0 votes

Why are Ron Paul Detractors so Frightened?

The other day I was driving past a very busy Intersection in my neck of the woods and I noticed a Ron Paul Revolution sign had gone up. There were a couple more on the toll way that some farmer had put up. These were put there on private property by people that most likely were not paid to do so. That’s the way Ron Paul supporters are. They don’t have to be asked to do something for their candidate. They don’t have to be told to go out and campaign. They simply do what they can, or what they think needs to be done. Most are extremely enthusiastic about Ron Paul, and some would say they are too enthusiastic. Perhaps they are right and in some cases Ron Paul supporters get a little overbearing in their zeal, but that is to be expected. After all, when was the last time we saw an honest politician in this country? When was the last time a politician spoke of adhering to the constitution? Oh sure, they’ve always been there, lurking on the outside of the establishment, staring through the windows of the halls of power at two major parties like bums passing a mansion and longing for just a taste of the good life as the Democrats and Republicans pass laws making it harder and harder for them to ever get elected. This is the first time in a long time a major party candidate has come out with a message of hope and freedom and of smaller, limited, less intrusive government. It is a message that he backs up with his voting record. It is this message that has gotten his supporters so excited. Many of Ron Paul’s supporters might not have supported anyone in this campaign had Ron Paul decided not to run. No other candidate, either Republican or Democrat, espouses the principles Ron Paul supports. All the other candidates support big government programs and proclaim big government is the answer to everything that ails our society. Those of us who realize this is not true and who simply want to be left to decide for ourselves what paths we will take in our lives have found a champion in Ron Paul. His candidacy has given many of us someone to vote for rather than someone to vote against. His candidacy has given many of us something to vote for other than the lesser of two evils.

Yet the enthusiasm and excitement expressed by Ron Paul’s supporters seems to have spawned a community of fellows vehemently opposed to Ron Paul. As I go through posts and read through blogs, it seems to me that many of these people are frightened by something. There’s something about their insistence, their passion about the "evil" of Ron Paul and the seemingly supernatural power of his “few” supporters to be able to hijack opinion polls, phone polls, and dominate Internet blogs, there’s something about the demeanor of these folks that suggests to my mind that they are terrified. There’s something even more disturbing about the way the mass media ignores or portrays him. All this has caused me to wonder, what are these Ron Paul detractors so frightened of? I have spent some time in the blogosphere in an effort to ascertain the answer to this question and to assuage their fear. Of course, I don’t expect to be able to convince everyone that there is nothing to fear from a Ron Paul victory, there are people who no matter how hard you argue, no matter how much reason you apply to the argument, will simply refuse to listen. They will not give up their beliefs. I hope to reach those who are on the fence, who are intrigued by Ron Paul’s ideas but are worried about all the negative rhetoric spewed forth by those afraid of real change.

One of the first things I notice about Ron Paul detractors is how often they call Ron Paul and his supporters names. To be fair, I’ve also seen Ron Paul supporters calling his detractors names, which I also think is wrong. As Ron Paul supporters, we should be able to recognize name calling for the juvenile practice it is and avoid that tactic. I know that’s hard to do when the mud starts flying. I realize that when someone insults you it is a natural tendency to insult them back, but we need to remember that name calling accomplishes nothing and serves only to inflame the emotions of those involved. We should let Ron Paul’s detractors show their true colors with their cutesy, middle school barbs like Paultards and Ronbots. Let them label us “crazy”, “conspiracy theorists” and whatever else they want to label us as. So what? Take a deep breath and let the name calling roll off your shoulders. It is more important to get Ron Paul’s message of personal responsibility and smaller, less intrusive government out there. It is time for us to grow up. It is time for us to reclaim out freedoms, to demand them back, and in the process get our lives back, free from government intervention.

Still, some Ron Paul detractors do talk about the issues. They have addressed their fears and stated why they are against Ron Paul. I’d like to address some of these. One of the big ones is that he’s against abortion. This is true, Ron Paul is against abortion. More specifically, he believes it should not be a constitutional issue and that the individual states should be able to decide abortion laws. He is, after all, an ob/gyn and as such has his own personal opinion on the miracle of life. Still, this is an issue where he and I actually disagree. I see abortion as a decision that should be left to the woman and her doctor and perhaps her family. Government should not be involved. But all this is beside the point. In my opinion, this country has far, far more important issues to worry about. And those who worry about women losing the right to an abortion, fear not. President Bush is also against abortions and he was not able to make them illegal in this country even with a Republican congress and a supreme court leaning his way.

Some detractors have expressed fear that Ron Paul is an isolationist. That is not so. Sure, he wants to bring our troops home from around the world. This is something he would actually have the power to do, should he become president. He wants to end our wars of aggression and bring the troops back home to protect our borders. Isn’t that what the military is for? Do we have to police the world? I don’t believe we should. I say it’s time we stopped trying to dictate to the world how to run their countries and remove the threat of force our military poses. I say it's time we stopped nation building. Just because he wants to bring the soldiers home does not mean he is an isolationist. He would still want to do business with the rest of the world. The difference is, he would not be doing business at the point of a gun, rather we would all be interacting on a voluntary basis. Sure, competition would increase, but fear not. I have faith in the American people. I think we can take on competition and come out ahead. We don’t need to force our will upon others in order to remain on top of the heap. We can lead by example and show the world that free markets are the way to improve the quality of everyone’s life. I believe that left to our own devices our ideas and innovations will help improve the world for all mankind.

I read one detractor claim that Ron Paul is racist. When I see the label “racist” used, I instantly question the author’s motive. When one uses such a name it seems to be an attempt to evoke emotion in the reader and cause one to instantly ostracize the subject on the basis that this person has an opinion that is so onerous as to be socially unacceptable. Now, I don’t know Ron Paul personally, so I can’t say for certain whether he is or isn’t a racist, but I can say that I seriously doubt it. Apparently, the claim that he is a racist came from some sort of newsletter that he sent out where one of his people made an unseemly comment that some interpreted as racist. Ron Paul apologized for the comment and fired the offending staffer. I would bet that just about everyone has said something at some point in time that could be considered racist. This does not make the person racist. As it is, Ron Paul has himself addressed this issue. Some of his thoughts on racism can be found here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html

I believe that fear is unfounded.

Some detractors have expressed fear that Ron Paul’s stance on taxes and the Federal Reserve will lead to economic collapse. First off, why should a privately owned organization have a monopoly on our money when the constitution explicitly gives the House of Representatives the power “To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.” Why should our tax dollars go to pay the interest on trillions of dollars in loans when congress can order the creation of treasury notes interest free? Personally, I’m tired of seeing the value of the dollar shrink to nothing and I’d rather have a steady, stable currency that keeps its value as we had for hundreds of years before this fiat banking system took hold around the world. There might be a short period of adjustment in the economy if Ron Paul was able to implement such a change, but sound fiscal policy and the power of free, open markets would soon right the ship. Then there are those who would ask “What about the poor?” when income taxes are done away with. Well, not having to pay taxes will certainly give you more money in your pocket. You could give the extra money you’d have to some worthy charity that helps the poor. Private enterprises taking care of charity can certainly do a better job than any government organization or plan for wealth redistribution. Again, I have faith in the American people. We are, after all, perhaps the most generous nation in the world. You should not fear changing our money system, for sometimes change is for the best and often times it comes whether you plan it or not. It’s best if that change can be controlled rather than suddenly thrust upon us.

I could go on, but I think I’ve covered the basics. Try to remember, we are in the process of selecting a president here, not a dictator or a decider. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is for a smaller government with the voting record to prove it. All the other candidates are for increasing the size of government and government’s power and control over you. Ron Paul is against the war in Iraq, and any war of aggression. He is in favor of bringing our troops home to protect our borders. He voted against the Patriot Act. He voted against the Military Commissions Act. He does not believe we should engage in entangling alliances. He believes we should maintain our national sovereignty. And, should the citizens of the United States elect him as our next president, we would be sending a clear message to our politicians that we understand what freedom is and what it means and that we want to keep our freedoms and liberties rather than letting them die under the oppressive boots of a police state. We would also be sending a message that we appreciate honesty and openness in government and we will no longer tolerate the corruption that has plagued our government for decades now. Ron Paul should frighten no one, except maybe the establishment which has been feeding at the pig trough of political power for far too long.

Written by Szandor Blestman

(Note: Szandor Blestman attended the University of Illinois and earned a Bachelor's degree in Rhetoric in 1984 with minors in Math and Geology. He took some time off school to raise a family. He achieved a Master's of Science in IT from the University of Maryland University College in Dec. 2004.)



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Its a shame you can't write...(wink)

No seriously, I agree with you. May I add that in most deeply liberal blogs, you can just assume they perceive an older white man who is a Republican to just be a racists, and also a homophobe and misyognist. So you and I might as well start from there, because that is where they all start from.

Now those deeply liberal blogs have moved the term and adding to it to mean "ANY racial assumption". So the terms that would be used in the past, say "bias", or say "prejudiced", are no longer used, now if one has a biased assumption, or a prejudiced belief, it is now called racist--end of story, no questions asked. That is the current 2007 world we live in.

Bill ORielly, who I mostly disagree with, is now getting caught in this spider's web of "being a racists" and "not knowing it". I hate to sympathize with Bill O, but this is his current situation, but the term has moved out and broadened.

So from a deeply liberal viewpoint, any old white republican man, MUST be not only racists, but also misogynistic and homophobic. By definition, they must be. Only a very select few very old white democrat men, who have a long record of voting to the contrary, are off the hook on that assumption. So I suggest we all just "go with it" and work from there. For you and I to argue otherwise is to just be deluded ronbots, or, simply closet racists, misogynistic, homophobes too. So I have gone back into the blogs and argued thusly, with their assumption NOT challenged. I have said ..........(feel free to use any or all of my words below)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"look, its a waist of time to say this candidate or that candidate is an evil racist, misogynistic, homophobe, come on guys, they all are by definition! And don't tell me the democratic ones are any better, they can barely say "civil union" let alone be caught hugging a man or being the white VP to the first black President. So you know it, I know it, and they know that democrats are better at hiding it then republicans, but thats it. So all the candidates are racist, misogynistic and homophobic to some degree, SO WHAT???? So where do we go from here? Not until we have an young black female Senator who has long term civil union (hopefully marriage) to her female "partner", can we simply not assume that this politician is NOT racist, misogynistic, homophobe. You and I know that they all are, its only a matter of degree. So where do we go from here?

I submit we start looking at these candidates in another way. Who is acting THROUGH FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LAWS AND REGULATIONS in a racist, misogynistic, homophobic way that will hinder our Constitutional individual rights? Who is making bad policy, and who is making good policy? That is the question. So what should concern us is again, who is making good policy, and who is making bad policy. Who is interfering with our Constitutional Rights, and who is not? What is the best policy? Is it to get the government involved on "our side" today? If we do, it may create backlash. It may mean new racist, misogynistic and homophobic powers come along, get "democratically elected" and then turns the Federal government power 100% against us. Can anyone say 1950? It may be a wiser policy to make the powerful Federal government 100% out of it in the first place. People get married at the county court house, we could keep marriage issue there. Adoptions and murder issues are solved there too."

"Now on that score, I want you to step back for a second and consider the Texas baby doctor Ron Paul. According to Salon, he is 3rd on their list of "GOP friendly to the gay community" behind Giuliani & McCain. But those two are very authoritarian types, very pro more war, kill, kill, kill. Ron Paul is 100% antiwar, that puts him number one in my book.

Ron Paul has run as a libertarian before, and its not as if there are no woman, black or gay people in the libertarian party, there certainly are, and he certainly met the high profile ones. For example just look at Wendy McElroy, Dr. Walter Williams professor at George Mason University or our friend Justin over www.antiwar.com who have been highly active for years, and they are not bothered by Ron Paul at all.

What is interesting is that this 72 year old white country doctor has accepted the libertarian, and I would say, liberal goal, to keep the Federal Government out of our bedrooms, out of our personal sexual relationships as much as possible, 100% race neutral. On that score, you will find Dr. Ron Paul, the ten term Congressmen from Texas, very unusual. Perhaps that is why Wendy, Dr. Walter Williams and Justin have no problem with him. Dr. Ron Paul both accepts and advocates our liberal premise that we are all equal individuals under the eyes of the law, with equal rights and our rights belong to us as individuals regardless of what social group we fall into."

"Personally, I can live with that. It does not pander or play favorites, or pit one group against another, but neither does it discriminate. His policies treat us all equally and keeps the Federal Government 100% neutral.....I love it. Sure the racists, the woman haters and the gay haters will keep trying to USE the Federal Government against us, but with the Constitution on our side and Ron Paul's on our side, we need not worry. It makes me wish Congress was filled with 534 more Ron Paul's. Indeed, America would be a much more tolerant and open place to live, to"just be ourselves" if we had more Dr. Ron Paul's. And that is why THIS LIBERAL SUPPORTS RON PAUL.....yes for that reason, and for the fact that the Democrats have sold out the Peace Movement...but that is another story. Treg "

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820