Baylow: December 2007 Archives
Yes, I am a Ron Paul supporter. You may know of us by the loud cries of foul play that are yelled each time a poll is presented showing our candidate in the single digits. There seem to be two very opinionated camps when it comes to the issue of Ron Paul. There are those who say "I don't know what he stands for, but I know he won't win so I don't want to vote for him," and those who say (often in all caps and copious use of the exclamation point) "WE'RE GOING TO TAKE BACK THIS COUNTRY FOR FREEDOM AND BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH."
While I tend to agree on principle with the later of the two types of people, I am forced to part ways when it comes to their blind optimism. We're probably not going to take back this country (at least not this election cycle). In fact, chances are that a Democrat (most likely Obama or Clinton) is going to be our next president. Now, before you dismiss me as a defeatist consider that this loss (and Ron Paul's part in it) may be the best thing to every happen to the republican party, and may prevent it from going the way of the Wigs in the future.
I don't know if you've noticed something about the Republican party lately, but it doesn't really seem to have a clear message. One part of the party is about Loving God and Hating Gays (The party of Huckabee). This part wants less government involvement in our daily lives, unless it offends their moralities in which case they want those who offend god to be black bagged and sent off to Guantanamo. There is another part of the Republican party that seems so concerned with their own safety from the nasty terrorists that they're just about willing hand over any power necessary to anyone who will take it just to keep them safe (The Party of Guilanni). Finally there is the party of the Anti-dems. These people don't really stand on any solid ground politically, but know that they hate the liberals and want to make sure that they don't get in office. They tend to support the candidate that is most likely to win, regardless of what they actually stand for (The Party of Romney). This paints the picture of a very divided party (so much for Bush being a Uniter, his administration not only fractured the nation but even his own party).
In steps Ron Paul. This is a man who seems to inspire more animosity from his own party than he does from the opposing one. However, somewhere in his message is something that I truly believe every classic republican believes. "Our government needs to be spending less money," and "Our government needs to stay out of our lives." These are the principles of the Republican party that i signed up for, but don't seem to be the principles of the Republican Party today. This is why I support him, and also why he won't win.
The parties of the other candidates seem to be parties of issues. One party has an issue with Gays, the other with Terrorists, the other with Democrats. In each case they have ways to solve their problems: Some want to change the constitution, others want to fund large scale wars. When they see a problem they say "they should really something about that." What none of the parties seem to realize is that these issues cost money to solve. Ron Paul's campaign is so interesting because it has stepped up and said, "My only issue is that we're spending too much money trying to solve everyone else's issues." This doesn't bode well for him as a candidate, but may spark an idea in the heads of republican everywhere.
Say Ron Paul gets a solid 12% of the vote come primary time. That's 12% of voters who will not be satisfied with any other candidate but Ron Paul. They won't like the issues of the other candidate, and for the most part they won't vote in the general election. What this means is a loss for the Republicans. However, when a party loses the election they start to ask "why?" Soon that why will show that the Ron Paul voters didn't become Guilani or Huckabee or Romney voters. My hope is that this will lead to a reexamining of the republican platform, and hopefully return us back to where we were. That means lower Taxes, less spending, better privacy, and far less fear.
So perhaps a Ron Paul lose may be a win for the Ron Paul idea.
While I tend to agree on principle with the later of the two types of people, I am forced to part ways when it comes to their blind optimism. We're probably not going to take back this country (at least not this election cycle). In fact, chances are that a Democrat (most likely Obama or Clinton) is going to be our next president. Now, before you dismiss me as a defeatist consider that this loss (and Ron Paul's part in it) may be the best thing to every happen to the republican party, and may prevent it from going the way of the Wigs in the future.
I don't know if you've noticed something about the Republican party lately, but it doesn't really seem to have a clear message. One part of the party is about Loving God and Hating Gays (The party of Huckabee). This part wants less government involvement in our daily lives, unless it offends their moralities in which case they want those who offend god to be black bagged and sent off to Guantanamo. There is another part of the Republican party that seems so concerned with their own safety from the nasty terrorists that they're just about willing hand over any power necessary to anyone who will take it just to keep them safe (The Party of Guilanni). Finally there is the party of the Anti-dems. These people don't really stand on any solid ground politically, but know that they hate the liberals and want to make sure that they don't get in office. They tend to support the candidate that is most likely to win, regardless of what they actually stand for (The Party of Romney). This paints the picture of a very divided party (so much for Bush being a Uniter, his administration not only fractured the nation but even his own party).
In steps Ron Paul. This is a man who seems to inspire more animosity from his own party than he does from the opposing one. However, somewhere in his message is something that I truly believe every classic republican believes. "Our government needs to be spending less money," and "Our government needs to stay out of our lives." These are the principles of the Republican party that i signed up for, but don't seem to be the principles of the Republican Party today. This is why I support him, and also why he won't win.
The parties of the other candidates seem to be parties of issues. One party has an issue with Gays, the other with Terrorists, the other with Democrats. In each case they have ways to solve their problems: Some want to change the constitution, others want to fund large scale wars. When they see a problem they say "they should really something about that." What none of the parties seem to realize is that these issues cost money to solve. Ron Paul's campaign is so interesting because it has stepped up and said, "My only issue is that we're spending too much money trying to solve everyone else's issues." This doesn't bode well for him as a candidate, but may spark an idea in the heads of republican everywhere.
Say Ron Paul gets a solid 12% of the vote come primary time. That's 12% of voters who will not be satisfied with any other candidate but Ron Paul. They won't like the issues of the other candidate, and for the most part they won't vote in the general election. What this means is a loss for the Republicans. However, when a party loses the election they start to ask "why?" Soon that why will show that the Ron Paul voters didn't become Guilani or Huckabee or Romney voters. My hope is that this will lead to a reexamining of the republican platform, and hopefully return us back to where we were. That means lower Taxes, less spending, better privacy, and far less fear.
So perhaps a Ron Paul lose may be a win for the Ron Paul idea.