rhino's hypothesisSubmitted by rhino on Sun, 06/17/2012 - 11:42
I found myself wondering what it is, about the liberty movement, that makes us do this; the DP, the delegate fight after all is lost, the uncompromising insistence on principles above everything else, but mainly the outright non-stop continuous vetting that we perform on our own candidates and elected officials. The Hukster had a loyal following but his forums never really blossomed. The Christian Coalition had put their backing behind Bachmann and Santorum and I did not see a huge, organic social network develop and grow around them. What is interesting is that Obama’s Hope and Change did what we did, and are doing, back in 2007, but it appears that has fallen off the cliff, which, if I am right, it is because his followers are similar to ours in there unforgiving insistence on principle and I think, for the most part, that movement, had a similar makeup of people and personalities as does the R3volution.
Going back in time I began to think of candidates that could have inspired similar grassroots behavior if the information age was added to the equation. I came up with names like Buchanan in ’92, Perot, Nader, Teddy Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson, James Garfield, William Jennings Bryan, and George Washington.
I began to see a pattern, but I really refused to allow myself to admit that I was right given my own preconceived notions about what I was seeing.
Obviously it requires one to be an ideologue to be a part of something like this and the movement requires a strong idealist leader such as a Ron Paul, but that did not seem to cover all the necessary ingredients. As a student of historical revolutions I also know that a shrinking middle class and a sudden drop in the standard of living is the only thing required for a violent revolution, but that is not what we are about, and if that were to occur I think we would be equally divided on either side of an event like that. So I began to search for that missing ingredient that we possess in the hopes that we continue to embrace it and not inadvertently expel it from the R3volution.
The Rand Paul endorsement was a strong emotional moment for almost everyone here and in the days that followed, as I observed this blog I felt like I figured it out. I wanted some data on this so I started a poll question here. (http://www.dailypaul.com/239815/rhino-an-interesting-poll-qu...)
I really don’t think the sample size was large enough to inspire confidence one way or the other, so I will describe my hypothesis here and then I would like for you to go back to that poll question and ponder it for a bit. Answer it if you like.
I want to also offer a warning to everyone before I submit my hypothesis. If I am right, no matter which category you find yourself, resist the urge to leave and fight the urge to attempt to expel, because the makeup of this movement is more important than anything else. If the scales are tipped in one direction or another it will have a devastating impact. The Rand Paul critics seem to be equally important to our progress as the Rand Paul supporters and that can be said for every issue that is discussed here on the DP.
And if we all realize this and come to the same conclusion as I have it will automatically create some comfort in your thoughts, resolve in your life, confidence in your self, and above all else, patience in the present.
As Ayn Rand pointed out, human beings are capable of two types of concepts; one built on reason and the other built on faith. She dismissed faith as laziness, slothfullness, and she even considered such concepts less than human. She argued that resorting to faith was a regression to instinct, like a barbaric animal, and that reason is what made a human being a human being. She called it the conscience. Our ability to reason and think is what creates the concepts of right and wrong, because to an animal there is no right and wrong there is simply instinct (survive or die). This is a bit simplistic but it is not a flawed summary of the philosophy that she invented called objectivism. One other way to look at it is that if reason could not explain a concept, then the only thing left is magic or mysticism, or (in her opinion) faith or religion and she dismissed this type of concept until it could be explained thru reason.
The Libertarian movement was founded on much of her philosophy and that is what makes it so logical and well reasoned, and, serendipitously, that is why there are a disproportionate number of atheists in the Libertarian movement. At that moment in history, they needed a preverbal home and their options were extremely limited.
And then along came Ron Paul (A devout Christian). In 1988 this was an enormous struggle and was a subject of strong debate within the Libertarian Party, and that discussion and battle still remains today.
If one were to imagine this concept in a straight line where pure mysticism is on the far right and pure reason is on the far left, my hypothesis can be described by visualizing this graph.
Here is my hypothesis …
If one were to sample the entire population over a long period of time, this graph would be a completely flat line of zero slope.
If one were to sample the voting population that votes Democratic at any given time the graph would be a bell curve left of center.
If one were to sample the voting population that votes Republican at any given time the graph would be a bell curve right of center.
If one were to sample the entire voting population that voted for Paul in 2012 the graph would be a flat line of zero slope almost right on the X axis but substantially (relatively) above the line that would reflect the 2008 sample.
This movement requires the line to be raised, not disfigured into a bell shape. Human nature would dictate that if the line begins to skew, people will simply gravitate to one of the existing bell curves and the movement will simply whither and die.
I don’t think the membership here on DP is lacking the concept of reason, but I think there is a radical distribution when it comes to faith.
The Rand Paul endorsement was a “light bulb” moment for me because I realized that I was solely relying on faith that Rand knows what he is doing and that he will carry the torch admirably. He has a limited voting record and there is somewhat of a mixed bag within his library of public statements when it comes to whether he is more status quo than liberty.
Equally, I would predict that those who are extremely critical of Rand tend to lack the ability of faith that his current backers possess and I don’t think they would consider that an insult and neither do I.
In time, reason will tell us where Rand stands.
In the mean time, the critics will continue to vet (which is a good thing).
And the supporters will continue to justify (which is a good thing).
BUT LET’S BE HONEST IN HOW WE FULLFILL OUR ROLES.
RAND IS NOT EVIL; AT LEAST THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THAT TO DATE.
RAND IS NOT DIVINE; THAT WOULD BE BLASPHAMOUS IN SOME MYSTIC CULTURES (including mine).