sacrament that cannot be undone by divorce. Orthodox Jews believe that a cohen cannot marry a non-Jew or a divorced woman, and that children of such a union are mamzers. And yet, our government is perfectly willing to declare such a couple married, in defiance of the Jewish halacha. Similarly, it places no obstacles in the path of a Catholic couple seeking divorce.
Holding the government to be an authority in determining which religions have the "correct" definition of marriage is, to me, the wrong way to go about things. Recognition of the validity of a marriage is best handled by individuals, their families, and their religious communities: not the government. Ron Paul is the only candidate who supports government recognizing contracts between individuals - meaning, allowing two people to place themselves under the laws affecting property, taxes, etc. that current apply to married couples - but to not define marriage. I believe this would result in more respect for both the American government and for the faiths of our citizens, and I am grateful there is a candidate I can support on this issue.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
He's catching on - why now?
MSNBC recently reported on a Ron Paul rally. One of the things Ron Paul said at that rally was:
And yet, Paul has been delivering this message for decades. I've watched videos of him filmed in the 1980s: while he looked younger then, his voice was the same, and he was saying the exact same things. He got 0.5% of the vote when he ran for U.S. President in 1988. In New Hampshire, he's currently polling at 7.4% (PDF of poll results). Why now?
I believe our current political situation has made it obvious, in a way it never was before, why Paul is right. Our federal government is abusing its power by misleading and bullying the American people into accepting an out of control deficit, engaging in foreign wars, and allowing our Constitutional rights to be trampled. State governments, facing the same domestic threats, are conspicuously not engaging in these behaviors, and a few states have even condemned these actions by the federal government. To prevent future abuse, we need a drastically smaller federal government, and a larger role for the States. Republicans and Democrats want to use the federal government to enforce their social values on the rest of the country. Only Paul wants to let the people in each State make these decisions.
Our consumerist society has encouraged people to take on debt they cannot handle: the huge number of foreclosures on sub-prime mortgages is hurting the entire economy. Our consumerist society has encouraged its federal government to take on debt it cannot handle: investors are losing interest in the U.S. market, and it shows in the falling price of the dollar. We're headed in the direction of not being able to finance the deficit - and then which bills do we default on? The Social Security pensions? The soldier's paychecks? It's a scary thought, and one I do not want our country to have to face. Only Paul seems to understand the importance of ending the credit addiction - he has promised that a Paul Presidency would veto every unbalanced budget. His Congressional voting record supports this: he has voted 'no' on every unbalanced budget that has come up during his ten terms in office.
Our country was prosperous and respected throughout the world when Paul ran for President in 1988. We did not seem to need his prescription at that time. Now, we are entering a recession of our own making and our head of state - the person who embodies our national values - is very likely the most hated person in the world. The United States needs medicine. And Ron Paul's prescription is catching on.
I’ve been used to delivering a message very similar to what I’m delivering tonight for many, many years and not getting a whole lot of responses. And all of a sudden, there’s a whole generation of people now very excited about hearing about the message of freedom.He is speaking the absolute truth. People are becoming increasingly enthusiastic, and Paul's message is spreading as a meme. One of my partner's coworkers passed out Ron Paul literature to adults who came trick-or-treating last night. One of my coworkers is getting registered to vote for the first time in a long time - for Paul. While my partner and I better fit the stereotypical "young" demographic of Paul supporters (28 and 25, respectively), both these men are middle-aged. Supporters of Paul vote disproportionately in polls, and not just on the internet - he has won both the text-in polls Fox had after the last two debates. In internet forums, supporters of Paul post disproportionately about him (annoyed managers at RedState, an internet community of conservatives, recently banned members from talking about Paul). People who support him are excited, and they share their excitement!
And yet, Paul has been delivering this message for decades. I've watched videos of him filmed in the 1980s: while he looked younger then, his voice was the same, and he was saying the exact same things. He got 0.5% of the vote when he ran for U.S. President in 1988. In New Hampshire, he's currently polling at 7.4% (PDF of poll results). Why now?
I believe our current political situation has made it obvious, in a way it never was before, why Paul is right. Our federal government is abusing its power by misleading and bullying the American people into accepting an out of control deficit, engaging in foreign wars, and allowing our Constitutional rights to be trampled. State governments, facing the same domestic threats, are conspicuously not engaging in these behaviors, and a few states have even condemned these actions by the federal government. To prevent future abuse, we need a drastically smaller federal government, and a larger role for the States. Republicans and Democrats want to use the federal government to enforce their social values on the rest of the country. Only Paul wants to let the people in each State make these decisions.
Our consumerist society has encouraged people to take on debt they cannot handle: the huge number of foreclosures on sub-prime mortgages is hurting the entire economy. Our consumerist society has encouraged its federal government to take on debt it cannot handle: investors are losing interest in the U.S. market, and it shows in the falling price of the dollar. We're headed in the direction of not being able to finance the deficit - and then which bills do we default on? The Social Security pensions? The soldier's paychecks? It's a scary thought, and one I do not want our country to have to face. Only Paul seems to understand the importance of ending the credit addiction - he has promised that a Paul Presidency would veto every unbalanced budget. His Congressional voting record supports this: he has voted 'no' on every unbalanced budget that has come up during his ten terms in office.
Our country was prosperous and respected throughout the world when Paul ran for President in 1988. We did not seem to need his prescription at that time. Now, we are entering a recession of our own making and our head of state - the person who embodies our national values - is very likely the most hated person in the world. The United States needs medicine. And Ron Paul's prescription is catching on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
