As I noted when I announced my support for Ron Paul, he is not the perfect candidate. But he is by far the best. I have a few issues with him, but in general he is right on the important things. For the detractors though the question they keep asking is... Can he realistically win? To be honest, I doubt it. I like to think of myself as a political realist even when I feel strongly on a subject.
But to my mind that's not the point. If he wins in Iowa (a very real possibility) and if he places a respectable 2nd in New Hampshire (also a real possibility) he will be impossible for the GOP establishment to ignore. It will be a strong declaration that the hard core social cons and neo cons no longer have a lock on the party. They will have to take him and his very loyal supporters into consideration when framing party platforms etc. If they don't then they risk kissing off possibly 15+% of the people voting in the GOP primaries come the general election. That would be akin to political suicide.
What Ron Paul and his supporters are trying to do here is to change the culture of the GOP and more broadly the country. It is not going to happen all at once. But as Fr. Z. is want to say "brick by brick." It is sufficient for now to let the GOP establishment know that libertarian leaning voters exist and that we make up a sizable percentage of the party's voting block. And further that we are no longer going to allow our votes to be taken for granted.
Seriously, given a choice between Obama and just about any of the other GOP candidates, where is the difference? They all are global interventionists and supporters of perpetual war, none have any credibility on the subject of debt reduction, they are terrifying on the subject of civil liberties, and they are big government statists. The only difference between the GOP and Obama lies in exactly which aspects of our lives they think the government should dictate. Obama and the GOP are just two sides of the same coin.
I have no inclination to vote for George Bush's fourth term in office which is what the GOP's other candidates are offering. If Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination, and barring a serious change of tune from the GOP on a number of important subjects, I will write his name in come November 2012.
Bully!
ReplyDeleteMy mother, may she RIP, used to say, "Put in one hand what you have and in the other what you want. Now, see which one weighs the most." This is to say, even if Ron Paul is someones candidate (what we want) we have to look at what we have (a President to defeat). We have to present the most electable person we can. For, we have the reality that it is the independent voters who most likely swing things one way or the other. And I am fearful if Ron Paul does attempt an Independent route that will assure the re-election of the President. In a perfect world, perhaps Ron Paul. In reality, "You can't always get what you want; but you can get what you need." A little Rolling Stones there to lighten things up a bit.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteIn general you make a good point. Excessive dogmatism in politics only leads to irrelevancy. The history of the Libertarian Party is a good example of that. On the other hand to vote for one of the other GOP candidates in the general election requires me to believe they represent a significant improvement over Obama. And right now I am not there.
John, when people tell me "I want to support Ron Paul, but he can't win so I'm voting for _____," my standard response is "well hell no he can't win as long as people who support his views refuse to vote for him!"
ReplyDeleteWhich is to say, that's a complete cop out. If you support him, vote for him. If you don't, then don't tell me you do and explain why you won't lend him your vote.
I also agree with you 1000% about Bush's fourth term. I might even stretch out and suggest it's Reagan's 14th term. The only thing that gives me pause is I think it's been a progression of issues since Reagan left office more than a real legacy he left.
P.S., the 2nd paragraph was a generic "you." On re-reading it, it came across like I was pointing that at you when you have said you are voting for him.
ReplyDeleteHave I misunderstood? I thought various polls had shown that Ron Paul was the only GOP candidate who COULD beat Obama.
ReplyDeleteWhether the GOP will nominate him is another issue...
Ever since Dr. Paul has cured my apathy, I have vowed never to vote for the lesser of two evils. I would rather write he candidate in I support and go to bed with a clear conscience.
ReplyDeleteNo one but Paul!
Anon 8:29,
ReplyDeleteRon Paul can win. He's the only anti-war candidate for either party. Do you realize how sick and tired of war and empire Americans really are? It may not have completely bubbled up yet, but get a candidate like Paul on the ballot for the GOP and it will become increasingly obvious to the point that no one could ignore it.
Those who say "Ron Paul can't win" support the status quo, either knowingly or unknowingly.
ReplyDelete