Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Ron Paul
The cult-like worship of Ron Paul among his internet supporters (they bought him a blimp!) has been an obsession of mine for months. According to them, Rep. Paul is perfect and the only person standing between our republic and a totalitarian new world order.
One issue upon which the legend of our libertarian hero is built is his fiscal responsibility and hatred for government spending. He's known on Capitol Hill as "Dr. No" for his 'no' votes on pretty much every spending bill (whether it's bloated military appropriations or aid to Katrina victims). He specifically rails against earmarks... even though he regularly adds his own to bills ("for water projects, a nursing program, to expand a hospital cancer center and to promote Texas shrimp") he votes against, but knows will pass anyway. Rather than leading by example, Paul insisted on 'Meet The Press' that while he does oppose earmarking, as long as Congress is doing it, he might as well use the process to get money back to help his district. Which, of course, is the rationale of every congressman for the practice.
But he likes the Constitution and opposes foreign entanglements, and these days that does make him a very unique creature in the Grand Old Party (his positions on choice, guns, and government regulation and aid are standard fare, of course).
Elsewhere on his 'Meet The Press' performance (a sad hazing ritual all candidates must perform), Rep. Paul took a bold stand in opposition to the Civil War. He said that the war was wrong, and too heavy a price to pay to end slavery. He said that, instead, the government should've bought all the slaves and then freed them. Ignoring the general ridiculousness of that suggestion, Paul also ignores that the primary issue of the Civil War was not slavery, but rather defending the very country itself against a secessionist South. There is some very disturbing ideology buried when you start digging into Ron Paul, and this example is one window into that.
I think it speaks volumes about how much the modern Bush/Cheney GOP has made people hate and fear government that someone like Ron Paul has gained so much traction with so many people. The Birchers are back and gaining strength, and it has the GOP establishment a little frightened. And for that, they have no one to blame but themselves.
posted by BlueDuck @ 12:15 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
"The Civil War was about...defending the very country itself against a secessionist South."
Secession is a Right violated by the USSR that held both States and individuals in bondage. Secession is the Right that the Revolutionary War was fought to defend. Secession is the Right that the slave holders denied. Secession is the Right that Lincoln opposed.
Lincoln was no better than the USSR or slaveholders, and he fought against everything for which the Revolutionary War stood. He held the Constitution in contempt, and was a total dictatorial tyrant. It's no wonder he was assassinated - maybe it was not soon enough to save hundreds and thousands of Americans and the system of government which was supposed to protect their liberty.
Paul knows that the Civil War was not primarily about slavery. He has put out plenty of material over the years on the subject. Perhaps it would've been more responsible to double-check said TV blurbs with past sentiments on the issue. You might find that the guy knows a lot more about the subject than his very short convo with Russert implies.
I mean, do you really want to fault the guy for saying that we didn't need to waste 600,000 American lives when we could've ended slavery without a war? He did not say that slavery was the primary issue of the war, just that we could've saved a lot of lives by ending it a different way.
As for the earmark deal, he's just doing his job as a Representative of his district. Your post somewhat illustrates a main problem that Congressmen have had in reaching the Oval Office. As direct district representatives they have a lot of votes on the record. It's very easy to find a few votes for any Representative that would seem unattractive to the general public. I can completely understand the logic behind asking for earmarks on behalf of your local constituents and then voting against them on the national level when the bill comes up for passage. It makes perfect sense.
The fact that I almost never get comments here-- and already have two six hours later-- is further proof of the cult-like zeal of Paul's supporters. These replies are better than most, though... at least I have not been told to "wake up" and no one has mentioned the CFR. Kudos.
Anyway...
Rhys defends the secession of the South... something I cannot agree with. Did they have the right to secede? Sure. But that doesn't make it right. The reasons for secession are complicated, of course, but primarily the issue was (via Wikipedia) that "Republicans opposed the expansion of slavery into territories owned by the United States, and their victory in the presidential election of 1860 resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office."
In short, the Southern states wanted to continue to buy and sell black people and took offense to fearing someone might put a stop to it. Hardly a defensive point of view, and hardly something Revisionist History Ron Paul could've stopped by buying all the slaves and freeing them (a ridiculous and impossible concept that would've only made the South angrier). The racist leanings of much of the South and their refusal to get over the Civil War continue to define our politics in a negative way.
Lincoln did NOT start that war, but he did win it. Was he perfect? No. But that's not the issue here. Comparing Lincoln to the USSR and defending the Confederacy are hardly positions that will prove wrong fears about Paul supporters... it's clear they have a warped version of "liberty".
Response to Curtis...
"Perhaps it would've been more responsible to double-check said TV blurbs with past sentiments on the issue."
What he said on the show was pretty clear. Besides, when it comes to these issues, do you really want people looking up his "past sentiments"? After all, here are some past sentiments from defender of liberty Ron Paul-
"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
Etc... Now he has created some distance between himself and these type of remarks, but there's a reason that people like David Duke and groups like Stormfront are drawn to Mr. Paul, whether he welcomes their support or not... there is something about his ideology that attracts them. His views/statements on the Civil War and the South-- past or present-- do not help him here.
Yes, the amount of lives lost in that War are staggering, but the idea that those huge issues could've been resolved by buying the slaves (!!) is literally insane. Besides, it was the Confederacy that started the war... NOT Lincoln. Wars should never be started frivolously and should be avoided more often, but when one is declared against you, on your soil, ignoring it isn't gonna work.
"As for the earmark deal, he's just doing his job as a Representative of his district... I can completely understand the logic behind asking for earmarks on behalf of your local constituents and then voting against them on the national level when the bill comes up for passage. It makes perfect sense."
It does? Like I said, Paul's defense of his earmarks is the exact same defense EVERY congressman has for them ('I just wanna give back to my district' etc). Yes, he plays the principled man by voting against the bill, but only because he knows they will pass anyway. He could lead by example and add no earmarks at all, but he doesn't. He wants the earmarks and is happy to get them.
The issue here is the hypocrisy, which maybe might not get so much attention if Paul's supporters didn't worship him as some perfect amazing hero who will save them from tyranny.
He's a politician, and a particularly slick one, as evidenced by his ability to get this far in the presidential race despite not only having some really wacky views (the gold standard, etc) and his ability to con so many liberals into supporting him, despite his far-right regressive views.
Want to support him? Vote for him? Fine. But admit his flaws, admit he's human and not a messiah. It's been painful enough watching conservatives hero-worship people like Reagan and George W. Bush... I hate to see the people who admit the latter to be a failed leader doing the same to Mr. Paul.
Post a Comment
<< Home