Ron Paul, dark horse Republican running for president of the US, is one of the best things to happen in politics in a generation. Too bad he can’t earn our endorsement.
I know: straight politics may be somewhat off-topic, but given the attention we’re being forced to give to our maniacal king-president, it’s relevant. We know you agree.
Ron Paul makes a lot of sense, in a time when the world seems crazier than it’s ever been. In a recent Republican debate, candidates were asked whether Congress needs to be consulted before declaring war. Dr. Paul (he’s an M.D.) was the only candidate who pointed out that the president cannot declare war — only the Congress can do that. The rest of the candidates said that talking to Congress was a nice-to-have.
He’s a “constitutionalist”, a stance apparently based on the idea that the government of the US is based on some piece of parchment that we should all still pay attention to. That’s especially refreshing considering the massive build-up of hidden power in the Executive branch. The Constitution has a lot to say about separation of powers. These days, the (current) president seems to think it’s “just a goddamned piece of paper”.
Civil liberties? According to Dr. Paul, they’re ours and they can’t be taken away. Habeas Corpus cannot be taken away. (They can’t arrest and jail us without probable cause, and without detouring the judicial system.)
Government’s role? Protect us from enemies, maintain roads, things like that. Education department, Energy department, ad nauseum? That’s an over-extension of government in Paul’s eyes. World police? No. Nation-builders? No. Neocon agenda? Downright evil.
Perhaps his best quality is his plain-spoken manner — he’s sort of like Ross Perot without the barnyard homilies. There is little or no spin in his delivery; he says what he thinks, and eschews with talking points and carefully chosen buzz-phrases. He doesn’t pander.
Check out what he has to say about the current administration:
We are not yet living in a total police state, but it is fast approaching. The seeds of future tyranny have been sown, and many of our basic protections against government have been undermined. The atmosphere since 2001 has permitted Congress to create whole new departments and agencies that purport to make us safer — always at the expense of our liberty.
He kind of sounds like me. So what’s not to like?
It’s the religion, stupid. Dr. Paul falls apart on credibility when you bring religion into the game. Roe v. Wade? Life begins, according to him, at conception. No gray area. He cops out on a full ban on abortion by saying it should be left to the states. Hello, coat-hangers in back alleys. Hello unwanted children living in poverty.
Separation of church and state? Nawwww. That’s a myth, according to Ron:
The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion.
That’s dead wrong. Never mind that the Constitution itself forbids Congress from making any law about establishing or mandating religion, essentially saying “keep religion out of politics, and politics out of religion”. But if you are just dying to believe that this is a misinterpretation, let’s hear what Thomas Jefferson says about it:
History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
There’s a founding father specifically using the phrase “separation between church and State”. People who say that there isn’t supposed to be such a separation are ignorant.
Which is largely the problem with Ron Paul. He’s remarkably informed on some issues, but amazingly ignorant in equally important areas. Creationism? Pretend it’s science and teach it in schools.
While we can’t help but admire Paul for being a straight-talking candidate in the age of fluff-talk, we need more. We need someone who isn’t a total radical. We need someone who can reduce the size of government but who recognizes the fact there are children starving in America — an unbelievable irony and tragedy.
We may not endorse any single candidate for president, but I can tell you this: I’ll take a president who accepts medium-sized government with an intellect and common sense over a tiny-government president who doesn’t recognize all our rights. However appealing a tiny government can seem these days.
Thanks to this post from the (amusingly titled) “No God Zone” blog for perspective and information.
UPDATE: someone wrote in to point out this quote by James Madison on separation of church and State:
Religion and government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.
Tags for this post: bill of rights, bush administration, constitution, constitutionalist, creationism, declaring war, founding fathers, george w bush, gwb, habeas corpus, nation builders, necon, politics, probable cause, republican candidate, republican debate, roe vs wade, ron paul, ross perot, separation of church and state, separation of powers, thomas jefferson us constitution
Technorati tag links for this post: bill of rights, bush administration, constitution, constitutionalist, creationism, declaring war, founding fathers, george w bush, gwb, habeas corpus, nation builders, necon, politics, probable cause, republican candidate, republican debate, roe vs wade, ron paul, ross perot, separation of church and state, separation of powers, thomas jefferson, us constitution
Related Area51.Org Posts: Dining with the “Dead”: My Lunch with an Enron Exec, Hi, Coup. Or: You Live in a Secret Dictatorship, Radiohead, and Getting Rid of Dia-RIAA, “I Don’t Want to Believe”: What You Need to Know About Professional Skeptics
Things to Do with This Post:
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:14 pm |
A well-balanced article. You emphasized from the Republican debate that Ron Paul was the only candidate who pointed out that the President cannot declare war. That should have sent off a red-light to all viewers.
Read my letter, “Republican candidates are just characters in a bad TV show”.