I have been fair, at least I've tried to be. I have read the anti-Ron Paul diatribes. The derisive, condescending remarks reminding us all that the man is a kook and a nut and doesn't stand a snow balls chance in hell of winning. What I haven't seen though is a calm, reasoned analysis of his platform positions and why he is wrong.
On foreign policy he advocates bringing the troops home and ending the American Empire. Many might disagree with this philosophy and cite threats of terrorism, the axis of evil and what a dangerous world this is and that we must be on guard to fend off the barbarian hordes. The actual truth of the matter is that there is no force, nor even a combination of forces, on this planet that poses a grave threat to the military machine on which we invest more than the next ten countries COMBINED. So who benefits from our foreign policy of meddling in the affairs of so many other nations? Someone must be winning or the investment wouldn't be made. I will let you ponder that on your own, and would love to see a factual argument that would prove that "main street" somehow benefits from the trillions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of dead and wounded we have been spending overseas.
On the domestic side he wants to cut $1 trillion from the budget his first year. He's gone so far as to present a detailed budget proving how he would accomplish it. While I am sure this idea strikes terror in the hearts of the socially conscious ... have you taken the time to actually read his plan? Have you observed the great care he has taken to slowly reduce departments and social programs most often waiting for natural attrition rather than radical cuts? Have you listened as he's explained that the lions share of the savings would come from reductions in military and foreign aid budgets? Most importantly, do you really think that we can continue to accumulate debt at the current rate indefinitely without crashing into a brick wall of insolvency and monetary suicide?
The Federal Reserve. Well this is a stick with which the mainstream media has beaten him with relentlessly. Nobel laureates (Paul Krugman) as well as commentators and financial gurus yammer on about how important the FED is to the working of our economy and how ending it would be economic suicide. They have scoffed at the title of his book (End the Fed) apparently without ever actually reading it. If they had they would have learned that no where in that book has he called for the "End of the FED". They talk about his archaic notions of returning to the gold standard and foretold of the calamity of hyper-deflation if we returned to it. Again, if they read what he wrote they would know that he never actually calls for a return to the gold standard. What the man has proposed in regards to the FED and the monetary system is two things. First .. a complete audit of the FED and Fort Knox. If the masters of the universe have nothing to hide in reference to the financial system and the financial condition of this country, why is a closer look at the books such a bad thing? As far as the currency, he has never advocated for an actual return to the gold standard. He makes the reasonable request to end the FED monopoly on the currency and to allow everyone to choose whatever currency they feel most comfortable with. To accomplish this he lobbies for an end to all sales and capital gains taxes on gold and silver. That way anyone who chose to keep their money in those commodities would not be unfairly punished.
Finally social issues. Gay marriage. Abortion. Drug laws. I am so sick of the media portraying his stances on these issues as radical. To understand what he proposes takes no more than understanding the 10th Amendment to the constitution. "All powers not delegated to the federal government shall be left to the states and to the people." He would never, nor has he ever proposed, support any sweeping federal mandate about how to handle these issues. If anything he has said the opposite. These decisions are not within the scope of authority specifically outlined in the constitution and therefore the federal government must stand down and let the states decide for themselves. If your state makes choices you are uncomfortable with, become politically active and help influence opinion or move to another state! That is the vision of the founders of the country. A complex quilt of different cultures and values determined by the people who live there, leaving us all option of finding the best fit for our morals and values. This vision will simply vanish if we continue to allow the federal government to overwhelm the rights of the states.
If you disagree with Ron Paul, think he's a nut, just do yourself and everyone else a favor, explain why. Ad hominem attacks only work on mother-in-laws and talk show hosts.
No comments:
Post a Comment