The Pros and Cons of Ron Paul
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
***Note I Am Editing This As On 12/15/07 Because I Think The Original Post Was Somewhat Uninformed & Biased Against Ron Paul***Ron Paul, Republican candidate for president, has created quite a buzz with his anti-war anti-interventionist positions. He has also gained quite a bit of interest and support from liberals who would normally never even consider supporting a Republican. And it's precisely that, that I want to address here.
While I respect Ron Paul for speaking truthfully about the war in Iraq I do not think that his stances on other issues are right for America. I respectfully disagree with the tenants of Libertarianism.
I think that Ron Paul truly believes that Libertarianism is right for America and that he's doing the right thing. This puts him in stark contrast with most politicians who just say whatever they think needs to be said to get a vote today. He has integrity.
I also believe he is wrong. The simplest way to show this will be to look at his positions one by one:
PRO: Iraq War
"The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them."
On this issue Ron Paul is right on the money.
The bigger picture is that Ron Paul wants to stop our interventionist foreign policy. He wants to bring home our troops all around the world which would not only save our country a huge amount of money (meaning we wouldn't have to pay so much in taxes) but I also believe this would help to make our country more safe. Regardless of the nonsense that neocons say we were not attacked on 9/11 because of our "freedoms" we were attacked on 9/11 because of our (at best) meddling foreign policy. If we stop trying to control the world, the world will stop being so pissed off at us. History shows that whenever an empire tries to grow too big that it just doesn't work.
CON: Health Care
Ron Paul is NOT for universal health care. As a Libertarian he would never support the government's involvement in health care. This is unfortunate because it's clear to me that something as basic as health care should be the realm of the government just as firemen and policemen are. Would we want a private company policing our streets? no of course not. So why do we place something as basic and important as our health in the hands of businessmen who have nothing but their profits in mind?
Ron Paul supporters have pointed out that states could create universal health care plans. These plans may be leaner (less wasted money) & more effective because of a smaller bureaucracy required to run them.
As a bleeding heart liberal I still like the idea of all Americans being covered with a single payer universal health care plan but I am willing to consider that it may not actually work best at the federal level. Perhaps once some states implement a universal health care plan and it is successful then other states would soon follow suit.
CON: Abortion
Ron Paul does not support the right of women to make their own choice about whether or not to have an abortion. He believes each state should have the ability to make their own law regarding abortion. If the states were to make their own abortion laws this would inevitable lead to most southern states making abortion illegal. This would bring us back to the dark ages before Roe. Why should a woman have the freedom of choice in New York but not in Georgia? All women in America deserve the right to make their own choices about their bodies. To me this should be considered a basic civil liberty that is protected at the federal level. That being said I am not willing to not support Ron Paul just because of the abortion issue. As voters we are too easily controlled by these sorts of hot button topics.
PRO: Privacy and Personal Liberty
Being a Libertarian (he ran as the Libertarian candidate for president in 1988) Paul is extremely strong on privacy & personal liberty issues. He voted against the horrible Patriot Act.
This is a huge huge issue. I'm tired of politicians (especially supposedly "liberal" democrats) who don't seem to really have any belief in the importance of our civil liberties.
PRO: Ending the War on Drugs
Paul favors the legalization of marijuana.
He voted against all federal employees being subject to random drug tests.
He sponsored the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act.
The War on Drugs is a horrible waste of tax payers money and is morally reprehensible. It is wrong to put people in jail for doing nothing but doing drugs. We should live in a free society where people can put whatever they want into their own bodies. The right to do drugs should be considered a basic civil liberty. It amazes me how many people have been fooled into thinking it's the governments business whether or not they should be allowed to smoke marijuana or snort cocaine.
CON: Education
Paul believes that the US Department of Education should be abolished. He thinks that all education decisions should be left up to the states, local governments, and personal decision. While this may seem like a reasonable position, in reality it will stretch the divide between the rich and the poor even further.
Every child in America should have the right to a good education. I believe education should become more federalized not less so. Why? Because right now children in rich districts (those with rich families) get a good education while those in poor districts (those with poor families) get a poor education. There must be more equality of opportunity in this country. All children whether poor or rich deserve a quality education. This is not only a matter of fairness to all Americans but a matter of national prosperity.
Ron Paul supporters point out that federal education system has been a failure. Most of the money spent goes towards the bureaucracy of the system and not to the actual schools. School performance has dropped since the federal government started becoming involved in education. Perhaps this is a matter best left up to the states? That being said I have a hard time thinking that it's OK for children in backwards states to not get a proper education. For example children who are taught that creationism is an alternative "theory" to evolution. That's just not OK, it really isn't. But that being said I'm not sure what a good solution is to this problem. I like the idea of all children all over the country getting an equal education but perhaps that's just too idealistic. Perhaps the federal government's involvement in education has actually been a hindrance and not a help?
CON: Environment/Climate Change
Libertarians such as Ron Paul believe in a free market to the highest degree. This means little if any governmental oversight. This means that big businesses would have even more power if Ron Paul had his way. Big business must have governmental oversight or they will absolutely trash our environment. With global warming a scientific fact this is an extremely important point.
Ron Paul supporters have pointed out that according to his beliefs people actually have a right to not be polluted so that he doesn't really believe that there should be no oversight of big business regarding the environment.
CON: He's against the United Nations.
While I agree with his non interventionist policy militarily the last thing America needs is to make more enemies internationally. The United Nations has done a lot of good for the world and we should be a positive part of that. Ron Paul wants America to pull out of the UN.
In Conclusion:
I think it's important that an anti-war candidate who is speaking the truth be supported in this election but Ron Paul is the wrong anti-war candidate to support. Instead of Paul consider Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and possibly Al Gore if he enters the election and sticks to his guns. Not only have they been anti-war from the start but they also have solid positions on other important issues such as education and health care. The Iraq war is a very important issue but it is not the only one.
New Conclusion:
I've been thinking about this a lot since I originally wrote this article and I have changed my mind somewhat. While I still prefer Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel to Ron Paul, it's clear that their campaigns are not going anywhere fast. Liberals (as a group) are too scared of losing the general election again to even consider voting for the person they actually agree with on the issues (and that would definitely be one of those two) but instead are voting on "electability" and are supporting candidates such as Barack Obama and John Edwards.
Because of this Kucinich and Gravel have not been able to gain any significant footing heading into the primaries. Meanwhile Ron Paul's campaign has taken off. The "Ron Paul Revolution" appears to be a real phenomenon.
In other words I think I have become one of the progressive liberals I was originally writing about. I support Ron Paul despite not agreeing with him on everything. I think his stances on foreign policy and civil liberties are so strong (much much MUCH stronger than those of the mainstream Dem. candidates) that I feel I must support despite not being sure of his policies overall. I've also learned more about his ideas regarding the economy & IRS and I must say he makes a lot of sense. This country appears to be on the wrong track in many ways and I think just moving a little bit back to the left with someone like Edwards, Obama, or Clinton isn't going to be the shift necessary (although I would certainly support them over any of the other absolutely disgusting Republican candidates.) I think it's time for a real change.
The Ron Paul campaign has been so exciting because it has woken up so many Americans to what is really going on in this country. It has united people who normally would never agree on anything. It has people interested in politics who have never even bothered to vote before. It has people questioning the mainstream media and their ability to decide who our president should be for us.
With all that being said: Donate To Ron Paul (even if you don't agree with him on everything.)
Labels: Ron Paul
15 Comments:
I think that if you were to research his ideas a bit more, namely Universal Health Care and the Education, then you may have a different opinion.
That's a thoughtful list. Everyone has to vote their own conscience, but for me the fact that Ron Paul is a constitutionalist trumps disagreements I may have about his personal views. You could elect someone else because you want "free" health care and taxpayer funded schools, but it will be on your conscience when they bomb Iran or Kosovo. At least you can trust Ron Paul's track record of always defending the constitution and civil liberties.
You should check out the video on youtube of Ron Paul in 1988 on the Morten Downy Jr show.
"why doesnt the government put you on a diet you are a little overweight"
Sounds like the result of Universal heath care to me. Or Im sorry but you have to many kids. You need to have an abortion!
That is the ultimate goal!! Total control!!
You seem to be refuting your own points. Take for example the 'war on drugs' ... calling this an absolute miserable failure would be charitable ... so why would you want to put healthcare into the hands of those responsible for this monumental screwup i.e. the government? Right.
As for states rights... you use abortion as an example, but really it could be anything. The beauty here is that it FAR easier to make changes on the state level than the federal level. In fact, it's nearly impossible to change anything at the federal level... therefore anything put into the states hands is put much closer to your own hands. Also, because states must respect the laws of other states, you have a much better chance at making things legal in one state and thereby forcing other states to recognize that by default. It's a wonderful thing when you can act locally to change the way things work.
On the environment... just going non-military adventurist alone would save us the 70 million gallons of gas the military uses every day... but beyond that, you'd have a RIGHT to not be polluted by any business interests and under Paul's policies, that right would be protected. It's a good thing. The only reason corps have out of control power right now is because of the corruption. There's nothing inherently wrong with making money, but we've put that ahead of individual rights and that's something Paul would end.
If you do not believe that free markets can do a better job than government in most things, then you should not vote for Ron Paul.
I hope that you rethink your beliefs about what the proper functions of government are. I highly recommend a book called, The Law by Frederic Bastiat.
Thank you for the thoughtful comments. I respect Ron Paul and I respect the libertarian position. I do not agree with it though.
As far as the Drug War being a total failure - I agree with that - but I don't think it's fair to compare that to health care. The Drug War in my opinion is wrong from the get go. Health care for everyone is not. I think the results show that socialized health care can (and does) work better than our privatized health care system.
tex - I do want to elect someone else for universal health care and quality public schooling available to all children - and I want that person to also be non interventionist internationally. I believe that Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel both fit all of these criteria.
This piece is really written to progressives who have come out so strongly for Ron Paul - I just think that they haven't looked into the rest of Paul's positions closely enough yet.
Robert Michael - I think those are basically scare tactics. There are plenty of industrial nations with universal health care and the situations you mention do not occur.
It astounds me how detractors of Dr. Paul try to sound "reasonable" in their disparagement of him, while producing all this trumped up, esoteric, obscure, out-of-context trivia.
If you have to go that far to find (unverifiable) damaging material on a candidate, what is your point exactly? (And try to find material published in REAL publications, not silly little fringe websites that post writings for their own agenda.)
Also, here's a suggestion: Look up RP's views on racism and white supremacy IN HIS OWN BOOKS. If you're going to trust mere writings, what better source than the author himself in reputable publications? No - we're told that these furtive jabs at blacks stealing your wallet are the Real Thing over Paul's own BOOKS.
Taking these detractors' methods as the manner in which to identify prospective Presidents, all we have to do to show up Giuliani or Romney is to listen to their ignorance and stupidity at the last Presidential debates...
Or how about Rudy recently having credentialed reporters arrested for asking him pointed questions about the Towers? Infringed on the First Amendment much, Rudy? How about Romney's outright LIES just to find favor with an established base which he didn't have when his views were contrary? Flip-flopped much, Mitten?
All these RP detractors should apply their "reasoning" to the other candidates AS FASTIDIOUSLY AS they want us to apply their arguments to RP. See how quickly those other dishonest, duplicitous, unconstitutional jackasses last.
www.thedunmore.com
The point that your missing is that Paul won't put an end to universal healthcare, he will just do so at the federal level. If a particular state then wants to advocate and in fact implement universal healthcare than he would do nothing to stop them. And then if in time it proved that the universal healthcare in that state was what worked best and what the individual wanted then everyone in
america could move to that state and live under universal healthcare, or they could just work to get it inacted in their state. So you are missing the whole point of what he is saying, yes personally he may be against universal healthcare, but the only thing he would do to stop it is just take it out of the federal jurisdiction and into the state jurisdiction.
The same thing goes for schools. If I as a resident of the state of Oregon wanted to have Public schools here in Oregon than I could rally the "troops" to ensure that it stayed in Oregon. However my neighbors north may decide that privatized schools were best, and ended up providing better education cheaper. Then in a few years it could be shown which served the individual best and people could vote with their feet, or again get their state to enact what has proven to be the best approach. Look at how all the states follow California on the environmental issues. If you try it out on the state level you can see what works and then the other states can adopt that.
By mandating it though from the federal level you remove all levels of "creative destruction". Just like you and I can go buy laptops that have more computing power than the original computers that filled up a room, this happened because markets were allowed to constantly percieve what the inidividual wanted and react appropriately, and any corporation that didnt adjust or internally creatively destruct would get left behind because the individual consumer would choose the competition. This applies to global warming as well, the consumer is now warry of corporates environmental practices. So they will choose those companies who are environmentally and socially conscious, meaning that those who pollute will eventually go out of business because the consumer will choose the more responsible company. Unless the federal government steps in and hands out subsidies that keeps the polluters in business, ala big oil and car companies.
I am not attacking you or neccesarily your analysis of Paul's personal opinions, what I am saying that his number one objective is to remove federal government from the equation and then let the states battle it out just like corporations would. That is what will drive this country in the right direction, not federally mandated universal healthcare, or federally mandated public schools. So his personal opinions on what he thinks the states should do is trumped by his belief that the states should be allowed to decide for themselves.
I've spent a lot of time researching Dr. Paul and his views, largely through his own speeches and writings, and I'd question your assertion that he's a libertarian. I think the best description for him is a "constitutionalist". He simply advocates returning the scope of Federal government to that outlined in the Constitution, with the remaining powers used as specified in the 10th amendment.
Regarding healthcare... as a physician, Dr. Paul knows what he's talking about. There's no question that our current system is, in many ways, the "worst of both worlds" with the toxic mix of corporate and Federal bureaucracies. But today, we're actually a lot closer to the single payer system that you crave than you might think. In fact, 2/3 of all health expenditures are paid by the Federal/State/local governments between Medicare, Medicaid, and DOD/VA systems. And the remaining 1/3 of "corporate care" insurance takes its cue regarding what it will cover, and how much it will pay, directly from Medicare itself.
I'm also a physician, and having seen medicine in the UK, Canada, and the US, I agree with Dr. Paul that what we need in healthcare is a resurgence of the doctor-patient relationship, and a drastic reduction in the corporate and government micromanagement that handicaps the current environment.
Regarding my personal experience in a true single-payer system, perhaps you've seen the stories about the horrors of Walter Reed and the care our wounded veterans are receiving. In training, we used to call working at the VA medical center "veterinary medicine" not out of disrespect for the patients, but out of frustration for the level of equipment and support provided in that environment.
For more insight into Dr. Paul's thoughts on healthcare, check out the following interview with the Kaiser Family Foundation:
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/health2008hc.cfm?&hc=2258
BD
Like tex macrae said, everyone has to vote on their conscience, etc. I'd rather take our foreign policy budget and put it towards improving the USA.
UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE: I was 4 years old in a low income family. I was born with a heart condition that would cut my life expectancy in half. We had no health coverage until we applied for it and the hospital covered 3/4th of the bill. This was a private non-government health care provider. The government doesn't need to force us into one specific generic health care system. I tend to be more optimistic about the generosity of the private industry. That's my side of the story. :)
Personally, I think Ron Paul is the most worthy candidate running for president. Yes, some of his ideas are farfetched and will take longer than his term to complete, but I have to admit it would make America's economy remotely better.
now i'm only 14 but it doesn't matter i do agree with most of ron paul's ideas on health insurance it should not be mandatory and not everyone should be forced to pay for something they do not want. but on the other hand if a women wants an abortion for finical reasons and is not allowed then her shitty white trash family will continue to live on the working persons money ( welfare)
This aritcle is ridiculously bias, Just the last few paragraphs summed it up for me
Hello everyone. Thanks for your comments, they really have been insightful. I do feel that the last 2 con including his support from white supremacists are unfair. It's clear that he receives support from such radical groups due to his belief in freedom and states rights not to any similarity in belief re: racism.
I also have looked more into how his positions regarding states rights would work. I am definitely more open to the idea although it does seem to me that there should be some commonalities throughout the US. To be honest I am unsure of my position at this point. I am definitely reevaluating things.
I am going to edit this somewhat in order to remove things I feel are unfairly biased against Ron Paul.
I am actually considering making a contribution to his campaign for the "Tea Party" ... I'm trying to do more research now to be sure I really would be OK with having such a "states rights" president. While the theories presented here make sense, I hate the idea of children who are born in to redneck backwards states not getting the same opportunities as those born in richer more progressive states.
Possibly the risk of that is worth the overall better functioning system.
Perhaps all of these things are small potatoes compared to how much Paul's stance on foreign policy would help our country.. compared to how much his stance on civil liberties would help all of us to experience this "freedom" that politicians like to talk about.
Post a Comment
ThePresidentialCandidates.US - HOME