The Promise of Paul
Like Ralph Nader before him, Ron Paul has attracted a small, but loyal band of adherents who would like to see him become President of the United States.
On one level, there is logic to support the Paul candidacy. Barack Obama has brought the United States to not only a political precipice but also to a philosophical fork in the road. Of all the Republican candidates, Paul, whose monetary and military policies reject both pragmatics and compromise, represents the boldest philosophical alternative to Obama's shameless and creeping collectivism.
As Ayn Rand, one of Paul's heroes, once noted, social improvement—and do we ever need that right about now—starts in the realm of philosophy, not politics. Politics reflects rather than formulates underlying philosophical premises. Paul is preaching from the wrong pulpit, and the congregation he needs to be elected is not ready in sufficient numbers for his message. The result, however unfortunate it may be viewed, is that the gospel according to Paul is too alien a voice to attract enough voters to elect him in 2012.
At another time, the country might be able to afford a pyrrhic showing that a purist like Paul is attracting a growing constituency, and his supporters might fancy themselves as founding contributors to a noble and dynamic cause. But given the very real possibility that a diversion and dilution of conservative support at this critical juncture would enable Barack Obama to retain the keys to the White House, such a fancy would be hideously self indulgent and destructive.
The Obama presidency has provided many lessons that Americans ignore at their peril:
- Experience matters
- People can legitimately be judged by the company they keep
- A picture-perfect family life is irrelevant
- Character is best judged when a person is under pressure not when cresting on a wave of public and media support
It's time to knuckle down and deal with the art of the possible. Ron Paul, and lesser candidates like Bachmann and Santorum are simply not national players at this time and should throw their support and that of their supporters to viable Republican candidates so that the country can get on with the vital task of cleaning house, starting with the one on Pennsylvania Avenue.
© 2011 Gordon Osmond
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
baltimore aureole
David McClain
Bruce Majors
Arthur Louis
Stephen Guy Hardin
natalia pizano
Salon.com
Comments
Thanks for reminding me.
It really seems as if you disregard the fairly indisputable facts that Obama, however you view him, inherited one hell of a shit storm from his predecessor: Two wars put ‘off the books’, virtually indenturing us to China. At least one of those wars, Iraq, advised against by even Bush’s own NIE and CIA.
And have you forgotten the ‘incestuous amplification’ and agitprop generated by Cheney and crew to market it? The false linkages between Iraq and 911 and the unconscionable exploitation of the 911 tragedy to further what was clearly a ‘war-for-profit?
Also, it wasn’t Obama who ran up enormous debt, caused the precipitous collapse of our economy or initiated the ‘bailouts.’ He did , however, save the auto industry, and has attempted to correct the bloated and ineffective heath care system (I think we rank somewhere very low on international scales) —although he’s not done near enough to reign in the fraudulent banking and speculative trading practices made possible by the Gramm Leach Blilely act .
But, I’m not going to go any further with this, because, Obama has also reauthorized the NDAA, Patriot and other legislation which threaten our personal freedoms. He’s also pretty drone-happy. And now, courtesy of Citizen’s United, we are not guaranteed anything other than a corporatist in office anyway.
If you’re interested, I compiled a number of links and references which help trace the gradual ascendancy of a neoconservative corporatism in America.
You really write well but I just wanted to offer an opposing view.