Why Ron Paul Sucks

in my eyes, the growth of the american libertarian movement, embodied most recently by congressman ron paul, is a direct consequence of a series of campaigns of disinformation run by politicians and media personalities. these campaigns continually set parameters, shaping and constraining political thought among US citizens. this manufacture of political culture has been done, in most instances, for the purpose of consolidating power in the hands of the elites, while the alternative to the dominant culture has been erroneously portrayed in the media and by politicians, as too radical. this has caused a public demand, endorsed by most politicians, for candidates that are “in between” the two extremes. even though the aforementioned leftist (non-conformist) view is not nearly as radical as it has been depicted, the populace has, at this point, been adequately misled into thinking that it is. the result is that “moderate” candidates, ones that are seen as open to compromise (within the set of narrow parameters) have become the ones who gain support, and because most of the “moderates” running for the democrat nomination have been too busy clowning around with faith while conforming to the political constraints by acting artificially conservative, a significant portion of the population has become disaffected and consequently, selfish. in futile attempts to demonstrate dissent, they have succumbed to otherwise unconvincing forms of political ideology while looking for candidates who, with their distorted criteria, can be described as “moderates.” many have started buying in to the rhetoric that says taxes are too high, government is too big, and individualism trumps everything else – in other words, they have started following ron paul, as they see libertarianism as exemplifying rationality. moreover, because a substantial portion of the republican party serves as a proponent of fundamentalist religious and socially conservative causes that often entail unreasonable amounts of intervention, the illusion is generated in the minds of ron paul’s followers that they are, in fact, employing a moderate viewpoint. because of the lack of ideological diversity among presidential candidates, and since ron paul isn’t a hawkish christian fundamentalist conservative or a tax and spend, abortion/nafta loving liberal, his supporters see him as a “moderate” candidate.

ron paul essentially doesn’t believe in doing anything at the federal level unless it is “expressly authorized by the constitution.” this shows that he believes in a literalist interpretation of the constitution. literal readings of any man-made texts from earlier eras usually cause nothing but trouble – just look at the actions taken by biblical/koranic literalists, etc. in keeping with his literalist reading of the constitution, it would be quite justified to argue that he would have taken barry goldwater’s and other libertarians’ paths in voting against the civil rights act of 1964 – he would likely have left it to the states to decide (an understanding of the racial injustice for the 100 years from the time of reconstruction up to the civil rights period demonstrates the ineptitude of states in dealing with these racial issues).

he opposed the iraq war – which is obviously a good thing, however he did so mainly through a “dove” justification, that the economic/military costs were too high. he didn’t do enough to publicize the correct view that the US was illegally attacking iraq, in violation of international law and conventions of multilateralism. paul’s handling of the iraq situation was able to demonstrate his noninterventionist, and thus isolationist view pertaining to international relations. so a million people can be dying in darfur, but because it isn’t “expressly authorized by the constitution,” and as he said, because it “is unrelated to US national interest,” he wouldn’t advocate intervention. this is isolationist absolutism.

ron paul doesn’t believe in evolution, either – when asked about it, he questioned the relevance of his belief/disbelief in the theory to his campaign for president. paul’s disbelief in one of the pillars of scientific knowledge (a “theory” in scientific language means that extensive empirical evidence has validated the notion) entails the subversion of the positivist principles of modern debate. american intellectuals need to make sure that politicians who hold faith-based views that disregard logic and reason are ridiculed and thoroughly discredited. this speaks volumes about his capacity as a leader. also, i find it disconcerting that a doctor who has delivered like 4000 babies has a logically untenable position on the issue of evolution.

ron paul advocates the diminution of the federal government in public affairs, opposing universal health care and endorsing private schooling, home schooling, etc. his health care plan involves mostly tax relief and it affirms the insurance companies’ role in healthcare – as corporations that have one legal responsibility to their stockholders – to make money (the easiest way for insurance companies to make money is to deny care, rendering paul’s healthcare plan ineffective and immoral). these policy prescriptions on his part are direct attempts to implement a “social darwinist” or “ownership” society, one in which only the fittest survive. this platform of his is one that is simply wrong, as it is unconscionably irresponsive to the fact that social and economic inequalities persist in his country. he has to realize that in order for people to pick themselves up by the bootstraps, they have to own boots first – apparently this christian has conveniently forgotten to be his brother’s keeper.

his “dr no” status concerning taxes stems from his distaste for taxes, and he has never voted to raise taxes during his tenure in congress. this is simply a demonstration of immaturity – everyone pays taxes. less taxes = less government services. paul’s tax reform policies will be fine for people who can afford to purchase all the services that were previously offered by the government, however this will prove to be an economic injustice inflicted upon middle/lower class americans.

anyways, it has been pretty interesting seeing the emergence of the ron paul movement as a corollary of the arbitrary parameters set on american political thought by elites. i know that he’s not going to win or anything, but it is quite scary how people can jump on dumbass selfish bandwagons like this one, effectively trying to foresake the responsibilities and moral obligations of citizenship