My friend Austin Craig linked to a video montage of Ron Paul soundbits up yesterday, and so being genuinely intrigued by this particular politician, I gave it a listen. Browsing on Reddit as I am like to do, I know a bit about the man, but I decided to investigate a little bit, and see where he and I match up, and where we clash.
Full disclosure: Austin and I do not share the same political views, but I think he's a great, smart guy and I respect his views. This isn't intended to be a bash fest, neither against Ron nor Austin, but rather a place to get my ideas down, and so you can see them too. I'd love to chat with you, reader, about them if you'd like.
What are my views? According to the Political Compass quiz thing (which has its merits and shortcomings to be sure), I am a -8.88, -6.31. Generally speaking, that translates to Quite Economically Liberal, Rather Socially Libertarian. Look, a picture:
Ron Paul is, as far as I can tell, Quite Socially Libertarian, a tad further south on the chart then I am, and much further to the right from me. Or maybe not. If I tried to answer this quiz thing as him I'd just horrible confuse myself.
Here though, are some things that Ron Paul says and supports, and then under them (since putting tables in would be more of a chore than a benefit), how I feel about the given topics.
Ron Paul: noninterventionism and making peace/love, not war
I'm not trying to be glib here: making love (in a general sense) was one of his campaign things in '08. Here, I totally agree with him, with one odd exception, which I'll get to in a minute. I deplore the Team America approach to foreign policy that the US has employed since the Spanish-American War (1898). At its nascence, this trend grew out of economic imperialism, which grew out of Turner's frontier hypothesis, which grew out of the (foolish) notion of Manifest Destiny, which itself was a byproduct of the Enlightenment. Now, it means 3 simultaneous oil wars in foreign countries at the cost of internal stability. I will stand by Ron Paul's side every time when he says Let's get out of Iraq, let's get out of Afghanistan, and why did we get into Libya? I don't even, let's just get out of there too. Which brings me to my one odd exception, which is really just a weird thing that Paul did in 2002 where he put forth the motion to legitimize Bush's illegal war in Iraq. He didn't vote for the resolution himself, but he nevertheless put the motion forward form what I term his sense of Constitution preservation. This is where I take issue. More on that later.
He is also against supporting Israel, although for him it comes down to the dollar. Why, he postulates, spend American money on a non-American issue? I can get behind that, but I also think that creating the State of Israel was a bad decision in '47. Perhaps it was the least bad decision that could have been made at the time, but the emotionalism behind that decision has caused all kinds of problems that exist solely because the US funded and streamlined the creation of Israel.
RP: US withdrawl from supernational organizations like the World Bank and the UN
Once again, I'm on the Ron Paul love train. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund do nothing but extort second- and thrid-world nations, holding them effectively hostage for the repayment of their exorbitant loans with horrifyingly impossible interest rates. These leaders of these countries pretend they want to better the standard of living for their fellow citizens, but in reality, most of the money gets pocketed by the elites and the people keep on starving and civil warring. Then the leaders get booted, but then all of a sudden the International Loan Sharks come calling demanding billions and billions of dollars from newly-minted revolutionaries. Nothing else I can think of can crush a soul soul thoroughly.
Also, the UN is a joke. Does no one any good, never gets anything done, and soldiers in powder blue berets don't exactly inspire confidence. Pull out of there quick.
RP: Pro free trade, anti-protectionism, anti-Free Trade Agreements
This is where Ron's politics and mine start to go to the opposite ends. He argues that FTAs don't actually promote free trade and thinks they should be abolished. I could get behind that, because in effect, FTAs only provide free trade for a limited number of trade partners. Not much free about that. However, he says abolish, I say do it right and do it better and do it fairly.
Paul is all about the free trade, the free market, that the market will solve the problem that the banks have gotten us into. I agree with the second part about the banks, but I think that the last 400 years have shown the problem with free trade: people. If I could depend on every business owner, every shareholder, every person to behave in a fiscally responsible manner on the magnitude of the greater good and not just their own personal profit margin, I would preach free trade until tongue fell out. However, my experiences have told me that I cannot depend on everyone to act altruistically (or at least not selfishly). Greed is ever-present, and we as a human society can't seem to overcome it. I have theories about that too, come talk to me later about them.
Ergo, the end result of "free trade" is what we have now: a globalized clusterfuck. The banks run amok, the corporations even amoker since the absolutely inane ruling that gave corporations rights. Who in their right mind gives a non-entity rights? If PETA (whom I loathe, but I'm making a point) can't even convice a tenth of the US population that animals have rights, how did we make it so a computer program and a stack of papers living on a few floors of a New York skyscraper can have rights? Utter bullocks, I say. But this is what happens when you have an unregulated market: greed takes over because it's so easy. And then you don't have healthy competition like every economy textbook likes to pretend that capitalism is all about, innovation and friendly pats on the back where everyone gets richer. Free trade doesn't work.
RP: Anti abortion, pro marijuana legalization
I'm half-and-half on this one. I'm pro choice, pro pot. Why? Because stupid kids, bad people, and harmful cultural practices get girls and women pregnant when they don't want to be and then in many of these cases, their lives are either ruined or endangered. This is called rape. Rape is bad. If no one raped anyone ever, and if everyone was properly and honestly educated about sex, and everyone used protection when they weren't aiming to get pregnant, then you would never have an unwanted pregnancy, and then the abortion argument is moot.
Pro marijuana. I could go on for ages about this, but here's the skinny: alcohol and cigarettes kill millions of people a year. Alcohol poisoning, drunk driving accidents, alcoholic rages, lung cancer, and pulmonary disease. Guess what? You can't overdose on MJ, it has curative properties, you can grow it naturally in the earth with no additives (looking at you, Big Pharma), and--here's the kicker--unless you're allergic, it's harmless. While I don't think you should drive or go to work while you're high, that both the sale and possession thereof are illegal befuddles me to no end.
Besides, if you legalize it, you can tax and regulate it, just like the government already does with America's biggest 4 addictions: alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, and gasoline.
RP: US-Mexico border enforcement and pulling benefits for illegal aliens
Now, I'm not as read up on this topic to know if this is cast in a generally anti-immigration light or not, but seeing as he's a Republican from Texas who is pro border control, I'm going to sya he leans that way. He says that illegal aliens put a toll on social services. I say, only in that they are doing the work that the people scamming welfare aren't doing by and large. I am all for an open border if harsher punishments were given to businesses--large or small, I don't care if you're a struggling mom-and-pop--who pay illegal workers in cash under the table. Not only do they duck their tax obligations, they are doing a disservice to the US as a while. The problem with illegal aliens lies not with the border-crossers themselves, but the people that continue to pay them.
But say someone doesn't have papers, but they're here working, sending money back home to support their family, and they get sick. RP wants to deny them free hospital coverage. I say that's inhuman. Treat the poor man. In fact, why not treat everyone? And why not for free? This is where I might get a bit angry, because this next barb is directed at every self-proclaimed Christian who comes down hard on universal health care. How dare you claim to believe in Jesus and a benevolent God at the same time you would deny treating a sick child whose parents cannot afford the care that you (or your family) can. I don't remember Jesus ever turning away someone looking to be healed because they couldn't pay the deductable. I mean, you pay your church enough--some a flat 10%, others even more at the collection plate or in your fast offerings--but does that entitle you to getting the miracle of healing before someone else? Shame on you, and dishonor on your house.
Alright, I think that's enough for tonight. Ron Paul's got more in his bag-o-tricks than what I've covered but it's late and I have to be places in the morning. But please, if you want to say something--comment and/or call/email/text me/drop by my place. I'd love to chat about this stuff.
0 comments: on "Me and My Politics: Ron Paul"
Post a Comment