The Federal Reserve's interest rate price-setting board, the FOMC, met last week. They will continue to set the federal funds rate at well below 1%, and plan to keep it low until the end of 2014. That's a year and half longer than they planned when they met just last month. Chairman Bernanke says they are keeping interest rates so low for so long because the economic outlook warrants it.
The fallacies in their reasoning would be amusing if they weren't so dangerous. The Fed wants to keep the price of money at essentially zero – in other words "free" – to boost the economy. But the boost they are attempting won't get here for another three years. That's not a recovery. And we've already tried this tactic. That's how we got into this mess in the first place: with interest rates artificially low for a very long time. Free money doesn't stimulate growth, as Japan's two lost decades clearly show. Artificially low interest rates only serve to punish saving, distort market signals, and cause further malinvestment. They also do nothing to address the only real solution to our economic woes: liquidation of the bad debt that hangs around the neck of the world's economy, preventing recovery. Artificially low interest rates merely ensure that we remain a debt-financed consumer economy guaranteed to end up with a weaker economy and higher prices.
What baffles me even more is that two decades after the collapse of Soviet planning and decades more since the U.S. and economists purportedly rejected the idea of price setting, we find nothing wrong with the Fed setting the price of money. We all agree it is a bad idea to have a board saying the price of wheat should be $250 a ton today, or carpenters wages should be $25 an hour until the end of 2014. But we are perfectly comfortable with having a board set the price of one half of every transaction in our economy. And our markets are supposedly free.
The Fed policies of low interest rates, Operation Twist, and rounds of quantitative easing are all attempts to keep the economy alive artificially. But the 12 FOMC participants cannot manage the economy any better than the bureaucrats of the Soviet Union. The policies haven't worked. They won't work. Real economic recovery cannot come until we liquidate the bad debt, until we eradicate the poor decisions we made over the last decade, and start with a sound foundation. It is time we acknowledge the truth of the Fed's activities: they are merely using fancy words for price setting.
Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon was correct in the 1920s when he said "liquidate everything." That's what we did in the severe depression of 1920-21, and we recovered so quickly it is never even talked about. We didn't take his advice after the 1929 crash, and ended up with the Great Depression. We are committing the same mistakes, destined to live in this Great Recession for a decade or more—it has already been four years, the Fed says it will be at least three more! It's time we start rethinking what the Fed's policies are really doing to our economy, because obviously, by their own admission, they haven't helped.
Tuesday
WHAT I THINK........JOE SOBRAN
I guess I’ve known Ron Paul for a quarter of a century now, and I don’t remember how we met. My first memory of him is a quiet dinner on Capitol Hill, during the Reagan years. He told me with dry humor of being the only member of Congress to vote against some bill Reagan wanted passed. For Ron it was a matter of principle, and he was under heavy pressure to change his vote.
What amused him was that the Democrats didn’t mind his voting against it; all the pressure came from his fellow Republicans, professed conservatives, who were embarrassed that anyone should actually stand up for their avowed principles when it was unpopular to do so.
That was Ron Paul for you. Still is. The whole country is getting to know him now, and the Republicans still want to get rid of him. The party’s hacks, led by Newt Gingrich, have even tried in vain to destroy him in his own Texas district.
They’re right, in a way. He doesn’t belong in a party that has made conservative a synonym for destructive. George Will calls him a “useful anachronism” because he actually believes, as literally as circumstances permit, in the U.S. Constitution. In his unassuming way, without priggery or histrionics, he stands alone.
He may have become at last what he has always deserved to be: the most respected member of the U.S. Congress. He is also the only Republican candidate for president who is truly what all the others pretend to be, namely, a conservative. His career shows that a patriotic, pacific conservatism isn’t a paradox.
If they can’t expel Ron Paul from the party, they can at least deny him the nomination. The GOP front-runner, Rudy Giuliani, who says he hates abortion more than any other constitutional right (or words to that effect), went into raptures of phony indignation during the first “debate” when Paul said simply that the 9/11 attacks were a natural result of U.S. foreign policy. The pundits applauded the demagogue, but millions of viewers were thrilled to find one honest man on that crowded stage. (By the way, Paul is a doctor who has delivered thousands of babies and never killed one.)
Ron — I’m very proud to call him my friend — fares well not only in comparison with the party’s sorry current candidates, but also with its legendary conservative giants, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. He lacks their charisma and of course Reagan’s matchless charm, but he excels them both in consistency, depth, historical awareness, courage, and honor. Heaven grant him some of Reagan’s luck!
Which brings us to the big question: does Ron Paul have a prayer? Well, he may have a prayer, but that’s about it. He doesn’t have a billion dollars; delivering babies, often free of charge, is not the way to amass a staggering fortune. He has nothing to offer the special and foreign interests who pour millions into Rudy’s and Hillary’s coffers. Sorry, this isn’t a Frank Capra movie.
But virtue — honor — is rare enough to be an asset, especially when the two big parties don’t have much of it. If both offer pro-war, pro-abortion New York liberals next year, there could be an urgent demand for a third option, especially since Giuliani could smash what’s left of the Bush-riddled GOP coalition while Hillary remains, well, Hillary.
What if Ron Paul runs for president on, say, the Constitution Party ticket? Who knows? I can only attest that to know him is to love him, and knowing him for many years has only deepened the esteem I felt for him when we were both much younger men. This is a man who strikes deep chords in people’s hearts.
Every attempt to portray him as an extremist, or even eccentric, founders on his palpable probity and wisdom. His words are the carefully measured words of one given to meditation. Ron Paul is a man you listen closely to.
The odds are heavily against his being elected president next year. But if he is on the ballot in November, the odds are far heavier against his candidacy’s being forgotten. He will say things worth pondering long after the votes are cast.
Until now, the GOP has been able to contain Paul by pretending he wasn’t there. But the silent treatment can no longer stifle this soft-spoken man. He has been proved right too often.
What amused him was that the Democrats didn’t mind his voting against it; all the pressure came from his fellow Republicans, professed conservatives, who were embarrassed that anyone should actually stand up for their avowed principles when it was unpopular to do so.
That was Ron Paul for you. Still is. The whole country is getting to know him now, and the Republicans still want to get rid of him. The party’s hacks, led by Newt Gingrich, have even tried in vain to destroy him in his own Texas district.
They’re right, in a way. He doesn’t belong in a party that has made conservative a synonym for destructive. George Will calls him a “useful anachronism” because he actually believes, as literally as circumstances permit, in the U.S. Constitution. In his unassuming way, without priggery or histrionics, he stands alone.
He may have become at last what he has always deserved to be: the most respected member of the U.S. Congress. He is also the only Republican candidate for president who is truly what all the others pretend to be, namely, a conservative. His career shows that a patriotic, pacific conservatism isn’t a paradox.
If they can’t expel Ron Paul from the party, they can at least deny him the nomination. The GOP front-runner, Rudy Giuliani, who says he hates abortion more than any other constitutional right (or words to that effect), went into raptures of phony indignation during the first “debate” when Paul said simply that the 9/11 attacks were a natural result of U.S. foreign policy. The pundits applauded the demagogue, but millions of viewers were thrilled to find one honest man on that crowded stage. (By the way, Paul is a doctor who has delivered thousands of babies and never killed one.)
Ron — I’m very proud to call him my friend — fares well not only in comparison with the party’s sorry current candidates, but also with its legendary conservative giants, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. He lacks their charisma and of course Reagan’s matchless charm, but he excels them both in consistency, depth, historical awareness, courage, and honor. Heaven grant him some of Reagan’s luck!
Which brings us to the big question: does Ron Paul have a prayer? Well, he may have a prayer, but that’s about it. He doesn’t have a billion dollars; delivering babies, often free of charge, is not the way to amass a staggering fortune. He has nothing to offer the special and foreign interests who pour millions into Rudy’s and Hillary’s coffers. Sorry, this isn’t a Frank Capra movie.
But virtue — honor — is rare enough to be an asset, especially when the two big parties don’t have much of it. If both offer pro-war, pro-abortion New York liberals next year, there could be an urgent demand for a third option, especially since Giuliani could smash what’s left of the Bush-riddled GOP coalition while Hillary remains, well, Hillary.
What if Ron Paul runs for president on, say, the Constitution Party ticket? Who knows? I can only attest that to know him is to love him, and knowing him for many years has only deepened the esteem I felt for him when we were both much younger men. This is a man who strikes deep chords in people’s hearts.
Every attempt to portray him as an extremist, or even eccentric, founders on his palpable probity and wisdom. His words are the carefully measured words of one given to meditation. Ron Paul is a man you listen closely to.
The odds are heavily against his being elected president next year. But if he is on the ballot in November, the odds are far heavier against his candidacy’s being forgotten. He will say things worth pondering long after the votes are cast.
Until now, the GOP has been able to contain Paul by pretending he wasn’t there. But the silent treatment can no longer stifle this soft-spoken man. He has been proved right too often.
Monday
STOP INTERNET CENSORSHIP
Although Congress was back in session for scarcely more than a day last week, private citizens across the country managed to cause an uproar felt across Capitol Hill. The uproar took the form of hundreds of thousands of phone calls to both Senators and Representatives, urging them to oppose two draconian new bills that threaten the free and unbridled flow of information on the internet.
On Wednesday last week, dozens of prominent websites like Wikipedia, Reddit, and Craigslist, were blacked out in protest of two bills known in DC jargon as SOPA and PIPA. SOPA is the House bill; PIPA is its Senate companion. These bills ostensibly will combat internet piracy, and of course we also are told they will help us wage the never ending "war on terror."
What these bills actually do is force website owners to police the internet; create entry barriers to the only relatively free and open medium of communication; and threaten to break the technological structure of the internet itself. They also violate our 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech and our 4th Amendment freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
SOPA and PIPA have been drafted not only without respect for the Constitution, but also without an understanding of the how the internet works. These bills attack the very system upon which the entire orderly organization of the web depends. Search engines, internet service providers, advertising sites, and sites with user-generated content such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter--all magnificent creations of the market-- are directly threatened by these bills. They will be held responsible if even a single of their millions of users posts even one link to a website that a copyright holder claims is violating a copyright.
Note that under the bills as written, the Department of Justice or a copyright holder do not have to prove that their copyright was violated-- they simply have to claim copyright infringement and an entire site is shut down. The burden of these regulations on the internet will be enormous, shifting resources away from productivity and innovation and into monitoring and censoring. It turns internet companies into involuntary tools for Big Brother government, further eroding our Constitutional rights.
As is typical of so many bills in Congress, SOPA and PIPA were not crafted to make life better for the American people, but rather were written at the behest of big business trying to enlist the federal government as its strong-arm. For example, the Motion Picture Association of America spent more than $1.2 million so far lobbying for their passage.
But the internet community is fighting back effectively, not just with websites that went black but with millions of users who expressed their solidarity. Congressional sponsors of both bills have been jumping ship in response to the outrage. The House Judiciary Committee canceled the SOPA hearing they were planning to hold last Wednesday; the House leadership announced they have no intention of considering this bill; and at the end of the week Senator Reid announced he was postponing the vote until a "compromise" could be reached. The American people are speaking, and with their continued grassroots efforts the marketplace for free ideas and communication will prevail over government controls and censorship.
On Wednesday last week, dozens of prominent websites like Wikipedia, Reddit, and Craigslist, were blacked out in protest of two bills known in DC jargon as SOPA and PIPA. SOPA is the House bill; PIPA is its Senate companion. These bills ostensibly will combat internet piracy, and of course we also are told they will help us wage the never ending "war on terror."
What these bills actually do is force website owners to police the internet; create entry barriers to the only relatively free and open medium of communication; and threaten to break the technological structure of the internet itself. They also violate our 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech and our 4th Amendment freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
SOPA and PIPA have been drafted not only without respect for the Constitution, but also without an understanding of the how the internet works. These bills attack the very system upon which the entire orderly organization of the web depends. Search engines, internet service providers, advertising sites, and sites with user-generated content such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter--all magnificent creations of the market-- are directly threatened by these bills. They will be held responsible if even a single of their millions of users posts even one link to a website that a copyright holder claims is violating a copyright.
Note that under the bills as written, the Department of Justice or a copyright holder do not have to prove that their copyright was violated-- they simply have to claim copyright infringement and an entire site is shut down. The burden of these regulations on the internet will be enormous, shifting resources away from productivity and innovation and into monitoring and censoring. It turns internet companies into involuntary tools for Big Brother government, further eroding our Constitutional rights.
As is typical of so many bills in Congress, SOPA and PIPA were not crafted to make life better for the American people, but rather were written at the behest of big business trying to enlist the federal government as its strong-arm. For example, the Motion Picture Association of America spent more than $1.2 million so far lobbying for their passage.
But the internet community is fighting back effectively, not just with websites that went black but with millions of users who expressed their solidarity. Congressional sponsors of both bills have been jumping ship in response to the outrage. The House Judiciary Committee canceled the SOPA hearing they were planning to hold last Wednesday; the House leadership announced they have no intention of considering this bill; and at the end of the week Senator Reid announced he was postponing the vote until a "compromise" could be reached. The American people are speaking, and with their continued grassroots efforts the marketplace for free ideas and communication will prevail over government controls and censorship.
Thursday
WHAT I THINK........JOHN DeVOE
Ron Paul is an enemy of the people. That is, in a literary sense. In 1882, Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen penned a tragicomedy that, in many ways, mirrors Dr. Ron Paul's political career.
'An Enemy of the People' addresses the irrational tendencies of the masses, and the hypocritical and corrupt nature of the political system that they support. It is the story of one brave man's struggle to do the right thing and speak the truth in the face of extreme social intolerance," according to Wikipedia.
The protagonist of the play, Dr. Stockmann, "is taunted and denounced as a lunatic, an 'Enemy of the People.'" In the end, the well-intentioned doctor loses his friends and reputation, but emboldens himself with these words: the strongest man in the world is the man who stands most alone.
Years ago, I'm ashamed to admit, I dismissed Ron Paul as a crazy old man. Of course, I did so without listening to anything that Dr. Paul had said or reading anything that he wrote. I was parroting what I heard from others (they were probably doing the same.
Then came the financial crisis of 2008, and I was led down a rabbit hole.
The political response to the crisis (bailouts, opacity, rewarding failure) did not sit well with me -- I became obsessed with economics, the Federal Reserve and the track record of U.S. politicians. Within months, I had disavowed political parties (may the best man, or woman, win) and taken an interest in Mr. End the Fed, Ron Paul.
Nobody's Right All the Time (or, Interest Rates are Tough to Predict)
When Ron Paul opposed the war in Iraq in 2002, he was a vocal minority. Unfortunately, his concerns proved valid.
In the same year, Congressman Paul warned of a housing bubble and went so far as to introduce legislation intended to limit taxpayer exposure to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the bill never made it past a committee led by Rep. Mike Oxley and minority ranking member, Rep. Barney Frank).
While Paul's foes -- both Republican and Democrat -- would like to portray him as a stopped clock (unwavering, and only accurate a small percentage of the time), this is simply not the case.
In a speech before Congress, Paul confessed his fears of how America might change in the next five to 10 years. A decade later his warnings seem a lot less crazy, rather, heartfelt and prescient.
A Champion of Conservatism -- and Liberalism?
In 2004, Dr. Keith Poole -- a political science professor at the University of Georgia -- ranked 3,320 politicians (who have held office anytime between 1937-2002) from most liberal to most conservative. Ronald Reagan ranked as 77th most conservative, Barry Goldwater, 50th.
Ron Paul ranked first.
So how can it be that GOP voters (as polled by Rasmussen) view Ron Paul as the least conservative of the GOP candidates? Or that pundits like Dick Morris have referred to Dr. Paul as a left-wing radical. I offer this assessment:
Republicans have forgotten what conservatism once meant:
■conserving the resources and finances of the Republic,
■conserving the lives of American troops, and
■conserving the powers of the federal government.
This is the platform that Republican Congressman Howard Buffett (#40) -- Warren Buffett's father -- once stood on, and this is the platform that Ron Paul stands on now.
However, it is important to note that by conserving the powers of the federal government, this allows for liberal ideas to flourish (should the people of individual states want them to).
But states' rights aren't perfect -- far from.
Under Ron Paul's strict interpretation of the Constitution, states could impose ridiculous, backwards laws that restrict personal freedom. These states, however, would probably suffer an exodus of talented individuals (or the government would soon be overturned).
In essence, states' rights are a form of antitrust act -- it's much easier to escape to one of 49 other states than it is to abandon your citizenship in the face of oppressive federal laws. It's also what our Founding Fathers had in mind.
Not Anybody but Obama
My closest acquaintance s (mostly Republicans) think I'm a nut for my willingness to support Ron Paul because they fear that he (as a third party) will erode the vote of an "electable" GOP candidate, thereby securing a second term for President Obama.
I, too, would find that outcome undesirable -- but I'm no happier with the other side of the coin.
On New Year's Eve, without scrutiny, President Obama codified his ability to detain and imprison American citizens indefinitely, without trial. My acquaintances decry the president for this, yet ignore the fact that the bill received near-unanimous support from Republican legislators. Every GOP presidential candidate -- with the exception of Ron Paul -- has expressed support for overreaching executive power.
Never mind the fact that the U.S. has already abused similar powers (holding an innocent Turkish man prisoner, for years, without charge or trial). We've also assassinated American citizens abroad (one of them a teenager), again, without charge or trial.
This does not make America safer -- it provides our enemies with powerful propaganda and makes America a more attractive target.
The Illusion of Choice (and Change)
Democrats have long voted for war and reduced civil liberties. Republicans have voted for increased government and unbridled spending. Both parties have offered the power of government to the highest bidder.
I once wrote that in choosing a political candidate, Americans should first ask themselves two questions:
1.Would this candidate allow any form of harm (economic, social, physical) to be inflicted on America if it meant scoring a personal or political gain?
2.If not, does this candidate have the wherewithal and strength of character to ask the same question of his or her peers?
In my opinion, Ron Paul passes this test. For that matter, so does a guy like Rep. Dennis Kucinich (167th most liberal), whom I hold in higher esteem than the president or his GOP opponents. Integrity can be found if we look for it.
Where I Stand
I hate guns. Same goes for drugs and war. I believe that rights are, by definition, applicable to all persons of any creed, religion or sexual orientation. I don't think a gold standard is necessary.
I wish that education, housing and health care were available to all Americans, yet I'm realistic enough to admit that our government's involvement in these industries (though well-intentioned), has led to ever-escalating costs. Decades ago, a single income could pay for a home, an education and medical services. Inflation and wage stagnation have made this a distant memory for nearly all Americans.
I don't believe that Ron Paul has all the answers, and if he were elected president, I don't believe that he could achieve most of his policy goals (by his own admission, this is a good thing -- the president is not a dictator).
Nevertheless, Ron Paul has my vote.
My intention in writing all of this is not to persuade you, the reader, to vote for Ron Paul. Persuasion is the tool of political parties, or "pressure groups," as Ludwig von Mises liked to call them.
Instead, I hope that you -- if you have not before -- will stop voting on party lines and instead, trust in your own judgment. Elections are an investment in the future of our country. To that end, I'll leave you with the immortal words of the "father of value investing," Benjamin Graham:
You are neither right nor wrong because the crowd disagrees with you. You are right because your data and reasoning are right.
'An Enemy of the People' addresses the irrational tendencies of the masses, and the hypocritical and corrupt nature of the political system that they support. It is the story of one brave man's struggle to do the right thing and speak the truth in the face of extreme social intolerance," according to Wikipedia.
The protagonist of the play, Dr. Stockmann, "is taunted and denounced as a lunatic, an 'Enemy of the People.'" In the end, the well-intentioned doctor loses his friends and reputation, but emboldens himself with these words: the strongest man in the world is the man who stands most alone.
Years ago, I'm ashamed to admit, I dismissed Ron Paul as a crazy old man. Of course, I did so without listening to anything that Dr. Paul had said or reading anything that he wrote. I was parroting what I heard from others (they were probably doing the same.
Then came the financial crisis of 2008, and I was led down a rabbit hole.
The political response to the crisis (bailouts, opacity, rewarding failure) did not sit well with me -- I became obsessed with economics, the Federal Reserve and the track record of U.S. politicians. Within months, I had disavowed political parties (may the best man, or woman, win) and taken an interest in Mr. End the Fed, Ron Paul.
Nobody's Right All the Time (or, Interest Rates are Tough to Predict)
When Ron Paul opposed the war in Iraq in 2002, he was a vocal minority. Unfortunately, his concerns proved valid.
In the same year, Congressman Paul warned of a housing bubble and went so far as to introduce legislation intended to limit taxpayer exposure to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the bill never made it past a committee led by Rep. Mike Oxley and minority ranking member, Rep. Barney Frank).
While Paul's foes -- both Republican and Democrat -- would like to portray him as a stopped clock (unwavering, and only accurate a small percentage of the time), this is simply not the case.
In a speech before Congress, Paul confessed his fears of how America might change in the next five to 10 years. A decade later his warnings seem a lot less crazy, rather, heartfelt and prescient.
A Champion of Conservatism -- and Liberalism?
In 2004, Dr. Keith Poole -- a political science professor at the University of Georgia -- ranked 3,320 politicians (who have held office anytime between 1937-2002) from most liberal to most conservative. Ronald Reagan ranked as 77th most conservative, Barry Goldwater, 50th.
Ron Paul ranked first.
So how can it be that GOP voters (as polled by Rasmussen) view Ron Paul as the least conservative of the GOP candidates? Or that pundits like Dick Morris have referred to Dr. Paul as a left-wing radical. I offer this assessment:
Republicans have forgotten what conservatism once meant:
■conserving the resources and finances of the Republic,
■conserving the lives of American troops, and
■conserving the powers of the federal government.
This is the platform that Republican Congressman Howard Buffett (#40) -- Warren Buffett's father -- once stood on, and this is the platform that Ron Paul stands on now.
However, it is important to note that by conserving the powers of the federal government, this allows for liberal ideas to flourish (should the people of individual states want them to).
But states' rights aren't perfect -- far from.
Under Ron Paul's strict interpretation of the Constitution, states could impose ridiculous, backwards laws that restrict personal freedom. These states, however, would probably suffer an exodus of talented individuals (or the government would soon be overturned).
In essence, states' rights are a form of antitrust act -- it's much easier to escape to one of 49 other states than it is to abandon your citizenship in the face of oppressive federal laws. It's also what our Founding Fathers had in mind.
Not Anybody but Obama
My closest acquaintance s (mostly Republicans) think I'm a nut for my willingness to support Ron Paul because they fear that he (as a third party) will erode the vote of an "electable" GOP candidate, thereby securing a second term for President Obama.
I, too, would find that outcome undesirable -- but I'm no happier with the other side of the coin.
On New Year's Eve, without scrutiny, President Obama codified his ability to detain and imprison American citizens indefinitely, without trial. My acquaintances decry the president for this, yet ignore the fact that the bill received near-unanimous support from Republican legislators. Every GOP presidential candidate -- with the exception of Ron Paul -- has expressed support for overreaching executive power.
Never mind the fact that the U.S. has already abused similar powers (holding an innocent Turkish man prisoner, for years, without charge or trial). We've also assassinated American citizens abroad (one of them a teenager), again, without charge or trial.
This does not make America safer -- it provides our enemies with powerful propaganda and makes America a more attractive target.
The Illusion of Choice (and Change)
Democrats have long voted for war and reduced civil liberties. Republicans have voted for increased government and unbridled spending. Both parties have offered the power of government to the highest bidder.
I once wrote that in choosing a political candidate, Americans should first ask themselves two questions:
1.Would this candidate allow any form of harm (economic, social, physical) to be inflicted on America if it meant scoring a personal or political gain?
2.If not, does this candidate have the wherewithal and strength of character to ask the same question of his or her peers?
In my opinion, Ron Paul passes this test. For that matter, so does a guy like Rep. Dennis Kucinich (167th most liberal), whom I hold in higher esteem than the president or his GOP opponents. Integrity can be found if we look for it.
Where I Stand
I hate guns. Same goes for drugs and war. I believe that rights are, by definition, applicable to all persons of any creed, religion or sexual orientation. I don't think a gold standard is necessary.
I wish that education, housing and health care were available to all Americans, yet I'm realistic enough to admit that our government's involvement in these industries (though well-intentioned), has led to ever-escalating costs. Decades ago, a single income could pay for a home, an education and medical services. Inflation and wage stagnation have made this a distant memory for nearly all Americans.
I don't believe that Ron Paul has all the answers, and if he were elected president, I don't believe that he could achieve most of his policy goals (by his own admission, this is a good thing -- the president is not a dictator).
Nevertheless, Ron Paul has my vote.
My intention in writing all of this is not to persuade you, the reader, to vote for Ron Paul. Persuasion is the tool of political parties, or "pressure groups," as Ludwig von Mises liked to call them.
Instead, I hope that you -- if you have not before -- will stop voting on party lines and instead, trust in your own judgment. Elections are an investment in the future of our country. To that end, I'll leave you with the immortal words of the "father of value investing," Benjamin Graham:
You are neither right nor wrong because the crowd disagrees with you. You are right because your data and reasoning are right.
WHAT I THINK.........MARK CROVELLI
Republicans sure have short memories. It was just four years ago that they went to the polls in the primaries and elected the most "moderate" and "electable" candidate they could find in the hope that they had a man who was palatable to the general population. Their reward for their unprincipled pragmatism was an ass-kicking in the general election that few Americans will ever forget. John McCain and Sarah Palin certainly won’t forget it.
Four years later, having learned absolutely nothing from the election of 2008, Republican voters are once again lining up behind the most moderate and supposedly "electable" candidate that they can find in the pragmatic hope that they can beat Obama in the general election. They have become so unprincipled and pragmatic, in fact, that they are lining up behind the very man who brought European-style socialized medicine to our fair shores, simply because they have been told that he is more "electable" than anyone else in the field. How they can expect an outcome that’s better than four years ago is difficult to fathom, unless they think that their new moderate’s plastic hair can compensate for his obvious blandness.
In one respect, moreover, the selection of this particular "moderate" is even more ridiculous than the selection of the kooky moderate four years ago. This guy came in second place in the primaries to the "moderate" who got his ass handed to him in the general election. Think about that for a minute. This guy was moderate enough to come in second in the primaries four years ago, when the Republicans first decided to eschew principle and select a moderate, and yet he was deemed less "electable" than the guy who lost so badly.
In other words, if the more "electable" moderate got his ass kicked four years ago, how badly is the second-place moderate going to do this time around?
Here’s a novel idea for Republicans: Vote based upon principle, not based upon whatever the bobble-headed morons in the media establishment say is strategically expedient. Your strategic pragmatism got you nowhere four years ago. Young people and independents in this country are not any more impressed with bland flip-floppers from Massachusetts than they are impressed with nut-job moderates from Arizona. These guys don’t even impress Republicans themselves. If they want a "moderate" who stands for war and socialized medicine, they might as well stick with the moderate, warmongering socialist they already have.
How about nominating someone who has a record of standing up for individual liberty for once? How about nominating someone who believes in the Constitution for once? How about nominating someone who opposes liberal nation-building and warmongering for once? How about voting for a real capitalist for once?
In other words, how about voting based upon your own damn principles for once, instead of voting like pragmatic Trotskyites taking strategic orders from the political-media establishment? Forget this ridiculous, immoral and futile idea of "electability" and vote for Ron Paul and the principles of your own party.
Four years later, having learned absolutely nothing from the election of 2008, Republican voters are once again lining up behind the most moderate and supposedly "electable" candidate that they can find in the pragmatic hope that they can beat Obama in the general election. They have become so unprincipled and pragmatic, in fact, that they are lining up behind the very man who brought European-style socialized medicine to our fair shores, simply because they have been told that he is more "electable" than anyone else in the field. How they can expect an outcome that’s better than four years ago is difficult to fathom, unless they think that their new moderate’s plastic hair can compensate for his obvious blandness.
In one respect, moreover, the selection of this particular "moderate" is even more ridiculous than the selection of the kooky moderate four years ago. This guy came in second place in the primaries to the "moderate" who got his ass handed to him in the general election. Think about that for a minute. This guy was moderate enough to come in second in the primaries four years ago, when the Republicans first decided to eschew principle and select a moderate, and yet he was deemed less "electable" than the guy who lost so badly.
In other words, if the more "electable" moderate got his ass kicked four years ago, how badly is the second-place moderate going to do this time around?
Here’s a novel idea for Republicans: Vote based upon principle, not based upon whatever the bobble-headed morons in the media establishment say is strategically expedient. Your strategic pragmatism got you nowhere four years ago. Young people and independents in this country are not any more impressed with bland flip-floppers from Massachusetts than they are impressed with nut-job moderates from Arizona. These guys don’t even impress Republicans themselves. If they want a "moderate" who stands for war and socialized medicine, they might as well stick with the moderate, warmongering socialist they already have.
How about nominating someone who has a record of standing up for individual liberty for once? How about nominating someone who believes in the Constitution for once? How about nominating someone who opposes liberal nation-building and warmongering for once? How about voting for a real capitalist for once?
In other words, how about voting based upon your own damn principles for once, instead of voting like pragmatic Trotskyites taking strategic orders from the political-media establishment? Forget this ridiculous, immoral and futile idea of "electability" and vote for Ron Paul and the principles of your own party.
WHAT I THINK.......TOM DiLORENZO
Yet another neocon Republican establishment political hack has demonstrated ignorance, deceit, and bad manners in yet another attack on Ron Paul. This time it is one Jeffrey Lord, a "contributing editor" to The American Spectator magazine. Writing in a January 15 article on the Philly.com Web site, Lord feigns outrage over the fact that five years ago Ron Paul told NBC’s "Meet the Press" that the Civil War was unnecessary to end slavery. Lord is being deceitful here by taking what Ron Paul said out of context. I remember Ron Paul’s appearance on that show, and the point he was making was that all the rest of the world – the British, Spaniards, French, Dutch, Danes, Swedes, the Northern states in the U.S. – ended slavery peacefully in the nineteenth century. His point was that we should have done what the British did, and used tax dollars to purchase the freedom of the slaves and then ended it forever. That, Said Ron Paul, would have been preferable to a war that ended up killing over 650,000 Americans (850,000 according the the very latest historical research) while destroying a large part of the U.S. economy. Lord is obviously ignorant of all of this history.
Lord cites my book, The Real Lincoln, to feign additional outrage over the fact that I supposedly called Lincoln a "Dictator-President." He apparently suffered a case of the vapors when he discovered that Ron Paul listed The Real Lincoln as "recommended reading" at the end of his own book, Revolution: A Manifesto. I don’t ever recall ever using those exact words about Lincoln, but I do know that generations of historians have routinely referred to "the Lincoln dicatatorhip," although usually calling it a benign dictatorship. They have done this because of Lincoln’s illegal suspension of Habeas Corpus, the mass imprisonment of tens of thousands of Northern political dissenters, the shutting down of hundreds of opposition newspapers, the deportation of opposition member of Congress Clement L. Vallandigham, the rigging of elections, and worse. (Read Freedom Under Lincoln by Dean Sprague; and Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln by James Randall). Lord is obviously ignorant of these historical facts as well.
Jeffrey Lord is simply lying when he writes that "[Ron] Paul shares with DiLorenzo the belief that the war was not fought over issues of Union . . ." That in fact is exactly what I have argued in my writings. Southerners (and most Northern newspaper editors as well, by the way) believed that the union was voluntary, that the states that ratified the Constitution were sovereign, and that they therefore had a right to join or not join the Union. Lincoln believed that the union was a compulsory union from which there could never under any circumstances be any escape, and that he consequently had a right to wage total war on the civilian population of the South to "save the union." I have argued that Lincoln destroyed the American union of the founders, which was in fact a voluntary union.
I have also quoted Lincoln himself as saying that his invasion of the Southern states was not to free the slaves but to "save the union" by destroying the right of secession. Lord expresses additional outrage that I have repeated Lincoln’s own views in my writing, instead of the comic book version of history that he prefers, which says that Lincoln launched an invasion to supposedly free the slaves. Of course, the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress also announced to the world at the beginning of the Civil War that the purpose of the war was not to interfere with slavery but to "save the union." Jeffrey Lord is obviously ignorant of this aspect of American history as well.
What’s even worse, says Jeffrey Lord, many contributors to LewRockwell.com, such as myself, "are no fans" of some of the more notorious members of the neocon cabal such as "William F. Buckley, Jr., Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin"!! To this I plead guilty. Why, even "Rick Santorum also makes the list" of political figures who have been criticized by people like myself on LewRockwell.com. Off with our heads!
Jeffrey Lord also lies when he writes that "The Constitution, DiLorenzo maintains, is a ‘subversion’ orchestrated by Founding Father Alexander Hamilton to overthrow what DiLorenzo calls America’s first constitution – the Articles of Confederation." First of all, I am hardly the first to note that the Constitution overthrew the Articles of Confederation. Scholars have been saying this for more than 200 years, but Jeffrey Lord is of course ignorant of this fact as well.
Secondly, I have never argued that Hamilton "orchestrated" the Constitution as some kind of "subversion." Hamilton was essentially the original neocon, who showed up at the constitutional convention advocating a permanent president who would appoint all state governors, who would in turn have veto power over all state legislation. He did not get his way; the Constitution did not create a king, nor did it allow for the creation of an interventionist, mercantilist, corporate welfare empire of the sort Hamilton desired. (It wouldn’t be until the Lincoln administration that that was achieved). Hamilton did invent the idea of "implied powers" of the Constitution, and was the first to make the expansive interpretations of the Welfare and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution that have been used to essentially destroy the ability of the Constitution to limit the growth of government. I explain the Hamiltonian subversion of the Constitution that took place for decades after Hamilton’s death in my book, Hamilton’s Curse.
Perhaps the most ridiculous part of Jeffrey Lord’s rant is that he invokes the left-wing hate group known as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as one of his "authorities" in criticizing Ron Paul (and me). The SPLC espouses a communistic political philosophy and is so radical that it holds the confessed terrorist and murderer William Ayers up as a role model for children on its Web site, along with a woman named "Red Emma" Goldman, a twentieth-century communist who advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government in order to adopt communism in America. (Ayers admitted setting off bombs at the Capitol Building in Washington and at police stations in the 1960s, and recently told the New York Times that he wishes he had set off even more bombs).
The modus oprandi of the SPLC is to publicly label any and all critics of its left-wing extremism as "haters" or somehow "linked to" hate groups. When the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. sponsored a public lecture on immigration policy, for example, the SPLC accused AEI of "mainstreaming hate." The scholars at AEI are all really KKK guys in nice suits, you see. When the TEA Party movement was formed as a response to Obama’s mad rush to socialism the SPLC issued a special report on the movement that had the subtitle, "The Year in Hate." These are the kinds of people who Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator magazine chooses to associate himself with to assist him in his ignorant smears of Ron Paul and me.
Lord cites my book, The Real Lincoln, to feign additional outrage over the fact that I supposedly called Lincoln a "Dictator-President." He apparently suffered a case of the vapors when he discovered that Ron Paul listed The Real Lincoln as "recommended reading" at the end of his own book, Revolution: A Manifesto. I don’t ever recall ever using those exact words about Lincoln, but I do know that generations of historians have routinely referred to "the Lincoln dicatatorhip," although usually calling it a benign dictatorship. They have done this because of Lincoln’s illegal suspension of Habeas Corpus, the mass imprisonment of tens of thousands of Northern political dissenters, the shutting down of hundreds of opposition newspapers, the deportation of opposition member of Congress Clement L. Vallandigham, the rigging of elections, and worse. (Read Freedom Under Lincoln by Dean Sprague; and Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln by James Randall). Lord is obviously ignorant of these historical facts as well.
Jeffrey Lord is simply lying when he writes that "[Ron] Paul shares with DiLorenzo the belief that the war was not fought over issues of Union . . ." That in fact is exactly what I have argued in my writings. Southerners (and most Northern newspaper editors as well, by the way) believed that the union was voluntary, that the states that ratified the Constitution were sovereign, and that they therefore had a right to join or not join the Union. Lincoln believed that the union was a compulsory union from which there could never under any circumstances be any escape, and that he consequently had a right to wage total war on the civilian population of the South to "save the union." I have argued that Lincoln destroyed the American union of the founders, which was in fact a voluntary union.
I have also quoted Lincoln himself as saying that his invasion of the Southern states was not to free the slaves but to "save the union" by destroying the right of secession. Lord expresses additional outrage that I have repeated Lincoln’s own views in my writing, instead of the comic book version of history that he prefers, which says that Lincoln launched an invasion to supposedly free the slaves. Of course, the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress also announced to the world at the beginning of the Civil War that the purpose of the war was not to interfere with slavery but to "save the union." Jeffrey Lord is obviously ignorant of this aspect of American history as well.
What’s even worse, says Jeffrey Lord, many contributors to LewRockwell.com, such as myself, "are no fans" of some of the more notorious members of the neocon cabal such as "William F. Buckley, Jr., Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin"!! To this I plead guilty. Why, even "Rick Santorum also makes the list" of political figures who have been criticized by people like myself on LewRockwell.com. Off with our heads!
Jeffrey Lord also lies when he writes that "The Constitution, DiLorenzo maintains, is a ‘subversion’ orchestrated by Founding Father Alexander Hamilton to overthrow what DiLorenzo calls America’s first constitution – the Articles of Confederation." First of all, I am hardly the first to note that the Constitution overthrew the Articles of Confederation. Scholars have been saying this for more than 200 years, but Jeffrey Lord is of course ignorant of this fact as well.
Secondly, I have never argued that Hamilton "orchestrated" the Constitution as some kind of "subversion." Hamilton was essentially the original neocon, who showed up at the constitutional convention advocating a permanent president who would appoint all state governors, who would in turn have veto power over all state legislation. He did not get his way; the Constitution did not create a king, nor did it allow for the creation of an interventionist, mercantilist, corporate welfare empire of the sort Hamilton desired. (It wouldn’t be until the Lincoln administration that that was achieved). Hamilton did invent the idea of "implied powers" of the Constitution, and was the first to make the expansive interpretations of the Welfare and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution that have been used to essentially destroy the ability of the Constitution to limit the growth of government. I explain the Hamiltonian subversion of the Constitution that took place for decades after Hamilton’s death in my book, Hamilton’s Curse.
Perhaps the most ridiculous part of Jeffrey Lord’s rant is that he invokes the left-wing hate group known as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as one of his "authorities" in criticizing Ron Paul (and me). The SPLC espouses a communistic political philosophy and is so radical that it holds the confessed terrorist and murderer William Ayers up as a role model for children on its Web site, along with a woman named "Red Emma" Goldman, a twentieth-century communist who advocated the violent overthrow of the U.S. government in order to adopt communism in America. (Ayers admitted setting off bombs at the Capitol Building in Washington and at police stations in the 1960s, and recently told the New York Times that he wishes he had set off even more bombs).
The modus oprandi of the SPLC is to publicly label any and all critics of its left-wing extremism as "haters" or somehow "linked to" hate groups. When the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. sponsored a public lecture on immigration policy, for example, the SPLC accused AEI of "mainstreaming hate." The scholars at AEI are all really KKK guys in nice suits, you see. When the TEA Party movement was formed as a response to Obama’s mad rush to socialism the SPLC issued a special report on the movement that had the subtitle, "The Year in Hate." These are the kinds of people who Jeffrey Lord of The American Spectator magazine chooses to associate himself with to assist him in his ignorant smears of Ron Paul and me.
Friday
WHAT I THINK........PAT BUCHANAN
Last May, Ron Paul filed his financial disclosure form, and The Wall Street Journal enlisted financial analyst William Bernstein to scrutinize his investments.
"Paul's portfolio isn't merely different," said an astonished Journal, "it's shockingly different."
Twenty-one percent of his $2.4 to $5.5 million was in real estate, 14 percent in cash. He owns no bonds. Only 0.1 percent is invested in stocks, and Paul bought these "short," betting the price will plunge. Every other nickel is sunk into gold and silver mining companies.
Bernstein "had never seen such an extreme bet on economic catastrophe," said the Journal.
"This portfolio," said Bernstein, "is a half step away from a cellar-full of canned goods and 9-millimeter rounds."
"You can say this for Ron Paul," conceded the Journal. "In investing as in politics, (Paul) has the courage of his convictions."
Indeed, he does. Paul's investments mirror his belief that the empire of debt is coming down and Western governments will never repay – in dollars of the same value – what they have borrowed.
And here we come to the reason Paul ran a strong third in Iowa and a clear second in New Hampshire. He is a conviction politician and, like Barry Goldwater and George McGovern, the candidate of a cause.
Aware it is unlikely he will ever be president, the 76-year-old soldiers on in the belief that this cause will one day triumph in a party where he was, not long ago, seen as an odd duck, but a party where today he speaks for a national constituency.
It is easy to understand why the young are attracted to him. There is a consistency here no other candidate can match.
Republicans may deplore the GOP Great Society of Bush 43. Paul stood almost alone in voting against every Bush measure. By two-to-one, Americans now believe the Iraq War was a mistake. Paul, alone among the candidates, opposed the war.
And because his campaign is about a cause larger than himself, it is a safe bet he will not quit this race until the last caucuses have met and the last primary has been held.
Prediction: Paul will go into the Tampa, Fla., convention with more delegates than any other candidate save the nominee of the party.
There is a gnawing fear in the GOP that Paul will quit the party when the primaries are over and run as a third-party candidate on the Libertarian or some other line in the November election.
Not going to happen. Such a decision would sunder the movement Paul has pulled together, bring about his own and his party's certain defeat in November, and re-elect Barack Obama.
Paul would become a pariah in his party, while his son, Sen. Rand Paul, who would be forced to endorse his father over the GOP nominee, would be ruined as a future Republican leader.
Why would Dr. Paul do this, when the future inside the GOP looks bright not only for him but for his son?
The course Ron Paul will likely take, then, is this.
Commit to this nomination battle all the way to Tampa, contest every primary and caucus, amass a maximum of delegates.
If Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich lose in South Carolina, they will lose in Florida, and begin to peel off and drop out, for none is a cause candidate and each will soon come to realize that his presidential aspirations are done for now if not for good.
Their departure will leave the Republican contest a Romney-Paul race, giving Paul half a year on the campaign trail to increase his visibility, enlarge his following, grow his mailing lists and broaden his donor base.
In return for a commitment to campaign for the ticket, Paul should demand a prime-time speaking slot at the convention and use the speech to emulate Barry Goldwater in 1960 when he admonished conservatives at the convention to "grow up," so that "we can take this party back."
Assuming the nominee is Mitt Romney, should he win in the fall and Paul has campaigned for him, Paul will not only have a friend in the White House, but be a respected figure in the party with a constituency all his own.
Most important to Paul are the issues he has campaigned on: a new transparency and accountability for the Federal Reserve, a downsizing of the American empire, and an end to U.S. interventions in foreign quarrels and wars that are none of our business.
Whether Paul goes home to Texas when his last term in Congress is over in January 2013, or whether he remains in Washington in a policy institute to advance the causes he believes in, his views will be sought out by the major media on all the issues he cares about.
Moreover, his fears of a coming collapse, manifest in his portfolio, could come to pass, making of Ron Paul a prophet in his own time.
"Paul's portfolio isn't merely different," said an astonished Journal, "it's shockingly different."
Twenty-one percent of his $2.4 to $5.5 million was in real estate, 14 percent in cash. He owns no bonds. Only 0.1 percent is invested in stocks, and Paul bought these "short," betting the price will plunge. Every other nickel is sunk into gold and silver mining companies.
Bernstein "had never seen such an extreme bet on economic catastrophe," said the Journal.
"This portfolio," said Bernstein, "is a half step away from a cellar-full of canned goods and 9-millimeter rounds."
"You can say this for Ron Paul," conceded the Journal. "In investing as in politics, (Paul) has the courage of his convictions."
Indeed, he does. Paul's investments mirror his belief that the empire of debt is coming down and Western governments will never repay – in dollars of the same value – what they have borrowed.
And here we come to the reason Paul ran a strong third in Iowa and a clear second in New Hampshire. He is a conviction politician and, like Barry Goldwater and George McGovern, the candidate of a cause.
Aware it is unlikely he will ever be president, the 76-year-old soldiers on in the belief that this cause will one day triumph in a party where he was, not long ago, seen as an odd duck, but a party where today he speaks for a national constituency.
It is easy to understand why the young are attracted to him. There is a consistency here no other candidate can match.
Republicans may deplore the GOP Great Society of Bush 43. Paul stood almost alone in voting against every Bush measure. By two-to-one, Americans now believe the Iraq War was a mistake. Paul, alone among the candidates, opposed the war.
And because his campaign is about a cause larger than himself, it is a safe bet he will not quit this race until the last caucuses have met and the last primary has been held.
Prediction: Paul will go into the Tampa, Fla., convention with more delegates than any other candidate save the nominee of the party.
There is a gnawing fear in the GOP that Paul will quit the party when the primaries are over and run as a third-party candidate on the Libertarian or some other line in the November election.
Not going to happen. Such a decision would sunder the movement Paul has pulled together, bring about his own and his party's certain defeat in November, and re-elect Barack Obama.
Paul would become a pariah in his party, while his son, Sen. Rand Paul, who would be forced to endorse his father over the GOP nominee, would be ruined as a future Republican leader.
Why would Dr. Paul do this, when the future inside the GOP looks bright not only for him but for his son?
The course Ron Paul will likely take, then, is this.
Commit to this nomination battle all the way to Tampa, contest every primary and caucus, amass a maximum of delegates.
If Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich lose in South Carolina, they will lose in Florida, and begin to peel off and drop out, for none is a cause candidate and each will soon come to realize that his presidential aspirations are done for now if not for good.
Their departure will leave the Republican contest a Romney-Paul race, giving Paul half a year on the campaign trail to increase his visibility, enlarge his following, grow his mailing lists and broaden his donor base.
In return for a commitment to campaign for the ticket, Paul should demand a prime-time speaking slot at the convention and use the speech to emulate Barry Goldwater in 1960 when he admonished conservatives at the convention to "grow up," so that "we can take this party back."
Assuming the nominee is Mitt Romney, should he win in the fall and Paul has campaigned for him, Paul will not only have a friend in the White House, but be a respected figure in the party with a constituency all his own.
Most important to Paul are the issues he has campaigned on: a new transparency and accountability for the Federal Reserve, a downsizing of the American empire, and an end to U.S. interventions in foreign quarrels and wars that are none of our business.
Whether Paul goes home to Texas when his last term in Congress is over in January 2013, or whether he remains in Washington in a policy institute to advance the causes he believes in, his views will be sought out by the major media on all the issues he cares about.
Moreover, his fears of a coming collapse, manifest in his portfolio, could come to pass, making of Ron Paul a prophet in his own time.
Monday
THE ULTIMATE CONSUMER PROTECTION
This week, partisan games in Washington reached a fevered pitch as Congress acted to prevent recess appointments, yet the administration made them anyway. Congress has been gaveling into session for less than a minute every three days for the express purpose of technically staying in session. The 40 second "pro forma" sessions may strike supporters of the President as obstructionist, but Congress was using its clear constitutional authority and playing by the rules. Frustrated, the President simply disregarded the Constitution, and appointed Richard Cordray as head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Board, and Sharon Block, Richard Griffin, and Terence Flynn to the National Labor Relations Board anyway.
Playing fast and loose with the Constitution only gets worse with every administration. Because of the dangerous precedents being set, both parties would be wise to defend constitutional bounds, no matter who crosses the line. Defending a constitutional overstep always comes back to haunt them once power changes hands.
The Obama administration expressed extreme frustration with the Senate's refusal to confirm its nominees. The truth is, for better or worse, these are the cards the voters have dealt Washington. The Constitution, with its system of checks and balances, not only allows for gridlock, it practically guarantees some degree of it. The Founders knew that gridlock can be a very good thing. If nothing can be agreed upon in Washington, harm to the country is limited. Considering the Obama administration's ideas of what caused our problems, and how to solve them, the wisdom of the founders certainly shines through today.
According to the administration, the new Consumer Financial Protection Board is an absolute necessity. Another bureaucracy, with more rules and red tape and paperwork and procedures is supposed to protect the people from bad actors in the marketplace. On the contrary, the answer was staring us in the face in late 2008 when these bad banks and corporations threatened to go belly-up. The laws of economics were working to remove corrupt companies from the market forever, to never abuse or defraud another customer or depositor or shareholder again. Bankruptcy is the ultimate consumer protection, and what did Washington do? It protected the banks instead, and created more bureaucrats.
This is exactly why constitutionally-inflicted gridlock should be respected. But instead it is clearer than ever that we are now a nation ruled by men, not laws. This nation needs to respect the Constitution again. No exceptions. The oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution is still in effect when checks and balances get in the way of a political agenda. If not, it has no meaning at all.
Playing fast and loose with the Constitution only gets worse with every administration. Because of the dangerous precedents being set, both parties would be wise to defend constitutional bounds, no matter who crosses the line. Defending a constitutional overstep always comes back to haunt them once power changes hands.
The Obama administration expressed extreme frustration with the Senate's refusal to confirm its nominees. The truth is, for better or worse, these are the cards the voters have dealt Washington. The Constitution, with its system of checks and balances, not only allows for gridlock, it practically guarantees some degree of it. The Founders knew that gridlock can be a very good thing. If nothing can be agreed upon in Washington, harm to the country is limited. Considering the Obama administration's ideas of what caused our problems, and how to solve them, the wisdom of the founders certainly shines through today.
According to the administration, the new Consumer Financial Protection Board is an absolute necessity. Another bureaucracy, with more rules and red tape and paperwork and procedures is supposed to protect the people from bad actors in the marketplace. On the contrary, the answer was staring us in the face in late 2008 when these bad banks and corporations threatened to go belly-up. The laws of economics were working to remove corrupt companies from the market forever, to never abuse or defraud another customer or depositor or shareholder again. Bankruptcy is the ultimate consumer protection, and what did Washington do? It protected the banks instead, and created more bureaucrats.
This is exactly why constitutionally-inflicted gridlock should be respected. But instead it is clearer than ever that we are now a nation ruled by men, not laws. This nation needs to respect the Constitution again. No exceptions. The oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution is still in effect when checks and balances get in the way of a political agenda. If not, it has no meaning at all.
WHAT I THINK........JUSTIN RAIMONDO
The results of the Iowa caucus have the news media spinning a "victory" for Mitt Romney, the Goldman-Sachs candidate, and the supposedly all-but-inevitable nominee of his party. Just why he was deemed the "frontrunner" before even a single vote had been cast is a mystery known only to the professional pundits, who seem to have bestowed this title on him because of his perfect hair and his perfectly unauthentic persona. Romney is the Stepford Candidate, robotically repeating those phrases which are expected of him with all the conviction of a simulacrum. Which leads one to wonder: how can this preprogrammed human automaton ever hope to defeat the personable and relatively authentic Obama?
For those with more imagination, the victor in this fight has been Rick Santorum, whose surge toward the end put him within a dozen or so votes of Romney. Hours after the results were announced, we were treated to the sight of breathless commentators anointing a candidate with no money and no real conservative credentials as the One True Anti-Romney who could snatch the crown from Mitt’s brow.
The Iowa caucus results are supposed to be all about "expectations," which begs the question: whose expectations? Why, the mainstream media’s, of course, a fact which – you’ll note – allows these guardians of the conventional wisdom to play their key role as the final arbiters of what all this voting means. And the formulaic "spin" had been determined far in advance: if Romney won, then his coronation was supposed to be foreordained. If anybody but Romney won, it would simply delay Romney’s final victory. If Ron Paul won, then the Iowa caucuses would henceforth be deemed "irrelevant."
Peter Feaver, writing on foreignpolicy.com, was typically dismissive of Paul’s showing:
"The Iowa results probably indicate that there will not be a big crack-up within the Republican party on foreign policy because the caucus returns are likely to be the high-water mark for the candidate with the most distinctive foreign policy platform in the field: Ron Paul. He did well enough to gain another week of press attention. But in the one contest best-suited to his unusual political operation, Paul did not beat expectations. He would have to really surprise in New Hampshire in order to remain relevant in the later primaries, and those are likely to be even tougher terrain for him."
It’s all about "press attention" – but what if it isn’t? What if it’s possible to bypass the traditional gatekeepers and create a movement weaned on alternative media and rising populist anger at the Washington-New York power elite? Because that is precisely what Paul has done, and that movement has hardly crested in the wilds of Iowa: it’s only owing to a deficiency of imagination on the part of Feaver and his confreres, a curious sort of tunnel vision, that allows them that assumption.
The reality of Paul’s accomplishment is clear, as the feisty congressman pointed out in his final Iowa speech to his supporters:
"But also, the great strides that we have made has been really on foreign policy. The fact that we can once again talk in Republican circles and make it credible. Talk about what Eisenhower said that beware of the military-industrial complex. Talk about the old days when Robert Taft, Mr. Republican, said that we shouldn’t be engaged in these entangling alliance. He believed what the founders taught us. He didn’t even want to be in NATO. We certainly don’t need NATO and the UN telling us when to go to war.
"But we have seen a great difference. The majority of the American people are behind us on this whole war effort. They’re tired of the war. Cost too much money. Too many people get killed. Too many people get injured. Too many people get sick. And the majority – maybe 70% or 80% – of the American people now are saying it’s time to get out of Afghanistan."
At every debate, and every campaign appearance, Paul is transforming the discourse. Forced to start noticing him due to his steadily climbing poll numbers, the mainstream media invariably dismissed his ability to expand beyond a narrow libertarian base, which was supposedly limited by his "isolationist" foreign policy views. Yet he managed to pull off what was essentially a three-way tie, denying the alleged frontrunner and the media-anointed "conservative" a clear victory.
I’ll note, in passing, that Democrats opposed to our aggressive foreign policy are almost never described as "isolationists," and one can hardly imagine a reporter referring to the demonstrations protesting the Iraq war as "isolationist" rallies. The left-right, red state-blue state lens the media clamps over every event distorts and masks a somewhat more complex underlying reality.
Much has been made of Paul’s youthful constituency, and his lead in commanding the support of political independents and Democrats who signed up as Republicans for the evening, and yet less is said about the 18 percent of evangelicals who cast their lot with the one presidential candidate who wants to dismantle the Empire. In spite of a relentless smear campaign led by Fox News and the neoconservative would-be policemen of the right, nearly a quarter of Iowa Republicans stood with Paul at the caucuses.
The icing on this cake is that the candidate made no attempt to downplay or hide his supposedly "controversial" foreign policy views: indeed, he emphasized them even when he was talking about domestic policy, tying the conservative project of dismantling the federal Leviathan to the need to drop the burden of empire. That over 20 percent of Iowa caucus-goers voted to endorse Paul’s uncompromising anti-interventionism scares the bejesus out of the GOP establishment because the Paulians aren’t going to go away. Well-funded and blessed with a growing army of enthusiastic volunteers, the Paul campaign has the resources to go all the way to Tampa.
The Iowa results lay bare the contours of the GOP’s constituency, and the changing face of the American right. The Romney camp represents the often-pronounced dead but never quite moribund Eastern Establishment or "moderate" wing of the Republican party. Santorum, for his part, is an unrepentant Bushian Republican, although you’ll never hear that name pass his lips. Ideologically, he represents Big Government conservatism married to an impossibly bellicose foreign policy which has us bombing Iran next week. In this, he is simply a younger, slimmer Newt Gingrich, with two less wives: it’s no surprise the original Newt has proposed a non-aggression pact with Santorum, offering to serve as Rick’s attack dog against Romney.
The real news out of Iowa is that the terms of the foreign policy debate in this country are being changed, and it’s all due to Paul’s singular voice. For the first time since the Vietnam war era, the electorate is being given the chance to vote for or against our foreign policy of perpetual war. What’s more, that battle is being fought inside the party that presided over and directed America’s post-9/11 rampage through the Muslim world: the very heart of the War Party’s territory. That this debate is even taking place is a victory in itself. Airily dismissed in the salons of Georgetown and Manhattan’s Upper West Side as a "fringe" candidate and the GOP’s "crazy old uncle," Paul’s solid showing demonstrated his growing political clout.
The various "conservative" aspirers to the role of the Anti-Romney all crashed and burned because the various strands of conservative thought they embodied have all failed to provide Americans with any way out of the crisis we face. Bachmann’s paint-by-numbers sloganeering and her reputation as a fount of misinformation, Cain’s cynical and formulaic pragmatism, Perry’s pastiche of Bush II, Newt’s warmed-over "compassionate conservatism" served up with a dollop of corruption – all have failed miserably in the realm of ideas, as well as at the ballot box.
Santorum represents the last best hope of the same neocons who led the Republicans to defeat in 2008. When Santorum denies the very existence of the Palestinians as a people he is appealing to the Likud wing of the GOP – a constituency hotly contested by Romney, whose foreign policy team is weighted heavily with neocons. The problem with this strategy is that the majority of Republicans are just as war-weary as the rest of us: while Santorum and Romney are bemoaning the official end of the US occupation of Iraq, polls show a majority of self-identified Republicans think the Iraq war wasn’t worth it. In this judgment they reflect the views of the majority of Americans, who want us out of Afghanistan, too.
We hear loud war cries emanating from the vicinity of Washington and New York, but where are the massive pro-war demonstrations demanding we act to stop the alleged [.pdf] Iranian "threat"? All we see and hear is Michelle Bachmann and a bunch of bleach-blonde Fox News anchors bleating that Paul is "dangerous" because he wants to avert World War III. All we hear is failed presidential candidate and bloated braggart Newt Gingrich declaring he’d vote for Obama rather than the "isolationist" Paul.
At least Gingrich is being honest for once. He’s telling us that all the talk about fiscal conservatism, the free market, and individual liberty is just window-dressing: what he and his fellow neocons are really after is the ability to launch more and bigger wars, and if they have to throw their "smaller government" baggage overboard to reach their goal, then so be it.
How long before the Santorum bubble expands beyond its capacity to encompass the truth and pops is anyone’s guess: mine is that it will be sooner rather than later. As more of Santorum’s Bush era positions come out, especially on economic issues, party conservatives in search of an alternative to Romney will have no one but Ron to turn to.
Paul is often disdained as a "protest" candidate, but every revolution starts out as a mere episodic protest. Paul’s Iowa campaign proved two things: 1) the anti-interventionist wing of the GOP is substantial, and 2) it is here to stay. Paul has set an important precedent: for the first time since the 1930s, a Republican politician who challenges the militarist malarkey coming out the mouths of our "conservative" politicians commands a mass following. That is a victory all advocates of peace, on the left as well as the right, ought to be celebrating.
For those with more imagination, the victor in this fight has been Rick Santorum, whose surge toward the end put him within a dozen or so votes of Romney. Hours after the results were announced, we were treated to the sight of breathless commentators anointing a candidate with no money and no real conservative credentials as the One True Anti-Romney who could snatch the crown from Mitt’s brow.
The Iowa caucus results are supposed to be all about "expectations," which begs the question: whose expectations? Why, the mainstream media’s, of course, a fact which – you’ll note – allows these guardians of the conventional wisdom to play their key role as the final arbiters of what all this voting means. And the formulaic "spin" had been determined far in advance: if Romney won, then his coronation was supposed to be foreordained. If anybody but Romney won, it would simply delay Romney’s final victory. If Ron Paul won, then the Iowa caucuses would henceforth be deemed "irrelevant."
Peter Feaver, writing on foreignpolicy.com, was typically dismissive of Paul’s showing:
"The Iowa results probably indicate that there will not be a big crack-up within the Republican party on foreign policy because the caucus returns are likely to be the high-water mark for the candidate with the most distinctive foreign policy platform in the field: Ron Paul. He did well enough to gain another week of press attention. But in the one contest best-suited to his unusual political operation, Paul did not beat expectations. He would have to really surprise in New Hampshire in order to remain relevant in the later primaries, and those are likely to be even tougher terrain for him."
It’s all about "press attention" – but what if it isn’t? What if it’s possible to bypass the traditional gatekeepers and create a movement weaned on alternative media and rising populist anger at the Washington-New York power elite? Because that is precisely what Paul has done, and that movement has hardly crested in the wilds of Iowa: it’s only owing to a deficiency of imagination on the part of Feaver and his confreres, a curious sort of tunnel vision, that allows them that assumption.
The reality of Paul’s accomplishment is clear, as the feisty congressman pointed out in his final Iowa speech to his supporters:
"But also, the great strides that we have made has been really on foreign policy. The fact that we can once again talk in Republican circles and make it credible. Talk about what Eisenhower said that beware of the military-industrial complex. Talk about the old days when Robert Taft, Mr. Republican, said that we shouldn’t be engaged in these entangling alliance. He believed what the founders taught us. He didn’t even want to be in NATO. We certainly don’t need NATO and the UN telling us when to go to war.
"But we have seen a great difference. The majority of the American people are behind us on this whole war effort. They’re tired of the war. Cost too much money. Too many people get killed. Too many people get injured. Too many people get sick. And the majority – maybe 70% or 80% – of the American people now are saying it’s time to get out of Afghanistan."
At every debate, and every campaign appearance, Paul is transforming the discourse. Forced to start noticing him due to his steadily climbing poll numbers, the mainstream media invariably dismissed his ability to expand beyond a narrow libertarian base, which was supposedly limited by his "isolationist" foreign policy views. Yet he managed to pull off what was essentially a three-way tie, denying the alleged frontrunner and the media-anointed "conservative" a clear victory.
I’ll note, in passing, that Democrats opposed to our aggressive foreign policy are almost never described as "isolationists," and one can hardly imagine a reporter referring to the demonstrations protesting the Iraq war as "isolationist" rallies. The left-right, red state-blue state lens the media clamps over every event distorts and masks a somewhat more complex underlying reality.
Much has been made of Paul’s youthful constituency, and his lead in commanding the support of political independents and Democrats who signed up as Republicans for the evening, and yet less is said about the 18 percent of evangelicals who cast their lot with the one presidential candidate who wants to dismantle the Empire. In spite of a relentless smear campaign led by Fox News and the neoconservative would-be policemen of the right, nearly a quarter of Iowa Republicans stood with Paul at the caucuses.
The icing on this cake is that the candidate made no attempt to downplay or hide his supposedly "controversial" foreign policy views: indeed, he emphasized them even when he was talking about domestic policy, tying the conservative project of dismantling the federal Leviathan to the need to drop the burden of empire. That over 20 percent of Iowa caucus-goers voted to endorse Paul’s uncompromising anti-interventionism scares the bejesus out of the GOP establishment because the Paulians aren’t going to go away. Well-funded and blessed with a growing army of enthusiastic volunteers, the Paul campaign has the resources to go all the way to Tampa.
The Iowa results lay bare the contours of the GOP’s constituency, and the changing face of the American right. The Romney camp represents the often-pronounced dead but never quite moribund Eastern Establishment or "moderate" wing of the Republican party. Santorum, for his part, is an unrepentant Bushian Republican, although you’ll never hear that name pass his lips. Ideologically, he represents Big Government conservatism married to an impossibly bellicose foreign policy which has us bombing Iran next week. In this, he is simply a younger, slimmer Newt Gingrich, with two less wives: it’s no surprise the original Newt has proposed a non-aggression pact with Santorum, offering to serve as Rick’s attack dog against Romney.
The real news out of Iowa is that the terms of the foreign policy debate in this country are being changed, and it’s all due to Paul’s singular voice. For the first time since the Vietnam war era, the electorate is being given the chance to vote for or against our foreign policy of perpetual war. What’s more, that battle is being fought inside the party that presided over and directed America’s post-9/11 rampage through the Muslim world: the very heart of the War Party’s territory. That this debate is even taking place is a victory in itself. Airily dismissed in the salons of Georgetown and Manhattan’s Upper West Side as a "fringe" candidate and the GOP’s "crazy old uncle," Paul’s solid showing demonstrated his growing political clout.
The various "conservative" aspirers to the role of the Anti-Romney all crashed and burned because the various strands of conservative thought they embodied have all failed to provide Americans with any way out of the crisis we face. Bachmann’s paint-by-numbers sloganeering and her reputation as a fount of misinformation, Cain’s cynical and formulaic pragmatism, Perry’s pastiche of Bush II, Newt’s warmed-over "compassionate conservatism" served up with a dollop of corruption – all have failed miserably in the realm of ideas, as well as at the ballot box.
Santorum represents the last best hope of the same neocons who led the Republicans to defeat in 2008. When Santorum denies the very existence of the Palestinians as a people he is appealing to the Likud wing of the GOP – a constituency hotly contested by Romney, whose foreign policy team is weighted heavily with neocons. The problem with this strategy is that the majority of Republicans are just as war-weary as the rest of us: while Santorum and Romney are bemoaning the official end of the US occupation of Iraq, polls show a majority of self-identified Republicans think the Iraq war wasn’t worth it. In this judgment they reflect the views of the majority of Americans, who want us out of Afghanistan, too.
We hear loud war cries emanating from the vicinity of Washington and New York, but where are the massive pro-war demonstrations demanding we act to stop the alleged [.pdf] Iranian "threat"? All we see and hear is Michelle Bachmann and a bunch of bleach-blonde Fox News anchors bleating that Paul is "dangerous" because he wants to avert World War III. All we hear is failed presidential candidate and bloated braggart Newt Gingrich declaring he’d vote for Obama rather than the "isolationist" Paul.
At least Gingrich is being honest for once. He’s telling us that all the talk about fiscal conservatism, the free market, and individual liberty is just window-dressing: what he and his fellow neocons are really after is the ability to launch more and bigger wars, and if they have to throw their "smaller government" baggage overboard to reach their goal, then so be it.
How long before the Santorum bubble expands beyond its capacity to encompass the truth and pops is anyone’s guess: mine is that it will be sooner rather than later. As more of Santorum’s Bush era positions come out, especially on economic issues, party conservatives in search of an alternative to Romney will have no one but Ron to turn to.
Paul is often disdained as a "protest" candidate, but every revolution starts out as a mere episodic protest. Paul’s Iowa campaign proved two things: 1) the anti-interventionist wing of the GOP is substantial, and 2) it is here to stay. Paul has set an important precedent: for the first time since the 1930s, a Republican politician who challenges the militarist malarkey coming out the mouths of our "conservative" politicians commands a mass following. That is a victory all advocates of peace, on the left as well as the right, ought to be celebrating.
Saturday
WHAT I THINK........GARY NORTH
Ron Paul is a master of rhetoric. The average TV commentator does not understand this. I do. That's because, ever since age 16, I have been a very effective speaker. I always wanted to be a master of rhetoric. "Nice try. No cigar." Ron Paul got the cigar.
In 1976, I wrote a speech for him: 2-minutes long. He decided not to use it. That was one of his wiser moves. He never has used a speech writer. That, too, has been wise.
I hear the criticism that Ron Paul is not a polished speaker. This criticism is correct. But he is a nevertheless a master of rhetoric.
How can both positions be true? Because rhetoric is all about persuasion. Great oratory is not necessary.
It is usually assumed that a spellbinder is a master of rhetoric and vice versa. This is not necessarily the case. The mark of mastery of rhetoric is this: the speaker persuades a crowd to accept something that it had previously opposed. A supreme master is a person who has not only changes their minds but persuades the listeners to take action. This is so rare as to be unheard of.
The greatest master of political rhetoric in American history was William Jennings Bryan. He was also a great orator. He made a fortune on the lecture circuit after 1896. With one speech in 1896, he changed American history. He converted the low-tariff, low-tax, pro-gold standard Democrat Party into a Populist, statist political organization. It was captured by Progressive Woodrow Wilson in 1912. Nothing like this had happened before. Nothing like it has happened since.
The Wiki account of his "Cross of Gold" speech is accurate.
Now, Bryan was ready to conclude the speech, and according to his biographer, Michael Kazin, step "into the headlines of American history".
Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.
As Bryan spoke his final sentence, recalling the Crucifixion of Jesus, he placed his hands to his temples, fingers extended; with the final words, he extended his arms to his sides straight out to his body and held that pose for about five seconds as if offering himself as sacrifice for the cause, as the audience watched in dead silence. He then lowered them, descended from the podium, and began to head back to his seat as the stillness held.
Bryan later described the silence as "really painful" and momentarily thought he had failed. As he moved down the aisle, the Coliseum burst into pandemonium. Delegates threw hats, coats, and handkerchiefs into the air. Others took up the standards with the state names on them with each delegation, and planted them by Nebraska's. Two alert police officers had joined Bryan as he left the podium, anticipating the crush. The policemen were swept away by the flood of delegates, who raised Bryan to their shoulders and carried him around the floor. The Washington Post newspaper recorded, "bedlam broke loose, delirium reigned supreme."
In that brief time of silence, a thousand delegates reconsidered a political legacy going back to Thomas Jefferson, extending to Andrew Jackson, and -- still in office -- Grover Cleveland. Then they switched sides. That was rhetoric in action.
Ron Paul possesses this gift. He is persuading people to change their minds. He is gaining support where it should not be available: among recent graduates of the tax-funded school system.
This report in Time is indicative.
David Richardson, clad in his black leather Led Zeppelin jacket, rode his bicycle into the middle of the Iowa Speedway in Newton. There were no drivers on the track, but there was a different kind of race under way in a small building at the center of the facility -- one fueled by money and votes instead of gasoline. Texas Congressman Ron Paul was there on Wednesday afternoon to make his case for becoming the next President.
One look at Richardson, a 28-year-old factory worker, and it was clear he had already been won over. Along with a thick nose ring, he sported a Paul beanie and a Paul T-shirt bearing Iowa's state motto: "Our liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain." Richardson is one of many young people rallying to the 76-year-old Republican's candidacy. Some, like Richardson, have volunteered for him and are committed to voting for him; others are just intrigued. But the appeal is undeniable, and it could well determine where Paul finishes in Tuesday's first-in-the-nation caucuses.
Despite his age, there is an air of rock 'n' roll around Paul. One supporter even flashed the rock-out-horns sign when asked on Thursday whether he was sold on the candidate: "Hell, yeah, for Ron Paul!" he said. "The message of liberty is really appealing to younger people," says Richardson, a heavy-metal fan who got interested in politics through battles over music censorship. One can spot dreadlocks or "Paul is my homeboy" T-shirts in the crowd at his campaign events. American Idol pop star Kelly Clarkson recently endorsed Paul on Twitter.
This is surreal. Paul is the oldest person ever to be a serious contender for a major party's nomination for President. (Mike Gravel was older, but he was never a serious contender. Harold Stassen in his last -- twelfth -- try in 2000 had been a joke ever since 1964, and he knew it. He was doing a recurring Pat Paulson routine.) Reagan, playfully referred to as "geezer," was 73 when he ran against Mondale in 1984. He had already won once. Yet Paul does not seem old. Everyone knows he is 76, but it's not a major topic in the media. It helps that, except for his knees, he is in better physical shape than the talking heads. He has always been in top-flight physical condition -- except for his knees. In a swimming pool or on a bicycle, he is not to be trifled with.
[I have an idea for a YouTube ad. Paul is riding his bicycle. He is wearing a gold colored jacket. On its back we see this in red: Judgment Day. He is carrying a pole. As he rides down a bicycle trail, he passes a series of signs. Federal Reserve System. Whack! Down it goes. Department of Education. Whack! Department of Energy. Whack! And so on, as he rides off into the sunset. There would be a pirated version that goes viral. A voice-over is heard. "I am Ben Bernanke, and I do not approve of this ad."]
The article continues. The heart of his message is optimism. (Note: that was also true of Reagan's rhetoric.)
And there are parts of Paul's stump speech that communicate youthful earnestness and optimism. "What you want to do with your life, what your religious beliefs are, what your intellectual pursuits are, what your private habits are -- that's part of freedom," he said in Council Bluffs on Thursday. Paul's campaign manager, Jesse Benton, says young people have an "amazing BS meter," and they often say they see Paul as more sincere, more reliable than the other candidates. "He's somebody that will solve the problems going on right now," says 17-year-old Aaron Schoppe, who will attend his first caucus this year. "They haven't had time to become cynical yet," says Benton.
They are young. They do not really understand the Austrian theory of the business cycle: "Intense pain now, permanent relief later." They may not have mortgages. They may not have wives and kids. But they do see what's coming if the federal deficit is not brought under control: disaster. No other candidate hammers on this.
The article observes: "It's not just stylistic." This is the heart of the matter. For 2,300 years, rhetoric has been associated with style. Yet this is not the heart of rhetoric. Persuasion is.
Paul's antiestablishment policies can be every bit as bewitching as his antiestablishment rhetoric. "I never thought I would see the day when it would be cool to be a libertarian on a college campus, but it is," says Blake Whitten, a statistics professor who sponsors the group Youth for Ron Paul on the University of Iowa campus, where the student newspaper endorsed the candidate this month. "We have all these kids running around with T-shirts that say 'End the Fed,' and a lot of them don't completely understand what the Fed is." When asked what piqued his interest in Paul, a 22-year-old Atlantic cook who caucused with Democrats in 2008 cited "regaining value to the U.S. currency."
Then there is the issue of war. He really is the only peace candidate in modern American history. He has the voting record to prove it. Generally, young people favor peace, as long as the country is not literally under attack. Why? Because their age group will pay the price. In one sense, his success here is not a mark of his rhetoric. Young people do not need to be persuaded. But in a deeper sense, his war stance is crucial to his rhetoric. He voted against the wars when it was unpopular to do this. That established his bona fides. Voters know they can trust him. He walks the talk. People are more likely to be persuaded by someone they trust.
Paul is a strict noninterventionist, opposed to all foreign aid and in favor of pulling U.S. troops back worldwide. "I'm not a typical conservative in that I don't like war," 28-year-old Ryan Sjaarda said at a town hall on Friday. "I think it's bad. I appreciate Ron Paul for that."
The article goes on: "But for all Paul's youthful support, there's still some question as to whether he can transform it into concrete electoral results." That is not my interest here. My interest is the fact that his ideas are getting a hearing where few of the pundits imagined they would as recently as six months ago.
The political engagement of young voters in the Hawkeye State gives the campaign some cause for optimism. A report released this summer by the nonpartisan group Rock the Vote found that young Iowans ranked second in the nation for voter participation: 63% of them cast ballots in the 2008 presidential election. And recent polls, like this one from Fox News, have shown that Paul's support doubles among voters under 50.
Richardson is doing his small part. After listening to Paul speak at the speedway, he hopped on his bicycle and pedaled toward home. After descending a hill, he suddenly stopped and turned around. He rode back to the building at the racetrack, where he picked up an armful of yard signs. Richardson didn't need one for himself -- he said he still has the giant lawn sign he put up in 2008. Even though the placards would be trying to carry on his bike, Richardson was determined to take them home for his neighbors -- a small price to pay for spreading the gospel of Paul.
He received 48% of the 18-29 voters in Iowa. These supporters are recent survivors of the indoctrination system known as the public schools. They had never been told of the existence of non-interventionism in foreign policy -- "isolationism" as it is refereed to. They had not heard of the gold standard. The last Presidential candidate to run on that platform was Alton B. Parker -- not a household name, surely. (I, of course, am a big Parker fan.) They had been conventional, that is, content with the welfare state. Ron Paul has changed their minds. He has also changed their behavior.
This is what rhetoric is all about. It is usually connected with masterful oratory. Not this time.
In 1976, I wrote a speech for him: 2-minutes long. He decided not to use it. That was one of his wiser moves. He never has used a speech writer. That, too, has been wise.
I hear the criticism that Ron Paul is not a polished speaker. This criticism is correct. But he is a nevertheless a master of rhetoric.
How can both positions be true? Because rhetoric is all about persuasion. Great oratory is not necessary.
It is usually assumed that a spellbinder is a master of rhetoric and vice versa. This is not necessarily the case. The mark of mastery of rhetoric is this: the speaker persuades a crowd to accept something that it had previously opposed. A supreme master is a person who has not only changes their minds but persuades the listeners to take action. This is so rare as to be unheard of.
The greatest master of political rhetoric in American history was William Jennings Bryan. He was also a great orator. He made a fortune on the lecture circuit after 1896. With one speech in 1896, he changed American history. He converted the low-tariff, low-tax, pro-gold standard Democrat Party into a Populist, statist political organization. It was captured by Progressive Woodrow Wilson in 1912. Nothing like this had happened before. Nothing like it has happened since.
The Wiki account of his "Cross of Gold" speech is accurate.
Now, Bryan was ready to conclude the speech, and according to his biographer, Michael Kazin, step "into the headlines of American history".
Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold.
As Bryan spoke his final sentence, recalling the Crucifixion of Jesus, he placed his hands to his temples, fingers extended; with the final words, he extended his arms to his sides straight out to his body and held that pose for about five seconds as if offering himself as sacrifice for the cause, as the audience watched in dead silence. He then lowered them, descended from the podium, and began to head back to his seat as the stillness held.
Bryan later described the silence as "really painful" and momentarily thought he had failed. As he moved down the aisle, the Coliseum burst into pandemonium. Delegates threw hats, coats, and handkerchiefs into the air. Others took up the standards with the state names on them with each delegation, and planted them by Nebraska's. Two alert police officers had joined Bryan as he left the podium, anticipating the crush. The policemen were swept away by the flood of delegates, who raised Bryan to their shoulders and carried him around the floor. The Washington Post newspaper recorded, "bedlam broke loose, delirium reigned supreme."
In that brief time of silence, a thousand delegates reconsidered a political legacy going back to Thomas Jefferson, extending to Andrew Jackson, and -- still in office -- Grover Cleveland. Then they switched sides. That was rhetoric in action.
Ron Paul possesses this gift. He is persuading people to change their minds. He is gaining support where it should not be available: among recent graduates of the tax-funded school system.
This report in Time is indicative.
David Richardson, clad in his black leather Led Zeppelin jacket, rode his bicycle into the middle of the Iowa Speedway in Newton. There were no drivers on the track, but there was a different kind of race under way in a small building at the center of the facility -- one fueled by money and votes instead of gasoline. Texas Congressman Ron Paul was there on Wednesday afternoon to make his case for becoming the next President.
One look at Richardson, a 28-year-old factory worker, and it was clear he had already been won over. Along with a thick nose ring, he sported a Paul beanie and a Paul T-shirt bearing Iowa's state motto: "Our liberties we prize, and our rights we will maintain." Richardson is one of many young people rallying to the 76-year-old Republican's candidacy. Some, like Richardson, have volunteered for him and are committed to voting for him; others are just intrigued. But the appeal is undeniable, and it could well determine where Paul finishes in Tuesday's first-in-the-nation caucuses.
Despite his age, there is an air of rock 'n' roll around Paul. One supporter even flashed the rock-out-horns sign when asked on Thursday whether he was sold on the candidate: "Hell, yeah, for Ron Paul!" he said. "The message of liberty is really appealing to younger people," says Richardson, a heavy-metal fan who got interested in politics through battles over music censorship. One can spot dreadlocks or "Paul is my homeboy" T-shirts in the crowd at his campaign events. American Idol pop star Kelly Clarkson recently endorsed Paul on Twitter.
This is surreal. Paul is the oldest person ever to be a serious contender for a major party's nomination for President. (Mike Gravel was older, but he was never a serious contender. Harold Stassen in his last -- twelfth -- try in 2000 had been a joke ever since 1964, and he knew it. He was doing a recurring Pat Paulson routine.) Reagan, playfully referred to as "geezer," was 73 when he ran against Mondale in 1984. He had already won once. Yet Paul does not seem old. Everyone knows he is 76, but it's not a major topic in the media. It helps that, except for his knees, he is in better physical shape than the talking heads. He has always been in top-flight physical condition -- except for his knees. In a swimming pool or on a bicycle, he is not to be trifled with.
[I have an idea for a YouTube ad. Paul is riding his bicycle. He is wearing a gold colored jacket. On its back we see this in red: Judgment Day. He is carrying a pole. As he rides down a bicycle trail, he passes a series of signs. Federal Reserve System. Whack! Down it goes. Department of Education. Whack! Department of Energy. Whack! And so on, as he rides off into the sunset. There would be a pirated version that goes viral. A voice-over is heard. "I am Ben Bernanke, and I do not approve of this ad."]
The article continues. The heart of his message is optimism. (Note: that was also true of Reagan's rhetoric.)
And there are parts of Paul's stump speech that communicate youthful earnestness and optimism. "What you want to do with your life, what your religious beliefs are, what your intellectual pursuits are, what your private habits are -- that's part of freedom," he said in Council Bluffs on Thursday. Paul's campaign manager, Jesse Benton, says young people have an "amazing BS meter," and they often say they see Paul as more sincere, more reliable than the other candidates. "He's somebody that will solve the problems going on right now," says 17-year-old Aaron Schoppe, who will attend his first caucus this year. "They haven't had time to become cynical yet," says Benton.
They are young. They do not really understand the Austrian theory of the business cycle: "Intense pain now, permanent relief later." They may not have mortgages. They may not have wives and kids. But they do see what's coming if the federal deficit is not brought under control: disaster. No other candidate hammers on this.
The article observes: "It's not just stylistic." This is the heart of the matter. For 2,300 years, rhetoric has been associated with style. Yet this is not the heart of rhetoric. Persuasion is.
Paul's antiestablishment policies can be every bit as bewitching as his antiestablishment rhetoric. "I never thought I would see the day when it would be cool to be a libertarian on a college campus, but it is," says Blake Whitten, a statistics professor who sponsors the group Youth for Ron Paul on the University of Iowa campus, where the student newspaper endorsed the candidate this month. "We have all these kids running around with T-shirts that say 'End the Fed,' and a lot of them don't completely understand what the Fed is." When asked what piqued his interest in Paul, a 22-year-old Atlantic cook who caucused with Democrats in 2008 cited "regaining value to the U.S. currency."
Then there is the issue of war. He really is the only peace candidate in modern American history. He has the voting record to prove it. Generally, young people favor peace, as long as the country is not literally under attack. Why? Because their age group will pay the price. In one sense, his success here is not a mark of his rhetoric. Young people do not need to be persuaded. But in a deeper sense, his war stance is crucial to his rhetoric. He voted against the wars when it was unpopular to do this. That established his bona fides. Voters know they can trust him. He walks the talk. People are more likely to be persuaded by someone they trust.
Paul is a strict noninterventionist, opposed to all foreign aid and in favor of pulling U.S. troops back worldwide. "I'm not a typical conservative in that I don't like war," 28-year-old Ryan Sjaarda said at a town hall on Friday. "I think it's bad. I appreciate Ron Paul for that."
The article goes on: "But for all Paul's youthful support, there's still some question as to whether he can transform it into concrete electoral results." That is not my interest here. My interest is the fact that his ideas are getting a hearing where few of the pundits imagined they would as recently as six months ago.
The political engagement of young voters in the Hawkeye State gives the campaign some cause for optimism. A report released this summer by the nonpartisan group Rock the Vote found that young Iowans ranked second in the nation for voter participation: 63% of them cast ballots in the 2008 presidential election. And recent polls, like this one from Fox News, have shown that Paul's support doubles among voters under 50.
Richardson is doing his small part. After listening to Paul speak at the speedway, he hopped on his bicycle and pedaled toward home. After descending a hill, he suddenly stopped and turned around. He rode back to the building at the racetrack, where he picked up an armful of yard signs. Richardson didn't need one for himself -- he said he still has the giant lawn sign he put up in 2008. Even though the placards would be trying to carry on his bike, Richardson was determined to take them home for his neighbors -- a small price to pay for spreading the gospel of Paul.
He received 48% of the 18-29 voters in Iowa. These supporters are recent survivors of the indoctrination system known as the public schools. They had never been told of the existence of non-interventionism in foreign policy -- "isolationism" as it is refereed to. They had not heard of the gold standard. The last Presidential candidate to run on that platform was Alton B. Parker -- not a household name, surely. (I, of course, am a big Parker fan.) They had been conventional, that is, content with the welfare state. Ron Paul has changed their minds. He has also changed their behavior.
This is what rhetoric is all about. It is usually connected with masterful oratory. Not this time.
Friday
WHAT I THINK........ELLEN FINNIGAN
In January 2003, two months before American forces invaded Iraq, in an address to the Diplomatic Corps, Pope John Paul II listed “certain requirements which must be met if entire peoples, perhaps even humanity itself, are not to sink into the abyss.” Among them he listed “Yes to life!” “No to death!” and “No to war!” In the political culture at large, war is rarely discussed as a moral issue, but as Catholic American voters, we must consider it one.
I believe that Ron Paul’s ideas on foreign policy, on war and peace in particular, when considered in light of Pope John Paul’s statements, make him the only truly pro-life candidate.
Regarding “Yes to life!” the Pope said, “War itself is an attack on human life, since it brings in its wake suffering and death. The battle for peace is always a battle for life!”
Ron Paul has said, “I get to my God through Christ. Christ, to me, is a man of peace. . . . He is not for war. He doesn’t justify preemptive war. I strongly believe that there is a Christian doctrine of just war. And I believe this nation has drifted from that. No matter what the rationales are, we have drifted from that, and it’s very, very dangerous, and in many ways unchristian. . . . That is what I see from my God and through Christ. I vote for peace.”
Congressman Paul even considers sanctions, such as the ones imposed on Iraq in the 1990s—which resulted, by some estimates, in over 100,000 Iraqi deaths—“an act of war.” He opposed the sanctions on Iraq and calls them immoral. He opposes sanctions on Iran. In his view, “[Sanctions] result in terrible, unnecessary suffering among the civilian population in the target countries and rarely even inconvenience their leaders.”
In addition to challenging diplomats and nation states to say no to war, Pope John Paul called for “respect for law.” The Pope acknowledges that the rule of law forms “the foundation of national and international stability.”
According to the Constitution, our supreme law which every president must swear to “preserve, protect and defend,” only Congress has the power to declare war. The last time Congress declared war was on Dec. 11, 1941. Since then, it has been abdicating this responsibility and transferring the power to the executive branch under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a process which circumvents the Constitution and ultimately the American people. Since then, we have had no clear victories in “war,” only an endless series of convoluted, indefinite entanglements with murky goals, murkier results, and thousands of lives lost.
Congressman Paul is the only presidential candidate who claims to have a problem with the way we now go to war, calling it not only “complex and deceptive” but “a danger to world peace.” He filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration over its “illegal war in Libya” and “abuse of war powers” in an effort to “force the Obama administration to obey the clear letter of the law.”
Paul is always the champion of the Constitution, which is to say the rule of law, but especially when it comes to war, because “a declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict.”
Pope John Paul also outlined a “duty of solidarity,” saying that “it is important to spare no effort to ensure that everyone feels responsible for the growth and happiness of all.”
Congressman Paul has said that “history shows that without weapons and war, there is more food and prosperity for the people.” He describes his foreign policy as follows: “I would replace [a policy of mutually assured destruction] with a policy of mutually assured respect. . . . This requires simply tolerance of other cultures and their social and religious values and the giving up of all use of force to occupy or control other countries and their national resource. . . . This would result in the U.S. treating other nations exactly as we expect others to treat us, offering friendship with all who seek it, participating in trade with all who are willing. . . . This is the only practical way to promote peace, harmony and economic well-being to the maximum number of people in the world.”
In his eyes, “If America indeed has something good to offer—the cause of peace, prosperity, and liberty—it must be spread through persuasion and by example, not by intimidation, bribes and war.”
Pope John Paul explained to the Diplomatic Corps: “The peoples of the earth and their leaders must sometimes have the courage to say ‘No’. . . no to death! no to selfishness! and no to war! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity.”
Not only is Congressman Paul known as “Dr. No” on Capitol Hill, he does not mistake bellicosity for courage. On the issue of Iran, Paul said: “I think this wild goal to have another war in the name of defense is the dangerous thing. The danger is really us overreacting. . . . If [Michele Bachmann] thinks we live in a dangerous world, she ought to think back when I was drafted in 1962 with nuclear missiles in Cuba, and Kennedy calls Khrushchev and talks to him and talks him out of this, and we don’t have a nuclear exchange. You’re trying to dramatize this. We have to go to treat Iran like we treated Iraq? And kill a million Iraqis? And some 8,000 Americans have died since we’ve gone to war. You cannot solve these problems with war!”
As Pope John Paul suggested, “International law, honest dialogue, solidarity between States, the noble exercise of diplomacy: these are methods worthy of individuals and nations in resolving their differences.”
Similarly, Congressman Paul has said, “This policy of American domination and exceptionalism has allowed us to become an aggressor nation, supporting preemptive war, covert destabilization, foreign occupations, nation building, torture and assassinations. This policy has generated hatred toward Americans and provides the incentive for almost all of the suicide attacks against us and our allies.”
“We have 12,000 diplomats in our government. I suggest we start using our diplomats and do a little bit of diplomacy once in a while.”
Fittingly, Congressman Paul has named Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks as two of his heroes for their effective leadership through a commitment to the Gospel message of nonviolence. They were social diplomats for change through peace.
* * *
In a press conference on May 2, 2003, then-cardinal Ratzinger said, “Given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'.”
Nobody really knows how many civilians have died in the “War on Terror,” in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and the other countries we have bombed or are currently bombing. (Honestly, I can’t keep track. What are we up to in Yemen? Are we bombing them? Or are we are “just” assassinating American citizens with drone strikes?) A conservative estimate puts the number around 130,000 civilians dead in Iraq and Afghanistan, 1,500 in Pakistan, and 7,000 in Somalia. As Catholics, we must be honest with ourselves: Is this a Just War?
These deaths do not take account of the spiking suicide rate among American soldiers and veterans. Of the 30,000 suicides each year in America, about 20 percent are committed by veterans (from all wars), which makes for about 6,000 every year, or 18 per day. The suicide rate has been increasing significantly among young men who have fought in the War on Terror. About 300,000 troops suffer from PTSD. Psychologists are now saying that guilt, known clinically as “moral injury,” is a leading cause of PTSD. Moral injury describes ongoing inner conflict, feelings of guilt and shame related to moral dilemmas encountered in war, rather than the lingering anxiety from terror experienced during combat, at the sight of dead bodies or from fear of getting killed.This suggests that our military is suffering inner conflict as to whether what they are doing, or why and how they are doing it, is right and just.
And let us not overlook the 13,000 troops that have suffered traumatic brain injuries, the 40,000 maimed and wounded, the thousands who are drug addicted (to alcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs for depression or chronic-pain management), not to mention the deaths caused by the war indirectly once soldiers get home (they have a much higher likelihood of dying in things like motorcycle crashes and drunk-driving accidents). Let us not overlook the children who are being raised with an absent parent due to deployment overseas, or the spouses of soldiers who struggle daily to raise their children alone. Let us not forget the families who see an increase in verbal and physical aggression after soldiers have come home mentally and spiritually crippled by PTSD.
“One of the greatest threats to the family is war,” Congressman Paul has said. “It undermines the family.”
Congressman Paul, who wants to “Bring home the troops!” and put and end to American empire abroad, has received more campaign donations from military personnel than all of the other Republican candidates combined. If we want to support the troops, maybe we should start paying more attention to who the troops support.
When asked what he thinks is the most pressing moral issue of our time, Congressman Paul said: “We now promote preemptive war. We have rejected the just war theory of Christianity.”
I think we Catholics need to start thinking a lot more about war as a “moral issue” and a “life issue” and not simply as an “election issue” or a matter of “policy.”
Congressman Paul says “yes to life.” He respects the Constitution and the rule of law. I believe his foreign policy, based on “mutually assured respect,” would encourage solidarity with people throughout the world. He has the courage to say no to war and reject war propaganda, and would instead engage in diplomacy, dialogue, and free trade to promote peace. He wants to protect all human life. For this, he has my vote. And I think, at a minimum, he is deserving of respect from Catholic voters.
Congressman Paul had this to say upon Pope John Paul II’s passing: “I would encourage those who wish to honor his memory to reflect on his teachings regarding war and the sanctity of life, and consider the inconsistencies in claiming to be pro-life but supporting the senseless killing of innocent people that inevitably accompanies militarism, or in claiming to be pro-peace and pro-compassion but supporting the legal killing of the unborn.”
The United States has the largest, most expensive and expansive, technologically advanced, dangerous military the world has ever known.
What if, as Ron Paul claims, Christianity actually teaches peace and not preventative wars of aggression?
What if, as John F. Kennedy proved, diplomacy could be far superior to bombs and bribes when it comes to protecting not only America, but the world?
What if, as Pope John Paul II said, “choices need to be made so that humanity can still have a future,” and “it depends on each of us?”
What if, as the Pope said, “Yet everything can change”?
Peace on Earth. Good will toward men. Ron Paul 2012
I believe that Ron Paul’s ideas on foreign policy, on war and peace in particular, when considered in light of Pope John Paul’s statements, make him the only truly pro-life candidate.
Regarding “Yes to life!” the Pope said, “War itself is an attack on human life, since it brings in its wake suffering and death. The battle for peace is always a battle for life!”
Ron Paul has said, “I get to my God through Christ. Christ, to me, is a man of peace. . . . He is not for war. He doesn’t justify preemptive war. I strongly believe that there is a Christian doctrine of just war. And I believe this nation has drifted from that. No matter what the rationales are, we have drifted from that, and it’s very, very dangerous, and in many ways unchristian. . . . That is what I see from my God and through Christ. I vote for peace.”
Congressman Paul even considers sanctions, such as the ones imposed on Iraq in the 1990s—which resulted, by some estimates, in over 100,000 Iraqi deaths—“an act of war.” He opposed the sanctions on Iraq and calls them immoral. He opposes sanctions on Iran. In his view, “[Sanctions] result in terrible, unnecessary suffering among the civilian population in the target countries and rarely even inconvenience their leaders.”
In addition to challenging diplomats and nation states to say no to war, Pope John Paul called for “respect for law.” The Pope acknowledges that the rule of law forms “the foundation of national and international stability.”
According to the Constitution, our supreme law which every president must swear to “preserve, protect and defend,” only Congress has the power to declare war. The last time Congress declared war was on Dec. 11, 1941. Since then, it has been abdicating this responsibility and transferring the power to the executive branch under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, a process which circumvents the Constitution and ultimately the American people. Since then, we have had no clear victories in “war,” only an endless series of convoluted, indefinite entanglements with murky goals, murkier results, and thousands of lives lost.
Congressman Paul is the only presidential candidate who claims to have a problem with the way we now go to war, calling it not only “complex and deceptive” but “a danger to world peace.” He filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration over its “illegal war in Libya” and “abuse of war powers” in an effort to “force the Obama administration to obey the clear letter of the law.”
Paul is always the champion of the Constitution, which is to say the rule of law, but especially when it comes to war, because “a declaration of war limits the presidential powers, narrows the focus, and implies a precise end point to the conflict.”
Pope John Paul also outlined a “duty of solidarity,” saying that “it is important to spare no effort to ensure that everyone feels responsible for the growth and happiness of all.”
Congressman Paul has said that “history shows that without weapons and war, there is more food and prosperity for the people.” He describes his foreign policy as follows: “I would replace [a policy of mutually assured destruction] with a policy of mutually assured respect. . . . This requires simply tolerance of other cultures and their social and religious values and the giving up of all use of force to occupy or control other countries and their national resource. . . . This would result in the U.S. treating other nations exactly as we expect others to treat us, offering friendship with all who seek it, participating in trade with all who are willing. . . . This is the only practical way to promote peace, harmony and economic well-being to the maximum number of people in the world.”
In his eyes, “If America indeed has something good to offer—the cause of peace, prosperity, and liberty—it must be spread through persuasion and by example, not by intimidation, bribes and war.”
Pope John Paul explained to the Diplomatic Corps: “The peoples of the earth and their leaders must sometimes have the courage to say ‘No’. . . no to death! no to selfishness! and no to war! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity.”
Not only is Congressman Paul known as “Dr. No” on Capitol Hill, he does not mistake bellicosity for courage. On the issue of Iran, Paul said: “I think this wild goal to have another war in the name of defense is the dangerous thing. The danger is really us overreacting. . . . If [Michele Bachmann] thinks we live in a dangerous world, she ought to think back when I was drafted in 1962 with nuclear missiles in Cuba, and Kennedy calls Khrushchev and talks to him and talks him out of this, and we don’t have a nuclear exchange. You’re trying to dramatize this. We have to go to treat Iran like we treated Iraq? And kill a million Iraqis? And some 8,000 Americans have died since we’ve gone to war. You cannot solve these problems with war!”
As Pope John Paul suggested, “International law, honest dialogue, solidarity between States, the noble exercise of diplomacy: these are methods worthy of individuals and nations in resolving their differences.”
Similarly, Congressman Paul has said, “This policy of American domination and exceptionalism has allowed us to become an aggressor nation, supporting preemptive war, covert destabilization, foreign occupations, nation building, torture and assassinations. This policy has generated hatred toward Americans and provides the incentive for almost all of the suicide attacks against us and our allies.”
“We have 12,000 diplomats in our government. I suggest we start using our diplomats and do a little bit of diplomacy once in a while.”
Fittingly, Congressman Paul has named Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks as two of his heroes for their effective leadership through a commitment to the Gospel message of nonviolence. They were social diplomats for change through peace.
* * *
In a press conference on May 2, 2003, then-cardinal Ratzinger said, “Given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'.”
Nobody really knows how many civilians have died in the “War on Terror,” in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and the other countries we have bombed or are currently bombing. (Honestly, I can’t keep track. What are we up to in Yemen? Are we bombing them? Or are we are “just” assassinating American citizens with drone strikes?) A conservative estimate puts the number around 130,000 civilians dead in Iraq and Afghanistan, 1,500 in Pakistan, and 7,000 in Somalia. As Catholics, we must be honest with ourselves: Is this a Just War?
These deaths do not take account of the spiking suicide rate among American soldiers and veterans. Of the 30,000 suicides each year in America, about 20 percent are committed by veterans (from all wars), which makes for about 6,000 every year, or 18 per day. The suicide rate has been increasing significantly among young men who have fought in the War on Terror. About 300,000 troops suffer from PTSD. Psychologists are now saying that guilt, known clinically as “moral injury,” is a leading cause of PTSD. Moral injury describes ongoing inner conflict, feelings of guilt and shame related to moral dilemmas encountered in war, rather than the lingering anxiety from terror experienced during combat, at the sight of dead bodies or from fear of getting killed.This suggests that our military is suffering inner conflict as to whether what they are doing, or why and how they are doing it, is right and just.
And let us not overlook the 13,000 troops that have suffered traumatic brain injuries, the 40,000 maimed and wounded, the thousands who are drug addicted (to alcohol, illegal drugs, or prescription drugs for depression or chronic-pain management), not to mention the deaths caused by the war indirectly once soldiers get home (they have a much higher likelihood of dying in things like motorcycle crashes and drunk-driving accidents). Let us not overlook the children who are being raised with an absent parent due to deployment overseas, or the spouses of soldiers who struggle daily to raise their children alone. Let us not forget the families who see an increase in verbal and physical aggression after soldiers have come home mentally and spiritually crippled by PTSD.
“One of the greatest threats to the family is war,” Congressman Paul has said. “It undermines the family.”
Congressman Paul, who wants to “Bring home the troops!” and put and end to American empire abroad, has received more campaign donations from military personnel than all of the other Republican candidates combined. If we want to support the troops, maybe we should start paying more attention to who the troops support.
When asked what he thinks is the most pressing moral issue of our time, Congressman Paul said: “We now promote preemptive war. We have rejected the just war theory of Christianity.”
I think we Catholics need to start thinking a lot more about war as a “moral issue” and a “life issue” and not simply as an “election issue” or a matter of “policy.”
Congressman Paul says “yes to life.” He respects the Constitution and the rule of law. I believe his foreign policy, based on “mutually assured respect,” would encourage solidarity with people throughout the world. He has the courage to say no to war and reject war propaganda, and would instead engage in diplomacy, dialogue, and free trade to promote peace. He wants to protect all human life. For this, he has my vote. And I think, at a minimum, he is deserving of respect from Catholic voters.
Congressman Paul had this to say upon Pope John Paul II’s passing: “I would encourage those who wish to honor his memory to reflect on his teachings regarding war and the sanctity of life, and consider the inconsistencies in claiming to be pro-life but supporting the senseless killing of innocent people that inevitably accompanies militarism, or in claiming to be pro-peace and pro-compassion but supporting the legal killing of the unborn.”
The United States has the largest, most expensive and expansive, technologically advanced, dangerous military the world has ever known.
What if, as Ron Paul claims, Christianity actually teaches peace and not preventative wars of aggression?
What if, as John F. Kennedy proved, diplomacy could be far superior to bombs and bribes when it comes to protecting not only America, but the world?
What if, as Pope John Paul II said, “choices need to be made so that humanity can still have a future,” and “it depends on each of us?”
What if, as the Pope said, “Yet everything can change”?
Peace on Earth. Good will toward men. Ron Paul 2012
WHAT I THINK........GREG BULS
The outcome in Iowa has Ron Paul solidly established and in an ideal position to move forward with confidence. If you’re watching the race at all, you’ve noticed that the GOP establishment has brought out the long knives, with Gingrich calling Paul’s supporters ‘indecent’, and Santorum saying that Paul is ‘disgusting‘. Virtually every ‘news’ story referencing Paul includes a declaratory statement that Paul cannot be nominated, or ‘almost certainly’ cannot. TV talking heads such as Politico’s Roger Simon were at least honest about the shared intent of the media and the GOP establishment: ‘If Paul wins Iowa we’ll just take it out (of the picture)’. Iowa’s own governor downplayed the importance of his state’s caucus outcome, should Paul win – something no other governor has done in American history.
In spite of the relentless assault against him, Paul’s support held up well, with a result mirroring most of the polls leading up to the caucuses. His supporters can’t possibly be discouraged – Paul’s support grew steadily over the months, and he finished near his peak. Santorum’s turn as ‘flavor of the week’, coming right after voters got another look at Newt Gingrich, came at the perfect time, further fracturing the establishment vote.
The Iowa results boost Paul’s chances for long-term success for a number of reasons.
- A lot of the negative attention that was aimed at Paul will now be focused on Santorum. The media may give Arlen Specter’s most important political ally a break, for now, but his opponents won’t. To the media, Santorum is a perfect GOP candidate – one they can easily trash when the time comes. His current appeal is a mile wide and a millimeter deep; there’s nothing of substance driving it – no scheme like Cain’s ’9-9-9 plan’, no great legislative achievements, nothing aside from the perception that he’d be ‘tough on terror’, that he speaks in earnest, and that he’s not Gingrich or Romney. As long as Santorum is in it, Romney and Gingrich will remain in, they likely think that Santorum’s chances to actually secure the nomination are nil.
- Romney’s finish makes any ‘inevitability’ talk look ridiculous. He seems to have a ceiling of 25%-30% of GOP primary voters, with no noticeable crossover enthusiasm from democrats, and little appeal to independents. The undecided voters will continue to ping-pong between the other candidates, with some sticking to Paul with each bounce. It seems that no matter what Romney says, does, or spends, he can’t gain any broader traction. He isn’t trusted by most republicans, for far better reasons than the GOP establishment posits for opposing Paul. There’s little prospect that Romney can change that fact, but he’s still going to grind it out.
- There isn’t much the GOP establishment can do to derail Paul going forward. Ballot registration deadlines are passing, and the look of a real race means the appearance of a new entry (from a bench that is shallow and all-establishment) is less likely. The GOP has shown an interest in gaming the convention, but they have already deeply alienated many of Paul’s supporters, who will easily constitute the difference in the next election, whether Paul is on the ballot or not. The more the GOP does that seems designed to deny him a fair chance at the nomination, the more people they will alienate. The damage may already be done; it’s hard to find any Paul supporters who show any enthusiasm for any other candidates. They know that this actually isn’t just like every other election, a choice between two evils. Our country is in the grip of something awful which transcends Obama, and we’re approaching the event horizon. For millions there is one way out and one captain, everything else is a distraction from reality.
The cake may already be baked for the GOP. They’ve made support of something akin to our current foreign policy the new litmus-test for respectability in the GOP. The damage they’ve already done to their party, with their wholesale abandonment of the party’s long-held ’11th Commandment’: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any republican”, may be too much to undo. If they are not yet worried and introspective, they should be.
- All of the candidates except perhaps Bachmann and Perry will remain in the race. They all realize that 15%-20% of GOP primary voters are up for grabs in any given month, and Bachmann and Perry’s supporters would add 15% or so to that pool. Paul should hope that the establishment vote remains divided for as long as possible, as he steadily builds his support.
- Gingrich’s finish, well behind Paul, makes it more likely this will be viewed as a two or three-man race, minus Gingrich. So he’s likely to get even more desperate. He’s the literal face of the establishment, bragging about his past ‘successes’ as our country circles the drain – he’s the GOP’s Obama. Gingrich’s remaining supporters are probably the least likely to support Paul. They’re comfortable with their man calling an elder statesman, who enjoys respect across the political spectrum, ‘indecent’. The longer Newt Gingrich hangs on, the better for Paul.
- The respectable Iowa finish gives Paul’s supporters hope for future success, and they will continue pushing hard. Every day that passes is another in which more people take a closer look at Ron Paul, and like him. His support can only grow; once attached, his voters aren’t easily shaken loose. Once you come to agree with Paul, you see the vast gulf between him and the other candidates. For most people, crossing that gulf is a one-way trip.
Paul’s message will improve and his arguments will crystallize in voters’ minds as he moves forward. He will paint a vivid picture of what life under constitutional government will be like for Americans, and show them a credible way to transition to that reality. Eventually, most voters will soberly compare the importance of Paul’s mismanagement of a newsletter with the establishment’s mismanagement of everything. Further moves against Iran will not sit well with war-weary voters, particularly if gas prices are affected. Backing off from confrontation with Iran bolsters Paul’s message that our policy is erratic, and that conflict is not inevitable. If conflict comes, Paul is also vindicated, since it will be far from ‘necessary’ and will have little to do with America’s security. It will be hard for the GOP to complain about anything Obama does to Iran; they have established their respect for undeclared war repeatedly, and they’ve been banging the war drums for months. Obama’s mistakes in Iran will be their mistakes as well. At home, private central bankers will continue to kick the debt can down the road, with more damaging intervention into the economy and more ‘money’ creation to fund the establishment’s fiat-money Ponzi scheme. Things are likely to unfold much as Paul has said they will, further enhancing his credibility.
In their hearts, most voters believe that at best, things might get a little better. And most of those voters only see the edges of reality. They are asleep to the depth of the rot and ruin that has been sowed by a ruling class which feels little for them but disdain. Though Ron Paul’s supporters share a greater awareness of this reality, they are also the only people in American politics who share a genuine hope about the future. Everyone else is knowingly faking it, their consciences paralyzed by fear of unknowns, such as constitutional government. Much of the confidence in Paul is based on his record of being right, and offering a proven path back to sanity – the restoration of constitutional government.
If our recent history were a disaster movie, the standard audience reaction would be quite predictable: most viewers would be hoping that the characters who didn’t warn about the disaster or do anything to avoid it would finally shut up, and let the guy who’s been right since the start of the film take over. Take the politics out of it and it becomes quite simple. On a purely rational level, this would be the only major issue in the campaign: Is there anyone competent running who saw how and why we got into these messes, has any idea what to do about them, and has the sand to do it?
In spite of the relentless assault against him, Paul’s support held up well, with a result mirroring most of the polls leading up to the caucuses. His supporters can’t possibly be discouraged – Paul’s support grew steadily over the months, and he finished near his peak. Santorum’s turn as ‘flavor of the week’, coming right after voters got another look at Newt Gingrich, came at the perfect time, further fracturing the establishment vote.
The Iowa results boost Paul’s chances for long-term success for a number of reasons.
- A lot of the negative attention that was aimed at Paul will now be focused on Santorum. The media may give Arlen Specter’s most important political ally a break, for now, but his opponents won’t. To the media, Santorum is a perfect GOP candidate – one they can easily trash when the time comes. His current appeal is a mile wide and a millimeter deep; there’s nothing of substance driving it – no scheme like Cain’s ’9-9-9 plan’, no great legislative achievements, nothing aside from the perception that he’d be ‘tough on terror’, that he speaks in earnest, and that he’s not Gingrich or Romney. As long as Santorum is in it, Romney and Gingrich will remain in, they likely think that Santorum’s chances to actually secure the nomination are nil.
- Romney’s finish makes any ‘inevitability’ talk look ridiculous. He seems to have a ceiling of 25%-30% of GOP primary voters, with no noticeable crossover enthusiasm from democrats, and little appeal to independents. The undecided voters will continue to ping-pong between the other candidates, with some sticking to Paul with each bounce. It seems that no matter what Romney says, does, or spends, he can’t gain any broader traction. He isn’t trusted by most republicans, for far better reasons than the GOP establishment posits for opposing Paul. There’s little prospect that Romney can change that fact, but he’s still going to grind it out.
- There isn’t much the GOP establishment can do to derail Paul going forward. Ballot registration deadlines are passing, and the look of a real race means the appearance of a new entry (from a bench that is shallow and all-establishment) is less likely. The GOP has shown an interest in gaming the convention, but they have already deeply alienated many of Paul’s supporters, who will easily constitute the difference in the next election, whether Paul is on the ballot or not. The more the GOP does that seems designed to deny him a fair chance at the nomination, the more people they will alienate. The damage may already be done; it’s hard to find any Paul supporters who show any enthusiasm for any other candidates. They know that this actually isn’t just like every other election, a choice between two evils. Our country is in the grip of something awful which transcends Obama, and we’re approaching the event horizon. For millions there is one way out and one captain, everything else is a distraction from reality.
The cake may already be baked for the GOP. They’ve made support of something akin to our current foreign policy the new litmus-test for respectability in the GOP. The damage they’ve already done to their party, with their wholesale abandonment of the party’s long-held ’11th Commandment’: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any republican”, may be too much to undo. If they are not yet worried and introspective, they should be.
- All of the candidates except perhaps Bachmann and Perry will remain in the race. They all realize that 15%-20% of GOP primary voters are up for grabs in any given month, and Bachmann and Perry’s supporters would add 15% or so to that pool. Paul should hope that the establishment vote remains divided for as long as possible, as he steadily builds his support.
- Gingrich’s finish, well behind Paul, makes it more likely this will be viewed as a two or three-man race, minus Gingrich. So he’s likely to get even more desperate. He’s the literal face of the establishment, bragging about his past ‘successes’ as our country circles the drain – he’s the GOP’s Obama. Gingrich’s remaining supporters are probably the least likely to support Paul. They’re comfortable with their man calling an elder statesman, who enjoys respect across the political spectrum, ‘indecent’. The longer Newt Gingrich hangs on, the better for Paul.
- The respectable Iowa finish gives Paul’s supporters hope for future success, and they will continue pushing hard. Every day that passes is another in which more people take a closer look at Ron Paul, and like him. His support can only grow; once attached, his voters aren’t easily shaken loose. Once you come to agree with Paul, you see the vast gulf between him and the other candidates. For most people, crossing that gulf is a one-way trip.
Paul’s message will improve and his arguments will crystallize in voters’ minds as he moves forward. He will paint a vivid picture of what life under constitutional government will be like for Americans, and show them a credible way to transition to that reality. Eventually, most voters will soberly compare the importance of Paul’s mismanagement of a newsletter with the establishment’s mismanagement of everything. Further moves against Iran will not sit well with war-weary voters, particularly if gas prices are affected. Backing off from confrontation with Iran bolsters Paul’s message that our policy is erratic, and that conflict is not inevitable. If conflict comes, Paul is also vindicated, since it will be far from ‘necessary’ and will have little to do with America’s security. It will be hard for the GOP to complain about anything Obama does to Iran; they have established their respect for undeclared war repeatedly, and they’ve been banging the war drums for months. Obama’s mistakes in Iran will be their mistakes as well. At home, private central bankers will continue to kick the debt can down the road, with more damaging intervention into the economy and more ‘money’ creation to fund the establishment’s fiat-money Ponzi scheme. Things are likely to unfold much as Paul has said they will, further enhancing his credibility.
In their hearts, most voters believe that at best, things might get a little better. And most of those voters only see the edges of reality. They are asleep to the depth of the rot and ruin that has been sowed by a ruling class which feels little for them but disdain. Though Ron Paul’s supporters share a greater awareness of this reality, they are also the only people in American politics who share a genuine hope about the future. Everyone else is knowingly faking it, their consciences paralyzed by fear of unknowns, such as constitutional government. Much of the confidence in Paul is based on his record of being right, and offering a proven path back to sanity – the restoration of constitutional government.
If our recent history were a disaster movie, the standard audience reaction would be quite predictable: most viewers would be hoping that the characters who didn’t warn about the disaster or do anything to avoid it would finally shut up, and let the guy who’s been right since the start of the film take over. Take the politics out of it and it becomes quite simple. On a purely rational level, this would be the only major issue in the campaign: Is there anyone competent running who saw how and why we got into these messes, has any idea what to do about them, and has the sand to do it?
Thursday
WHAT I THINK...........THOMAS WOODS
A few belated thoughts on Ron Paul and the Iowa caucuses.
Certainly it’s a disappointment. Some people counter that what matters are the delegates, but in my opinion what actually matters right now is momentum, and an Iowa victory would have been great in that department. At the same time, 22% in a state that is not ideologically in Ron’s camp, with all the media hate and ridicule so intense for two solid weeks – and heck, with Ron’s opposition to ethanol subsidies thrown in – is nothing to sniff at.
So many people worked so hard in Iowa for this 20+% showing – particularly A.J. Spiker, David Fischer, and Drew Ivers, all friends of mine – and we owe them our thanks.
As a knowledgeable friend explained to me in 2008, it is extremely difficult to reach many traditional voters, who decide on which candidate to choose on the basis of how much he sounds like the typical GOP product they’ve come to expect. So they listen for a speech that says, “I love America, Americans are the awesomest of the awesome, we need jobs, Obama is bad, war war war – and did I say Americans were the most awesome people ever, in the most awesome country, and the only reason anyone might not be thrilled with our government is because of our sheer awesomeness?”
At the same time, the race is still up in the air in the sense that voters have not settled on the preferred anti-Romney. This morning, while involuntarily subjected to FOX News, I heard a newscaster say, “You can’t get more anti-Mitt than Rick Santorum.” You know what? I’m pretty sure you can.
What lifted my spirits last night was Ron Paul’s speech. The man is as genuine as can be, as we already knew, so his enthusiasm last night wasn’t a put on. He is thrilled that issues once neglected are now being discussed everywhere. He is delighted to see young people flocking to something other than the standard GOP talking points from 1983, which appear to satisfy older voters too set in their ways to have an original thought. He crushed everyone in the under-40 vote. That means his ideas are the future.
He has every reason to be proud right now – of his supporters, and of himself.
Not one of us would have begrudged Ron Paul a quiet retirement had he chosen not to run this year. He had already awakened more Americans to the real American tradition of liberty, along with the Austrian School of economics, than any living person, and he had stared down the Ministry of Information and its war-propaganda politicians more consistently than anyone I can think of.
Yet he chose to impose on himself the unthinkable physical and mental toll of a rigorous presidential campaign. He opened himself up to ceaseless, vicious attack by intellectual and moral pygmies who enjoy nothing more than dragging the name of the one honest man in politics through the mud.
I’m sure Ron could have lived without the exhausting travel, the nonstop attacks from left and right, all of it. But he’s enduring it for us, because – corny as this may sound – he knows these ideas are the key to a better world.
That’s why I’ll be standing by him, doing whatever I can for the cause, in the weeks and months ahead, and helping promote peace, freedom, and prosperity. No way is this not worth fighting for. Now we simply fight all the harder.
I hope you’ll continue to join me.
Certainly it’s a disappointment. Some people counter that what matters are the delegates, but in my opinion what actually matters right now is momentum, and an Iowa victory would have been great in that department. At the same time, 22% in a state that is not ideologically in Ron’s camp, with all the media hate and ridicule so intense for two solid weeks – and heck, with Ron’s opposition to ethanol subsidies thrown in – is nothing to sniff at.
So many people worked so hard in Iowa for this 20+% showing – particularly A.J. Spiker, David Fischer, and Drew Ivers, all friends of mine – and we owe them our thanks.
As a knowledgeable friend explained to me in 2008, it is extremely difficult to reach many traditional voters, who decide on which candidate to choose on the basis of how much he sounds like the typical GOP product they’ve come to expect. So they listen for a speech that says, “I love America, Americans are the awesomest of the awesome, we need jobs, Obama is bad, war war war – and did I say Americans were the most awesome people ever, in the most awesome country, and the only reason anyone might not be thrilled with our government is because of our sheer awesomeness?”
At the same time, the race is still up in the air in the sense that voters have not settled on the preferred anti-Romney. This morning, while involuntarily subjected to FOX News, I heard a newscaster say, “You can’t get more anti-Mitt than Rick Santorum.” You know what? I’m pretty sure you can.
What lifted my spirits last night was Ron Paul’s speech. The man is as genuine as can be, as we already knew, so his enthusiasm last night wasn’t a put on. He is thrilled that issues once neglected are now being discussed everywhere. He is delighted to see young people flocking to something other than the standard GOP talking points from 1983, which appear to satisfy older voters too set in their ways to have an original thought. He crushed everyone in the under-40 vote. That means his ideas are the future.
He has every reason to be proud right now – of his supporters, and of himself.
Not one of us would have begrudged Ron Paul a quiet retirement had he chosen not to run this year. He had already awakened more Americans to the real American tradition of liberty, along with the Austrian School of economics, than any living person, and he had stared down the Ministry of Information and its war-propaganda politicians more consistently than anyone I can think of.
Yet he chose to impose on himself the unthinkable physical and mental toll of a rigorous presidential campaign. He opened himself up to ceaseless, vicious attack by intellectual and moral pygmies who enjoy nothing more than dragging the name of the one honest man in politics through the mud.
I’m sure Ron could have lived without the exhausting travel, the nonstop attacks from left and right, all of it. But he’s enduring it for us, because – corny as this may sound – he knows these ideas are the key to a better world.
That’s why I’ll be standing by him, doing whatever I can for the cause, in the weeks and months ahead, and helping promote peace, freedom, and prosperity. No way is this not worth fighting for. Now we simply fight all the harder.
I hope you’ll continue to join me.
WHAT I THINK........JERRI WARD
The purpose of the state is supposed to be to protect life, liberty and property and to settle disputes. Today, we have a government that protects killing, and at times, even finances it. The growth and scope of our government is totally out of control and fails the test for a limited government in a free society. ~ Ron Paul, Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue
Ron Paul has long been an "unshakeable foe of abortion." While pro-life groups, in an effort to overturn Roe v. Wade, have long engaged in the fruitless struggle to elect the presidential candidate who will then appoint the "just right" jurist to sit on the Supreme Court, Ron Paul has repeatedly introduced legislation which affirms that life begins at conception, legislation that would exclude the issue of abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, thereby overturning Roe v. Wade and returning the issue to the proper authorities, the individual states.
In light of this, it is unfortunate that the respected and stalwart American Right to Life has stooped to condemning Ron Paul for his principled and constitutional approach to the abortion issue by using fallacies, defamatory and villainous rhetoric, and the kind of reasoning characteristic of the sophists of pagan Greece. According to ARTL, Ron Paul’s pledge to oppose abortion is inadequate because he refuses go along with ARTL’s support of a proposed federal law that would authorize the use of the 14th Amendment to protect the pre-born. Because Ron Paul recognizes and publicly states that this approach is not constitutionally proper and is a usurpation of state authority, ARTL’s director of research makes the ludicrous (and viciously false) claim that "Ron Paul agrees with the central finding of Roe v. Wade itself."
While the absurdity of such a claim is clear on its face, let me also add that the central finding of Roe v. Wade would never have seen the light of day were it not for the overbroad application of the 14th Amendment by activist judges. That the 14th Amendment has been the most effective, dangerous, and misapplied tool of activist judges is something that Conservatives once understood. Such an understanding was reaffirmed in 1977 when Conservatives lionized Raoul Berger’s release of Government By Judiciary, The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which demonstrated completely and unequivocally that the 14th Amendment had long been construed far too broadly, resulting in a "vast array" of unconstitutional decisions, including Roe v. Wade. In fact, Berger made the case so well in the book and in his rebuttals to its critics that the critics began, in the words of Forrest McDonald, "to assert that neither the words of the Constitution or the intentions of the framers are any longer relevant."
This truth has apparently either (1) gone down the memory hole or (2) Conservatives have become every bit as cynical and unprincipled as the left-leaning activist jurists they demonize. Conservatives now want to pass a law that will approve solidifying the federal judiciary’s chokehold on the abortion issue by using, to their own ends, the same overbroad construction of the 14th Amendment that generated Roe v. Wade.
It seems apparent to me that nationalizing the issue of abortion resulted in over 50 million abortions since 1973. States that would be saving babies right now (were Ron Paul’s legislation passed when Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency) have been able to do nothing but pass incremental measures seeking to slow down, but not end, the death of these babies who reside in their mother’s wombs. That is why I can’t understand why ARTL and others are determined to keep the issue in thrall to the same courts who brought about this tragedy.
The most effective solution is contained within the bills which Ron Paul has proposed session after session. His bills, which require only a simple majority vote, acknowledge that human life begins at conception and that it is within the authority of the States to protect that life. The legislation would deny the federal judiciary jurisdiction of the abortion issue, lawfully and constitutionally removing the power to overturn State laws which protect pre-born life. Under his legislation, Roe v. Wade would be dead, as pro-life activists have wanted for decades.
In response to Ron Paul’s proposing the above legislation, ARTL makes the laughable claim that he "is pro-choice, state-by-state. He believes states should be allowed to keep abortion, which is like allowing states to keep slavery." I can only assume that the ARTL did not get the 10th Amendment memo from the Tea Party. In fact, here we have Conservatives using the very accusations thrown at the Tea Party by race-card-playing leftists who assume that if we don’t unconstitutionally allow the federal government to dictate to the states what they may and may not do, Jim Crow laws will "rise again."
I am not as cynical about our constitutional form of government as ARTL appears to be. I am confident that pro-life people will be very successful in ending abortion in their own states once the federal grip on the issue is broken. Moreover, I agree with Raoul Berger’s statement: "I cannot bring myself to believe that the Court may assume a power not granted in order to correct an evil people were, and remain, unready to cure. Justification of judicial usurpation – the label Hamilton attached to encroachments on the legislative function – on the grounds that there is no other way to be rid of an acknowledged evil smacks of the discredited doctrine that the ‘end justifies the means.’" Berger went on to say: "Then there are the costs to constitutional government of countenancing such usurpation. As the Court itself has demonstrated, unconstitutional action establishes a precedent to cure a manifest evil, as Washington and Hamilton warned, that encourages transgression when such urgency is lacking." Berger’s point aptly applies to the proposal advanced by the ARTL and others to retain this usurped power (as opposed to restoring lawful federal authority) to regulate abortion at the national level, rather than the constitutionally appropriate state level. Such a "hair of the dog" solution is every bit as delusional as "fixing" our economy with the same monetary policies that crippled it, but too many are blinded by the appeal of manipulating illicit statist power to see it.
More importantly, as a Christian, I believe that once we shake off the chains placed upon us by the modern day pharaohs in Washington and return authority over this matter to its rightful place, we will be blessed by God and empowered by the Holy Spirit to end abortion within each State. I do not believe that He will so bless us if we continue to use and co-opt the cynical, despotic, lawless tactics of our opponents. Such power-concentrating tactics use the arm of man in the same manner as the builders of the Tower of Babel did in their efforts to reach heaven – but trusting in "the arm of flesh" always brings God’s curse, never His blessing (Jer. 17:5). Asserting a messianic role for the federal government bespeaks practical atheism and an unthinking return to Hegel’s view that the state is god walking on earth, wherein Christians who should have known better inexplicably choose to fight in Saul’s armor. The mindset of those who are willing to undermine rather than redeem constitutional government, and who seek to use the swollen statist federal leviathan as the means to their ends was aptly skewered by one of Cromwell’s chaplains, John Howe, in his sermon, The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit, using words that still ring across the centuries:
"An arm of flesh signifies a great deal when the power of the almighty Spirit is reckoned as nothing."
Ron Paul has long been an "unshakeable foe of abortion." While pro-life groups, in an effort to overturn Roe v. Wade, have long engaged in the fruitless struggle to elect the presidential candidate who will then appoint the "just right" jurist to sit on the Supreme Court, Ron Paul has repeatedly introduced legislation which affirms that life begins at conception, legislation that would exclude the issue of abortion from the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary, thereby overturning Roe v. Wade and returning the issue to the proper authorities, the individual states.
In light of this, it is unfortunate that the respected and stalwart American Right to Life has stooped to condemning Ron Paul for his principled and constitutional approach to the abortion issue by using fallacies, defamatory and villainous rhetoric, and the kind of reasoning characteristic of the sophists of pagan Greece. According to ARTL, Ron Paul’s pledge to oppose abortion is inadequate because he refuses go along with ARTL’s support of a proposed federal law that would authorize the use of the 14th Amendment to protect the pre-born. Because Ron Paul recognizes and publicly states that this approach is not constitutionally proper and is a usurpation of state authority, ARTL’s director of research makes the ludicrous (and viciously false) claim that "Ron Paul agrees with the central finding of Roe v. Wade itself."
While the absurdity of such a claim is clear on its face, let me also add that the central finding of Roe v. Wade would never have seen the light of day were it not for the overbroad application of the 14th Amendment by activist judges. That the 14th Amendment has been the most effective, dangerous, and misapplied tool of activist judges is something that Conservatives once understood. Such an understanding was reaffirmed in 1977 when Conservatives lionized Raoul Berger’s release of Government By Judiciary, The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which demonstrated completely and unequivocally that the 14th Amendment had long been construed far too broadly, resulting in a "vast array" of unconstitutional decisions, including Roe v. Wade. In fact, Berger made the case so well in the book and in his rebuttals to its critics that the critics began, in the words of Forrest McDonald, "to assert that neither the words of the Constitution or the intentions of the framers are any longer relevant."
This truth has apparently either (1) gone down the memory hole or (2) Conservatives have become every bit as cynical and unprincipled as the left-leaning activist jurists they demonize. Conservatives now want to pass a law that will approve solidifying the federal judiciary’s chokehold on the abortion issue by using, to their own ends, the same overbroad construction of the 14th Amendment that generated Roe v. Wade.
It seems apparent to me that nationalizing the issue of abortion resulted in over 50 million abortions since 1973. States that would be saving babies right now (were Ron Paul’s legislation passed when Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency) have been able to do nothing but pass incremental measures seeking to slow down, but not end, the death of these babies who reside in their mother’s wombs. That is why I can’t understand why ARTL and others are determined to keep the issue in thrall to the same courts who brought about this tragedy.
The most effective solution is contained within the bills which Ron Paul has proposed session after session. His bills, which require only a simple majority vote, acknowledge that human life begins at conception and that it is within the authority of the States to protect that life. The legislation would deny the federal judiciary jurisdiction of the abortion issue, lawfully and constitutionally removing the power to overturn State laws which protect pre-born life. Under his legislation, Roe v. Wade would be dead, as pro-life activists have wanted for decades.
In response to Ron Paul’s proposing the above legislation, ARTL makes the laughable claim that he "is pro-choice, state-by-state. He believes states should be allowed to keep abortion, which is like allowing states to keep slavery." I can only assume that the ARTL did not get the 10th Amendment memo from the Tea Party. In fact, here we have Conservatives using the very accusations thrown at the Tea Party by race-card-playing leftists who assume that if we don’t unconstitutionally allow the federal government to dictate to the states what they may and may not do, Jim Crow laws will "rise again."
I am not as cynical about our constitutional form of government as ARTL appears to be. I am confident that pro-life people will be very successful in ending abortion in their own states once the federal grip on the issue is broken. Moreover, I agree with Raoul Berger’s statement: "I cannot bring myself to believe that the Court may assume a power not granted in order to correct an evil people were, and remain, unready to cure. Justification of judicial usurpation – the label Hamilton attached to encroachments on the legislative function – on the grounds that there is no other way to be rid of an acknowledged evil smacks of the discredited doctrine that the ‘end justifies the means.’" Berger went on to say: "Then there are the costs to constitutional government of countenancing such usurpation. As the Court itself has demonstrated, unconstitutional action establishes a precedent to cure a manifest evil, as Washington and Hamilton warned, that encourages transgression when such urgency is lacking." Berger’s point aptly applies to the proposal advanced by the ARTL and others to retain this usurped power (as opposed to restoring lawful federal authority) to regulate abortion at the national level, rather than the constitutionally appropriate state level. Such a "hair of the dog" solution is every bit as delusional as "fixing" our economy with the same monetary policies that crippled it, but too many are blinded by the appeal of manipulating illicit statist power to see it.
More importantly, as a Christian, I believe that once we shake off the chains placed upon us by the modern day pharaohs in Washington and return authority over this matter to its rightful place, we will be blessed by God and empowered by the Holy Spirit to end abortion within each State. I do not believe that He will so bless us if we continue to use and co-opt the cynical, despotic, lawless tactics of our opponents. Such power-concentrating tactics use the arm of man in the same manner as the builders of the Tower of Babel did in their efforts to reach heaven – but trusting in "the arm of flesh" always brings God’s curse, never His blessing (Jer. 17:5). Asserting a messianic role for the federal government bespeaks practical atheism and an unthinking return to Hegel’s view that the state is god walking on earth, wherein Christians who should have known better inexplicably choose to fight in Saul’s armor. The mindset of those who are willing to undermine rather than redeem constitutional government, and who seek to use the swollen statist federal leviathan as the means to their ends was aptly skewered by one of Cromwell’s chaplains, John Howe, in his sermon, The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit, using words that still ring across the centuries:
"An arm of flesh signifies a great deal when the power of the almighty Spirit is reckoned as nothing."
Wednesday
WHAT I THINK........WALTER BLOCK
The closure of an international body of water is an act of war. If Iran implemented such a policy in the Strait of Hormuz, it would thus constitute an act of war. This is because in order to do so, this country would have to physically violate the rights of peaceful shippers. One might object that at present, Iran has only threatened to close the Straits of Hormuz. However, in my understanding of libertarian theory based upon the non aggression principle (NAP) not only are people (or governments!) not permitted to actually invade, or violate the rights of peaceful individuals, they are not entitled to threaten this either.
However, before we unduly criticize the Iranians for this threat, let us put the matter in context. The U.S. government has also threatened a blockade of Iran. With many statements emanating from Washington D.C. to the effect that the U.S. government "is not taking anything off the table," they are menacing actions a lot more serious, and invasive, than a mere blockade.
Why is the U.S. acting in so bellicose a manner? This is because it seems to be a settled part of present American policy that Iran should not persists in its (supposed) goal of arming itself with nuclear weapons.
Now, somewhat paradoxically, I agree with the Obama administration on this matter. Iran should not have nuclear weapons. But, neither should anyone else! Why not? This is because they are necessarily offensive. This type of ordnance cannot be used in a way that distinguishes between the guilty and the innocent. States Rothbard in this regard: "… while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even ‘conventional’ aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction." (For a further elaboration of this thesis and a discussion of its implications, see here.)
However, this demand of Iran on the part of the U.S. comes with particular ill grace given the fact that the latter country has thousands of such nuclear devices. If the Obama Administration had suddenly become infused with libertarianism in general, and with Rothbard’s analysis of nuclear weapons in particular, it would certainly be justified in continuing to press the Iranians not to develop such firearms. But it would begin this quest by getting rid of its own stocks first.
But are not the Iranians unstable? Are they not likely, under the leadership of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to use these items against innocent people? Did not this person threaten to wipe Israel off the map with them, that is, use such weapons against that country? No. This was a mis-translation of what he actually said (see here, here, here, here, here and especially here). Nor is it possible to ignore the fact that there is only one country on the face of the earth that has actually employed atomic weapons against innocent men, women and children. And that country, strangely enough, is not Iran. Rather, it is the good old U.S. of A., land of the free and home of the brave. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and especially here).
So, while I certainly endorse Rothbard’s analysis according to which any and all atomic weaponry is illicit according the NAP, it does not at all logically follow that a country with thousands of such armaments, that has the distinction of being the only one to have ever murdered people with such a heinous weapon, is justified in using force to prevent another nation from obtaining one for itself. (I here stipulate, arguendo, that this is indeed the case; Iran of course insists it is interested in nuclear power for entirely peaceful purposes.)
Now that we have explored the context, let us return to the Iranian threat to close the Straits of Hormuz. From a libertarian point of view, in order to assess the validity of this threat, we must ask, Does this constitute initiatory aggression, or threats, or retaliation? For libertarians are not pacifists. We reserve the right to employ threats, aggression, violence, provided, only, that it is in response to a prior act, but does not constitute the prior act itself. So, did Iran "start up" with the U.S., or did the U.S. begin the hostilities?
When put in this stark manner, it is difficult in the extreme to see the Iranians as the aggressors. At worst, they were going to build a nuclear weapon, not merely avail themselves of the peaceful use of this technology. Along comes a country, much larger and more powerful than theirs, certainly lacking "clean hands" in this regard, and orders them to cease and desist, under dire threat. So, in response, the Iranians issue a threat of their own: to close off international waters to peaceful shipping. Yes, Iran is in the wrong for so doing. But, they are not the real villain of the piece. That guilt lies elsewhere. The threat of the blockade against Iran came first. Only then did the Iranians make their own threat.
However, before we unduly criticize the Iranians for this threat, let us put the matter in context. The U.S. government has also threatened a blockade of Iran. With many statements emanating from Washington D.C. to the effect that the U.S. government "is not taking anything off the table," they are menacing actions a lot more serious, and invasive, than a mere blockade.
Why is the U.S. acting in so bellicose a manner? This is because it seems to be a settled part of present American policy that Iran should not persists in its (supposed) goal of arming itself with nuclear weapons.
Now, somewhat paradoxically, I agree with the Obama administration on this matter. Iran should not have nuclear weapons. But, neither should anyone else! Why not? This is because they are necessarily offensive. This type of ordnance cannot be used in a way that distinguishes between the guilty and the innocent. States Rothbard in this regard: "… while the bow and arrow and even the rifle can be pinpointed, if the will be there, against actual criminals, modern nuclear weapons cannot. Here is a crucial difference in kind. Of course, the bow and arrow could be used for aggressive purposes, but it could also be pinpointed to use only against aggressors. Nuclear weapons, even ‘conventional’ aerial bombs, cannot be. These weapons are ipso facto engines of indiscriminate mass destruction." (For a further elaboration of this thesis and a discussion of its implications, see here.)
However, this demand of Iran on the part of the U.S. comes with particular ill grace given the fact that the latter country has thousands of such nuclear devices. If the Obama Administration had suddenly become infused with libertarianism in general, and with Rothbard’s analysis of nuclear weapons in particular, it would certainly be justified in continuing to press the Iranians not to develop such firearms. But it would begin this quest by getting rid of its own stocks first.
But are not the Iranians unstable? Are they not likely, under the leadership of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to use these items against innocent people? Did not this person threaten to wipe Israel off the map with them, that is, use such weapons against that country? No. This was a mis-translation of what he actually said (see here, here, here, here, here and especially here). Nor is it possible to ignore the fact that there is only one country on the face of the earth that has actually employed atomic weapons against innocent men, women and children. And that country, strangely enough, is not Iran. Rather, it is the good old U.S. of A., land of the free and home of the brave. (See here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and especially here).
So, while I certainly endorse Rothbard’s analysis according to which any and all atomic weaponry is illicit according the NAP, it does not at all logically follow that a country with thousands of such armaments, that has the distinction of being the only one to have ever murdered people with such a heinous weapon, is justified in using force to prevent another nation from obtaining one for itself. (I here stipulate, arguendo, that this is indeed the case; Iran of course insists it is interested in nuclear power for entirely peaceful purposes.)
Now that we have explored the context, let us return to the Iranian threat to close the Straits of Hormuz. From a libertarian point of view, in order to assess the validity of this threat, we must ask, Does this constitute initiatory aggression, or threats, or retaliation? For libertarians are not pacifists. We reserve the right to employ threats, aggression, violence, provided, only, that it is in response to a prior act, but does not constitute the prior act itself. So, did Iran "start up" with the U.S., or did the U.S. begin the hostilities?
When put in this stark manner, it is difficult in the extreme to see the Iranians as the aggressors. At worst, they were going to build a nuclear weapon, not merely avail themselves of the peaceful use of this technology. Along comes a country, much larger and more powerful than theirs, certainly lacking "clean hands" in this regard, and orders them to cease and desist, under dire threat. So, in response, the Iranians issue a threat of their own: to close off international waters to peaceful shipping. Yes, Iran is in the wrong for so doing. But, they are not the real villain of the piece. That guilt lies elsewhere. The threat of the blockade against Iran came first. Only then did the Iranians make their own threat.
WHAT I THINK........DAVID GORDON
This brilliant book collects fifty short essays by Ron Paul on issues that range from abortion and assassination to unions and Zionism. It is no disparate assemblage, though; rather it is unified around a central theme, the vital importance of liberty. Paul’s defense of liberty and opposition to its contemporary enemies put him at odds with all establishment politicians, both Republican and Democratic.
As he puts the point with characteristic force: "For more than 100 years, the dominant views that have influenced our politicians have undermined the principles of personal liberty and private property, The tragedy is these bad policies have had strong bipartisan support. There has been no real opposition to the steady increase in the size and scope of government. Democrats are largely and openly for government expansion, and if we were to judge the Republicans by their actions and not their rhetoric, we would come to much the same conclusion about them."(p.20)
What exactly is the liberty that Paul favors? He makes clear at the book’s start what he has in mind: "Liberty means to exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others. This means, above all else, keeping government out of our lives." (p.xi) And of course the liberties in question include property rights: a free society rests on a free market economy.
Few if any in American politics will openly avow total opposition to liberty and property, but the mainstream approach toward these values differs entirely from Paul’s. As conventional politicians see matters, liberty and property, whatever their importance, must be balanced against other values, such as social justice and security. Is it not reasonable, they say, that the rich should surrender a little of their wealth to help the destitute? Again, does not an absolutist conception of civil liberties ignore the peril of terrorism? Even if we must submit to bothersome surveillance and intrusions, is not the price worth paying if these measures reduce the dangers of a terrorist assault?
It is a principal merit of Liberty Defined to refute these all too common contentions. As Paul trenchantly points out, attempts to surrender a slight amount of liberty in pursuit of competing values lead rapidly to drastic incursions on freedom, if not its virtually complete curtailment. "Granting food stamps benefits to 2 percent of the population in need seems like a reasonable thing to do. But what is not realized is that though only 2 percent get undeserved benefits from the 98 percent, 100 percent of the principle of individual liberty has been sacrificed. . . it was only to be expected that the dependency of 2 percent would grow and spread. . .Here is a good example of how a compromise can lead to chaos. The personal income tax began at 1 percent and applied only to the rich. Just look at the size of the tax code today." (pp.129-30)
Paul’s contention should not be set aside as a "slippery-slope" argument. His view is not that it is logically necessary that any incursion on liberty lead on to others. Rather, his contention is twofold: people who favor balancing liberty against other values have failed to arrive at a principled limit on sacrifices of liberty; and experience with such balancing shows that it abandons freedom.
Precisely the same process of incremental surrender takes place over security. "Many Americans believe that it is necessary to sacrifice some freedom for security in order to preserve freedom in the greater sense." (p.253) This belief has at times led to the defense of gravely immoral behavior: "In recent years, especially since 9/11, a majority of the American people have been brainwashed into believing that our national security depends on torture and that it’s been effective. The fact is, our Constitution, our laws, international laws, and the code of morality all forbid it. . .The old ruse is to ask what if you knew someone had vital information that, if revealed, would save American lives. . . The question that supporters of torture refuse to even ask is, If one suspects that one individual out of 100 captured has crucial information, and you don’t know which one it is, are you justified to torture all 100 to get that information? If we still get a yes answer in support of such torture, I’m afraid our current system of government cannot survive." (pp.290-91)
But if we renounce, in all instances, the use of torture, do we not put our nation at risk? To the contrary, the view that security depends on the state, let alone state-mandated torture, rests on illusion. If a genuine threat to life and liberty is present, people in a free society can deal with it voluntarily: government coercion is superfluous. "In a free society, where depending on government is minimal or absent, any real crisis serves to motivate individuals, families, churches, and communities to come together and work to offset the crisis, whether it comes from natural causes. . .or is man-made." (p.254)
Are threats posed by foreign nations an exception to this contention? Not at all. These alleged threats are grossly exaggerated in order to aggrandize the State’s power. The so-called "war on terrorism" perfectly illustrates how the State uses a blown-up crisis to its own advantage: "For a little bit of reassurance – even with all the bad mistakes that contributed to the terrorist dangers – it is more likely that an American will die from being hit by lightning than from a terrorist attack." (p.97)
With great courage for someone seeking the presidency, Paul notes that our misbegotten quest for "security" has led to America’s becoming a menace to other nations. "Now many Americans can’t even conceive of other countries believing the United States to be a threat. And yet, ours is the only government that will travel to far distant lands to overthrow governments, station troops, and drop bombs on people. The United States is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons against people. And we are surprised that many people in the world regard the United States as a threat?" (p.257)
The policy of American aggression unfortunately did not begin with the Bush and Obama administrations. These presidents followed in the footsteps of many eminent predecessors in office. Not least of these was Franklin Roosevelt, who spoke of "freedom from fear" but was a past master at arousing the very emotion he professed to allay, in order the better to pursue his bellicose scheming: "Roosevelt’s motivation and intent [in the Four Freedoms Speech] are unknown to me, but the results of his effort did not serve the cause of freedom in the United States. Within seven months of this speech, Roosevelt stopped all oil shipments to Japan, which helped lead to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. All the while, Roosevelt preached a distorted view of freedom; he was maneuvering us into war." (p.125)
In light of the campaign of contumely to which Ron Paul has of late been subjected, one turns with particular interest to his remarks on racism. He insightfully draws a connection between racism and a war-dominated foreign policy: "Wartime is an environment that breeds wicked forms of racism. This is because governments love to turn existing prejudices into hate in order to mobilize the masses. . . If we hate racism, we must also hate war since it is war that has bred all these malignant types of racism. . .Government-backed racism is designed to shore up government power. The idea is to stir popular opinion that should be directed against one’s own government toward some evil foreign enemy."(pp.239, 241)
Paul’s struggle against American empire has won him wide notice, but he is equally famous for his campaign for sound money and a free economy. Indeed, the two battles are closely linked, since it is military Keynesianism that supports the extensive government spending that the quest for empire requires. "Military Keynesianism supported by both conservatives and liberals has led to an obscene amount of taxpayer dollars being spent, now surpassing the military spending of all other nations combined. . .Military Keynesianism invites mercantilist policies. Frequently, our armies follow corporate investments around the world, and have for more than a hundred years. . .There’s something about military Keynesianism that I dislike even more than domestic economic Keynesianism. Too many times, I’ve seen how the conservative agenda of cutting government gets overtaken by this ideological attachment to unlimited military spending." (pp.174-76)
Paul does not confine himself to criticism but has a remedy for this dire state of affairs. The government should retire altogether from economic intervention and allow the free economy to work unhindered. In particular, the government should altogether renounce its control over the money supply. His familiar rallying cry "End the Fed" is part of a larger program: "I would like to see a dollar as good as gold. I would like to see the banking system operating as it would under free enterprise, meaning no central bank. I would like to see competitive currencies emerge on the market and be permitted to thrive.. . .Paper money is a drug and Washington is addicted. . .Washington should get out of the way and let another system built on human choice emerge spontaneously." (pp.201-202)
Paul’s entire political program rests firmly on moral principles. He movingly sums up what he believes in this way: "What moral system should government follow? The same one individuals follow. Do not steal. Do not murder. Do not bear false witness. Do not covet. Do not foster vice. If governments would merely follow the moral law that all religions recognize, we would live in a world of peace, prosperity, and freedom. The system is called classical liberalism. Liberty is not complicated." (p.211)
As he puts the point with characteristic force: "For more than 100 years, the dominant views that have influenced our politicians have undermined the principles of personal liberty and private property, The tragedy is these bad policies have had strong bipartisan support. There has been no real opposition to the steady increase in the size and scope of government. Democrats are largely and openly for government expansion, and if we were to judge the Republicans by their actions and not their rhetoric, we would come to much the same conclusion about them."(p.20)
What exactly is the liberty that Paul favors? He makes clear at the book’s start what he has in mind: "Liberty means to exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others. This means, above all else, keeping government out of our lives." (p.xi) And of course the liberties in question include property rights: a free society rests on a free market economy.
Few if any in American politics will openly avow total opposition to liberty and property, but the mainstream approach toward these values differs entirely from Paul’s. As conventional politicians see matters, liberty and property, whatever their importance, must be balanced against other values, such as social justice and security. Is it not reasonable, they say, that the rich should surrender a little of their wealth to help the destitute? Again, does not an absolutist conception of civil liberties ignore the peril of terrorism? Even if we must submit to bothersome surveillance and intrusions, is not the price worth paying if these measures reduce the dangers of a terrorist assault?
It is a principal merit of Liberty Defined to refute these all too common contentions. As Paul trenchantly points out, attempts to surrender a slight amount of liberty in pursuit of competing values lead rapidly to drastic incursions on freedom, if not its virtually complete curtailment. "Granting food stamps benefits to 2 percent of the population in need seems like a reasonable thing to do. But what is not realized is that though only 2 percent get undeserved benefits from the 98 percent, 100 percent of the principle of individual liberty has been sacrificed. . . it was only to be expected that the dependency of 2 percent would grow and spread. . .Here is a good example of how a compromise can lead to chaos. The personal income tax began at 1 percent and applied only to the rich. Just look at the size of the tax code today." (pp.129-30)
Paul’s contention should not be set aside as a "slippery-slope" argument. His view is not that it is logically necessary that any incursion on liberty lead on to others. Rather, his contention is twofold: people who favor balancing liberty against other values have failed to arrive at a principled limit on sacrifices of liberty; and experience with such balancing shows that it abandons freedom.
Precisely the same process of incremental surrender takes place over security. "Many Americans believe that it is necessary to sacrifice some freedom for security in order to preserve freedom in the greater sense." (p.253) This belief has at times led to the defense of gravely immoral behavior: "In recent years, especially since 9/11, a majority of the American people have been brainwashed into believing that our national security depends on torture and that it’s been effective. The fact is, our Constitution, our laws, international laws, and the code of morality all forbid it. . .The old ruse is to ask what if you knew someone had vital information that, if revealed, would save American lives. . . The question that supporters of torture refuse to even ask is, If one suspects that one individual out of 100 captured has crucial information, and you don’t know which one it is, are you justified to torture all 100 to get that information? If we still get a yes answer in support of such torture, I’m afraid our current system of government cannot survive." (pp.290-91)
But if we renounce, in all instances, the use of torture, do we not put our nation at risk? To the contrary, the view that security depends on the state, let alone state-mandated torture, rests on illusion. If a genuine threat to life and liberty is present, people in a free society can deal with it voluntarily: government coercion is superfluous. "In a free society, where depending on government is minimal or absent, any real crisis serves to motivate individuals, families, churches, and communities to come together and work to offset the crisis, whether it comes from natural causes. . .or is man-made." (p.254)
Are threats posed by foreign nations an exception to this contention? Not at all. These alleged threats are grossly exaggerated in order to aggrandize the State’s power. The so-called "war on terrorism" perfectly illustrates how the State uses a blown-up crisis to its own advantage: "For a little bit of reassurance – even with all the bad mistakes that contributed to the terrorist dangers – it is more likely that an American will die from being hit by lightning than from a terrorist attack." (p.97)
With great courage for someone seeking the presidency, Paul notes that our misbegotten quest for "security" has led to America’s becoming a menace to other nations. "Now many Americans can’t even conceive of other countries believing the United States to be a threat. And yet, ours is the only government that will travel to far distant lands to overthrow governments, station troops, and drop bombs on people. The United States is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons against people. And we are surprised that many people in the world regard the United States as a threat?" (p.257)
The policy of American aggression unfortunately did not begin with the Bush and Obama administrations. These presidents followed in the footsteps of many eminent predecessors in office. Not least of these was Franklin Roosevelt, who spoke of "freedom from fear" but was a past master at arousing the very emotion he professed to allay, in order the better to pursue his bellicose scheming: "Roosevelt’s motivation and intent [in the Four Freedoms Speech] are unknown to me, but the results of his effort did not serve the cause of freedom in the United States. Within seven months of this speech, Roosevelt stopped all oil shipments to Japan, which helped lead to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. All the while, Roosevelt preached a distorted view of freedom; he was maneuvering us into war." (p.125)
In light of the campaign of contumely to which Ron Paul has of late been subjected, one turns with particular interest to his remarks on racism. He insightfully draws a connection between racism and a war-dominated foreign policy: "Wartime is an environment that breeds wicked forms of racism. This is because governments love to turn existing prejudices into hate in order to mobilize the masses. . . If we hate racism, we must also hate war since it is war that has bred all these malignant types of racism. . .Government-backed racism is designed to shore up government power. The idea is to stir popular opinion that should be directed against one’s own government toward some evil foreign enemy."(pp.239, 241)
Paul’s struggle against American empire has won him wide notice, but he is equally famous for his campaign for sound money and a free economy. Indeed, the two battles are closely linked, since it is military Keynesianism that supports the extensive government spending that the quest for empire requires. "Military Keynesianism supported by both conservatives and liberals has led to an obscene amount of taxpayer dollars being spent, now surpassing the military spending of all other nations combined. . .Military Keynesianism invites mercantilist policies. Frequently, our armies follow corporate investments around the world, and have for more than a hundred years. . .There’s something about military Keynesianism that I dislike even more than domestic economic Keynesianism. Too many times, I’ve seen how the conservative agenda of cutting government gets overtaken by this ideological attachment to unlimited military spending." (pp.174-76)
Paul does not confine himself to criticism but has a remedy for this dire state of affairs. The government should retire altogether from economic intervention and allow the free economy to work unhindered. In particular, the government should altogether renounce its control over the money supply. His familiar rallying cry "End the Fed" is part of a larger program: "I would like to see a dollar as good as gold. I would like to see the banking system operating as it would under free enterprise, meaning no central bank. I would like to see competitive currencies emerge on the market and be permitted to thrive.. . .Paper money is a drug and Washington is addicted. . .Washington should get out of the way and let another system built on human choice emerge spontaneously." (pp.201-202)
Paul’s entire political program rests firmly on moral principles. He movingly sums up what he believes in this way: "What moral system should government follow? The same one individuals follow. Do not steal. Do not murder. Do not bear false witness. Do not covet. Do not foster vice. If governments would merely follow the moral law that all religions recognize, we would live in a world of peace, prosperity, and freedom. The system is called classical liberalism. Liberty is not complicated." (p.211)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
