Ron Paul has many ideas that appeal to conservative Republicans, as evidenced by his latest poll numbers. Some of those ideas appeal to me, including some in his book "The Revolution." However, recent developments have convinced me that Ron Paul is not presidential material. I know some readers of this blog (are there any left?) will disagree, which is fine. I encourage comments, and only hope that any disagreements will be expressed in civil tones.
As reported by the NYT and Reuters, Ron Paul has completely failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the provocative and racist content published in his "Ron Paul Survival Report." I won't go into detail here (click on the above link, and the links in the article if you're interested in further exploring the reports' contents) but suffice it to say that the views published in Paul's name have attracted enthusiastic support from white nationalist groups, far-right militias, survivalists, and Anti-Semitic/Anti-Zionists. Now, Paul conveniently disavows the newsletters' contents before abruptly walking out in the middle of the CNN interview putting him on the hot seat about them. However, he certainly didn't disavow them in the early 1990's as these things were going out and as he was profiting from their distribution (see NYT links). Nor has he done anything - other than his politically self-serving blanket disavowal, of course - to further dissuade the aforementioned support groups that he isn't their guy to champion the causes they feel are important. More is needed. Say what you will about Mitt Romney's flip flopping, but I haven't seen a 180 even remotely as concerning as this one.
Another troubling thing about Ron Paul is that he seemingly never ran into a conspiracy theory he didn't like, including the "truth" about 9/11. If he weren't a truther, why not quickly and emphatically reject this question's disturbing premise instead of merely saying he "couldn't handle the controversy"? It's an interesting world that Paul lives in.
I also have problems with his advocacy for the legalization of drugs ("hard" and "soft" alike) and prostitution. Strangely, he equates these activities with constitutionally protected activities such as the freedom of religion and speech. Paul's position also appears to rest on the fatally flawed assumption that even greater use, addiction, and the associated societal problems that flow from drugs and prostitution would not result if they were legalized. I reject Paul's misguided notion that there are no citizens in this country who refrain from these illegal/immoral activities precisely because they are illegal/immoral. Indeed, I am one such citizen. It is naive to assume that blessing these activities with the air of legality will not amplify their harmful societal effects.
My heart aches for the millions of women who have willingly "terminated" the lives of their unborn children since abortion-on-demand became legal in 1973. I wonder how many would have refrained were it not for a handful of men in black robes who decided that laws preventing this act of ultimate violence against the defenseless were unconstitutional? I have seen first hand the incalculable emotional and spiritual damage this "liberty" to engage in this lawful activity has done to at least one woman. With tears of deep regret streaming down her face, she related that had abortion been illegal she wouldn't have prematurely ended her helpless child's life. I'll never forget that tragic conversation, and I suspect these feelings are not exclusive to this one individual.
I agree with a columnist who noted, "Responsible, self-governing citizens do not grow like wild blackberries. They are cultivated in institutions - families, religious communities and decent, orderly neighborhoods. And government has a limited but important role in reinforcing social norms and expectations - including laws against drugs and and against the exploitation of men and women in the sex trade." For that reason, so-called "moral" laws are important. Without them, many people are too easily confused that just because the law sanctions something, it must be right. Without moral laws, societies too easily lose their moral bearings. As Elder Neal A. Maxwell wisely observed: "A society which finally permits anything will eventually lose everything!" and "Unless checked, permisiveness, by the end of its journey, will cause humanity to stare in mute disbelief at its awful consequences." (Ensigns May 95, 96)
There are other reasons why I will not be voting for Ron Paul this November, but they deserve separate posts. This one is already too long. Comments?
5 comments:
This is not to mention his current avowed views on foreign policy, especially Israel.
Oh Devin. I just noticed this post. I want to ask your permission before responding to it, because I have a way of making people angry online. I don't much care for politics or politicians, but I really want to address how dangerous and destructive the ideas are that have been expressed in this post. I don't want to offend anyone, though, so I'll proceed only with your permission.
You certainly didn't need to ask for it, but of course you have my permission! Since this post isn't getting much play anyway, why don't you do a separate post to enlighten me about why the ideas I expressed are somehow "dangerous and destructive." That's a pretty strong accusation written with strong language, so I'm interested to see why you think that.
Your "oh Devin" comment is a nice prelude to the condescension and demagoguery that I suspected you would likely include in any response (I can see you sighing as you shake your head in disgust while leading off with "Oh Devin"). Perhaps if you made more of a conscious effort to strip your online interactions of language that is easily perceived as personally belittling and abrasive, you would make fewer people angry online, as you have recognized yourself. Civility and respect would serve you much better if your goal is to convince people that your opinions are right and theirs are wrong.
That said, feel free to respond in a separate post. Even if you choose to include condescending language, know that I won't be angry or personally offended.
"the condescension and demagoguery that I suspected you would likely include in any response"
Nevermind. I think it's been too long since you and I have hung out. You have forgotten what a jovial and happy-go-lucky chap I am, and how my sigh and shaking head would have been my attempt at humor.
I appreciate your advice for improving my online discourse. Duly taken into consideration. I am definitely a socially awkward penguin online. I need to read stuff out loud before I post it or something.
But there really was no humor intended in my "dangerous and destructive" comment. It's the ideas I despise, not those who espouse them, because I once espoused them myself.
But you'll just have to wait till next we hang, my friend. I fear I may be wading into contention here!
This is a perfect illustration of why interacting with people online can be frustrating! Without the benefit of hearing the tone of voice or looking at one's facial expressions, the line between attempts at humor, sarcasm, etc. and seriousness is too easily blurred.
But you have a good point, it has been a long time since the last time we hung out. Forgive my faded memory!
Post a Comment