Ron Paul Realism: Question 4 of 7
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Ron PaulI’m continuing to post the answers to 7 questions I recieved from Ron Paul supporters. If you’d like, read the answers to questions 1,2 and 3 before you read about #4.
I will say that the following question brought about the most interesting answers to date. Because many of you questioned whether or not “unity” was an ideal, especially in the current political climate. I tend to think it is, but that’s just me.
Question 4: In a time where we need unity, do you think Paul’s “Dr. No” way of politics will actually bring the country together?
- Jim: Dr. No is about controlling the state, not the people. The people are not the state. Whenever the state tries to bring people together, we see fascism or communism.
- mike: paul is uniting all sorts of people now… i think anyone educated on all the issues would have a hard time disagreeing with his stances. 70% of the country is united in exiting the war… apparently 30% are misguided or ignorant IMO!
- James Maynard: No, in fact we may see more division - but that is not what is important - what is important is re-establishing Constitutional law to reign in the powers of future executives, D and R. I would rather live in a divided republic at peace than in a unified aristocracy (sp?) embattled in constant, unending war. Remember - the world in 1984 was unified too, but I wouldn’t call that a successful society.
- Spirit of ‘76: Again, we can look at Paul’s own words. In a brief speech to supporters at Ames, he said: “The programs we’ve had, the type of government we’ve had, and where we’ve been drifting to are very divisive. Because what happens is the government takes over, they tell us how to live, they take over all the resources of the country, then it all goes to Washington. We can’t use our property and we can’t spend our money without permission, so what happens? Everybody goes to Washington and they claw after the largesse and the loot they take from us. [...] This program that we talk about is exactly the opposite. It releases the energy, it allows people to be creative, it allows wealth to be built, and it brings people together. So this is why our groups are always diverse. It always brings people together, whether they’re conservatives, liberals, or independents.”
- Tannim: Of course. The authoritarians in the DP and GOP will unite against him cutting off their government feedbags and then self-destruct in temper tanrtums of hate and doomsaying after he exercises exectuive authority on his branch of government and kills the offices, leaving the rest of us to thrive since we never had those feedbags in the first place.
- chad: YES!!! do you think people actually know how the candidates vote? or why they chose to vote a certain way? no i think they care more about how that decision affects them, i think people would not be very happy with the legislators that voted for the patriot act and the no child left behind act if they actually had any idea what was in these bills and how disingenuous they are. ron paul votes no because those bills hurt people more than help them, the constitution should unite this country but only if we actually follow it.
- bbartlog: Why do we need unity again? People are deeply divided over serious issues. I don’t expect (most) people who think Islamofascism is an existential threat to the nation to come around and agree with me; I simply hope that other, more sensible people will beat the snot out of them at the polls. The same goes for other issues.
- Jordan: We’re united to end the war in Iraq. If Paul does that it doesn’t matter what else he kills.
- Ellis_Wyatt: Well, what indeed are the “unifying principles” of America? Again, if you know what’s going on, “constitutionalism” is THE core value of this country, and of its people, if they have two ganglia to rub together.
- James Aragon: Why does the country need to be brought together? People want their liberties and will decide for themselves if they will agree or disagree on issues. We need Congress to get out of bed with each other so that principles can again mean something. Compromise at times can mean quitting (is Senator McCain listening?).
- meatwad: Putting the federal government in charge of every last legislative detail doesn’t create unity, it creates apathetic slaves like we have today. Let the people sort things out for themselves and give them back their otherwise wasted tax dollars so that they can do something good with it. Even with the highest tax rates in history, the U.S. is the most charitable nation in the world.
- Patrick: Psychobabble. Unity is just another word that sounds good but never happens. I want to agree to disagree. But when you disagree don’t get congress to take my money and force me to agree.
- Matt C: Is there ever a time when we don’t need unity? Saying “no” to unconsitutional actions should not be a divisive thing to do. It should not even be *necessary to do, because in an ideal world some of the laws that are passed would be constitutional.
- Vicky: Yes. It is proven by his supporter base.
- Edward Keithly: I question your premise of “unity” being a necessary precondition for political improvement, short of the unity required to get 50.1 percent of the vote.
- meinaz: Yes. More so than the fear peddling which is uniting us in terror. Between Chertov’s gut feelings and ambiguous “Orange Alerts”, the average citizen is either ignoring or cowering from the world around them. If your question is in regard to current civil rights laws which violate our freedom of association, then no. It’s long past time to rid ourselves of carpet bagging heavy handedness, IMO.
- Jeanette Doney: The US Constitution empowers people through laws first, force when diplomacy can not be had. You cannot force people to unify, only empower them to want to unify, feel safe through trade and justice.
- Corey Cagle: I’m not entirely sure what you mean when you say we need “unity.” Unity between the liberals who love the welfare state and the neoconservatives who love the warfare state tends to lead to the welfare-warfare hybrid we’ve had in this country since Woodrow Wilson. If that’s what “unity” means in Washington, we need to run screaming from anyone promising more of it.
- Dan Warner: Dr. No (or as I prefer Dr. Know) is allready uniting the country. Anyone who knows anything knows that Ron Paul is talking about the things that real life Americans are dealing with every day. Rather than him uniting the country, I think the country is elevating him as their own voice. We are allready united against ‘more of the same’.
- Buckwheat: Yes! The Constitution brings us together because, unlike today’s left and right, it preaches “live and let live.”
- Jonathan Bennett: Yes. As Paul has said several times, “The freedom message brings people together, it doesn’t divide.”
- Aaron: Do we really need “unity?” Why is this time any different than any other in our history? The Constitution is a very distrustful document which creates unity by limiting the power of the participants. This is all of the unity we need—assurance that we are free from one another. This assurance is what allows us to work WITH one another. Any other form of unity is based on more sinister motives and coercions. The disunity that the media so often complains about is partisanship. It has become bitter but it is not about policy it is about position. These are children arguing over toys. If another kid like Ron Paul shows up shows up in the school yard threatening to take their toys away they will unify in an instant. In this sense, Paul is the unity candidate for the Democratic and Republican parties.
- John Campbell: Why do we need Unity now more than at any other time? I think that it will take a long time to dismantle the social and corporate welfare state. It will also require leadership and education along the lines of shared sacrifice. Ron Paul is always cautious to point out that an entire generation dependent on government programs will require support while future generations opt out. Savings in military spending pay for this.
- Jerry Clower: The Nazis had great unity. It’s not always a great thing, I would rather see our congressman duke it out on the house floor because of conviction than do the political deal making meet in the middle crap that usually ends up the worst of both worlds. What are we to unify under? You know when american unity was at an all time low, 1750-1770. I’d rather sever ties with the Tories than compromise what is right. Ideologue? You bet.
- Doofus: I think everyone can relate partly to his message, except for war-mongers, weflare state types and interest groups who get nice federal grants & subsidies.
- Corky: I don’t think we need the kind of unity that results from a centralized government telling us what to do and what to think. If you want a more detailed answer, you need to explain why you think we need “unity” at this time.
- Scott: Yes, I do, because once the economy is raging from his methods, and there is no unjust income tax, and we don’t just hand money to other countries, your money, and mine that is, all of our personal money goes up, costs go down, and I believe just that in itself would make things alot better.
- PC: What are the people of this country united on? Disillusionment of the way government operates and most want an end to the Iraq War. To me it seems like Dr. Paul could unite more people than any other candidate just looking at those issues alone. Yes Dr. No said NO to all those proposals that are ballooning our debt and risking the financial security of future generations. I am sorry but this is the stupidest question you asked so far.
- Lex: Can he unite the country? No. Liberals and progressives will complain to no end about how he is destroying their beloved welfare state. Neoconservatives will complain to no end about he is destroying their beloved warfare state. Good riddance to both. They will no doubt try to stop him at every turn, but the American people will start to see hope again, at last.
- paul revere II: Our current Political system needs to go!!!!!! Every single dam thing about it! From the wars, to the treason of giving all of our manufactiring base to Communist China, From Proaganda, To lobbyist to, Genocide- This Goverment SUCKS!!!!!!! We sit crammed in Traffic for hours eveyday on bridges that are rotting away paying tolls and Unconsitutional/illegal Income Tax- The Dollar at all time lows, Homelessness on the rise and Our boys dieing everyday for the Rich! no one does NOTHING! We need real true fundamental change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW! DOWN! with the current political situation! Make lobbying illegal! and arrest all Neo Cons! People hit the streets harder!!!
- Ward Ciac: Somebody’s gotta do something about these trillion dollar bills or there will be no country left to bring together.
- Tim: The president’s job is not to “bring the country together.” The president’s job is to secure liberty and to abide by the Constitution.
- coainley: Yes. People would be relieved to have someone in office they can count on to bring sanity to the country.
- Tony Lambiris: I do, because his platform will take away money and power from the government and give it back to the people, where it belongs in the first place. Like I said in my previous response, if anything it would imagine it would just make us more self-reliant, and depend more on our friends, family and community when we need help.
- Michael: I believe getting the Senate and Congress to seriously look at the issues that are facing the American People would bring people together. This would allow the people to know that “They” choose their politicians and the politicians need to be held responsible for their actions (or inactions). It would shake up the status quo that has stagnated for so long in Washington. It is time for a bit of a shake up!
- Dary: If Ron can’t do it, who can?
If Ron can’t do it, who can? Well, Dary might very well be right.
But the one answer here that really stuck out for me was James Maynard’s:
No, in fact we may see more division - but that is not what is important - what is important is re-establishing Constitutional law to reign in the powers of future executives, D and R. I would rather live in a divided republic at peace than in a unified aristocracy (sp?) embattled in constant, unending war. Remember - the world in 1984 was unified too, but I wouldn’t call that a successful society.
Well put. And maybe that’s why I stress the need for a third way. Paul’s beliefs definitely fall well outside of our current political ideologies and maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe shaking the system up is the only thing that can get us out of this left/right rut. Perhaps that will give rise to a viable independent movement where people demand more personal freedoms and less government instrusion in their lives. I know that many from both sides of the aisle would welcome a party based around those ideas.
But Ron Paul has said he won’t run on a 3rd Party ticket…hmm…
Well, then does anybody really think he has a shot at overtaking the GOP? Again, it seems unlikely, and my next question about Howard Dean will explore that.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 22nd, 2007 and is filed under 2008 Election, Ron Paul. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:23 am
“Well, then does anybody really think he has a shot at overtaking the GOP?”
Yes. The Republican Party is disintegrating, and Ron Paul’s support is growing exponentially. Voter turnout in the primaries is anemic. If all of Ron Paul’s supporters re-register as Republicans (not that hard to do), and turn out to vote at 3 or 4 or 5 times the rate of other candidates’ supporters, he can win.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:31 am
Another believer in porcine aviation is heard from.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:46 am
If people do not have the option of changing their party, then what good is their party? People like Ron Paul offer a ‘nudge’ to the party. It tells political leaders which way the party should be heading. This, obviously, does not mean he will win the nomination (on the contrary, it means he probably wont) but it’s a big job (and often under respected). If ANYONE today could both change the direction of a party AND win the nomination, it would be Ron Paul. Not because of ‘him’ exactly, but because of his supporters.
I view Ron Paul more as a ‘test’ for the Republican party. He is forcing them to adhere to their ‘ideals’. If they choose not to, then they lose (and a third party does become viable…sorta).
I think that his candidacy is great! Regardless of his chances. I am willing to donate time, money and resources to help this guy keep going. I want to back him as a way to tell the party I was raised on, the party I voted in, and the party I always backed: “Stop putting up untrustworthy slimeball’s!!”
I have been a republican since my father took me with him to vote in ‘84. Before I’d heard of Ron Paul, I had started looking at Dems…..thank God for Ron Paul!
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:47 am
Justin Gardner, you are right in line with Mao and the Khmer Rouge: unity of the people is a must…bring them together into community farms, concentration camps, mass graves….and if that don’t work then lets have a big famine…that will certainly “bring them together”…ok maybe I’m too hard on you, so maybe you are only for “peaceful” means of bringing us together…in this case then your are jsut for the skillful use of propoganda. this show s a pretty f’d up value system to me.
The freedom to pursue happiness means that each of us individuals will seek a different path, do you not have to capability or tolorence of others to accept that someone else might pursue a different individual path? we need teachers, doctors scientist, data analyst, journalists, farmers and a infinite numebr of other people…why do you feel it neccesary to compel people to be the same in some way? its sick
and what man would you trust to give the power to compel all of us to be something we are not naturally? Your type has given us George W…billary, Guiliani, Nixon, LBJ…..all sickos who have worked to destroy the fabric of this coutnry.
you state lies here:
“I know that many from both sides of the aisle would welcome a party based around those ideas(less government intrusion).”
If you have investigated the presidential debates commission http://www.debates.org/
and if you had ever worked on any third party campaign or investigated on on a national level you’d know that up and down the road to the presidency the dems and repubs have 100% blocked any feasible way, short of a billion dollar campaign, of a thrid party system getting into the televised debates and onto all of the state ballots…In fact I cannot believe that you as a professional political reporter do not know this…after all this has little to do with my profession and my limited experiences in the field and historical knowledge make this truth undeniable.
To pretend otherwise shows you suck as a journalist or you are a shill.
Ron Paul knows these facts and thus he is not about to pass up his present opportunity to appear in 5 or 6 more nationally televised appearances…to do so would be stupid…if you don’t understand this then you are either a crappy political analyst or a shill…I have no idea whether or not he will change his mind after all the debates and run as a third party, but to do anything but continue on his current course at this juncture would be political suicide and you surely know this. as it is 65% of the coutnry doesn’t vote..if his quickly growning campaign can convince half of this group to vote for him he’d win in a landslide…that may be unliekyl, but it isn’t impossible.
August 22nd, 2007 at 11:53 am
Well, then does anybody really think he has a shot at overtaking the GOP?
We are still 5 months out from the primaries. Polls for the first few months of the campaign don’t reflect much more than popularity. Paul’s message is receiving an increasing amount of exposure and positive reaction, so a primary win is possible, though difficult.
In the past, I’ve “thrown away” my vote on Libertarian party candidates. Traditionally, the Libertarian presidential candidates don’t run to win that particular election, but run to spread the message of freedom, intending to make a difference in future election cycles.
Ron Paul’s campaign will still be a success, even if he does not win the Republican nomination.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Yeah, these answers went haywire because you didn’t specify “unity *about *what?”
We always need to be unified as much as cognitively possible about how we understand the rules of the society we live in. That’s what constitutions and transparent government are for.
We do not *ever need the “you’re with us or against us” type of unity that marginalizes and cuts off any criticism — especially, first and *foremost — in matters of war.
In both of these respects Ron Paul is a 9 out of 10 and no other candidate is over 5.
August 22nd, 2007 at 12:37 pm
[...] Gardner asks the question: In a time where we need unity, do you think Paul’s “Dr. No” way of politics will actually [...]
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:22 pm
It’s unity that got us into Iraq.
It’s unity that got us into a huge national debt.
It’s unity that got us a housing bubble.
It’s breaking from the unquestioning unity and standing up for what’s right that got us the USA in the first place.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:27 pm
If you’re so concerned with “unity”, look at his campaign support. Just enthusiastic individuals online and off, no MSM, pure grassroots.
NONE of your top tier has that.
August 22nd, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Even authoritarians have good reason to want libertarian government at the federal level and authoritarian government close to home where they can control it. And, if they want to follow another religious Authority or other non-government leader, they may want libertarian government everywhere.
They may also be sick of the cost of having a strong central government.
The fantasy that one could have the perfect governmental authority solve all our problems may be nice, but most people admit they don’t trust voters and their elected representatives and government employees to execute it properly, even if they agree on what it should be, which they never will.
Once you admit that’s never going to work, you might as well unify on the idea of letting everyone do what they want within Constitutional (or Creator-endowed) limits, and that is what unifies us.
August 22nd, 2007 at 2:20 pm
Ron Paul’s support is growing, he may well over take the other GOP’s in terms of the republican populous.
Does that necessarily mean he will get the delegates necessary for the GOP ticket?
I believe delegates are not legally obligated to vote based on the majority vote of the party, although 99% of the time they do.
The established republican base, those in power, do not support his positions.
It would be very disturbing, if Ron Paul did get the populous support necessary to be nominated as the republican Presidential Candidate, and the GOP delegates cast there votes to the contrary.
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Well, the freedom message brings all together, my guess is the congress would do exactly what the public wanted for once or be gone. Dr. Paul would have an enormous effect on who wins seats and governorships. It may take time but its a start. They would never have waisted a minute on amnesty, the war, bailouts, etc. if Ron was the president. They would do the peoples business not the corporation/special interest business for a change.
August 22nd, 2007 at 4:58 pm
There will always be division in the country. As the present time, I see this division as being between the people and the federal government. People are sick and tired of the same old story. Broken promises, more layers of goovernment and increased government spending that in the end, hurts the very people they are supposedly trying to help. The middle class. Ron Paul is uniting people from all sides of the political spectrum. His challenge when he wins the presidential election in ‘08 will be in bringing congress into a state of unity with the people. I believe he is a man who would hold congess responsible for their follies and make the people aware when congress does not act in the best interest of the population at large.
August 22nd, 2007 at 5:11 pm
I’m a Ron Paul Democrat. For the first time in my life I am registering as Republican to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. If he doesn’t make it past then primaries then I won’t vote at all.
If you want to see proof that he is a unifier, supported by all types of people, just look here:
rally (dot) ronpaulplanet (dot) org/stats.php
and read the people’s comments here:
rally (dot) ronpaulplanet (dot) org
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:28 pm
I suspect (do not know) that Ron will run on the Libertarian ticket if kept off the Republican War ticket, however it would be wise of him to not admit to any such plan at this time. Therefore his denial of such a plan at this time is consistant with my impression of him as a very wise fellow freedom fighter. He does not owe to anyone the revelation of his plans.
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:43 pm
While I agree with you, that winning the GOP nomination is not a likely scenario, it´s also far from impossible. Key prerequisites would include a low overall turnout in the primaries (not that far fetched if you look at how little real enthusiasm there is for the current frontrunners) with a still relatively intact large field of candidates (say Romney, Giuliani, Huckabee, Paul, Thompson if he finally declares and maybe even one additional low-tierer who manages to hold on until then (McCain is done imho)).
The resulting split vote could lead to narrow pluralities for a motivated combination of the reawakend Goldwater wing of the party and the influx of young new primary voters (Rs as well as switching Ds and Is) attracted to the Paul campaign. “Super-Tuesday” could even be positive in this scenario because there would be little prior warning, that would lead to some candidates being “convinced” to drop out by the party establishment, after two or three such outcomes in a more drawn out primary season.
Even if it weren´t sufficient for a win there will undoubtedly be some good results (a win in New Hampshire isn´t unrealistic at all) that will provide a basis for a third party run AFTER!! the GOP primaries.
And I absolutely agree that he should run a third party “ideology campaign” in this case. Indeed he won´t have any choice regardless what he says now, because his supporters won´t let him off the hook that easily ;-).
But until the primary results are in he has to fully concentrate on the GOP race and getting every opportunity for publicity out of it (debates etc.). And fortunately I think he can, because he doesn´t have to worry about the preparation for a subsequent independent run; the nomination of the Libertarian or the Constitution Party with coresponding ballot access is his for the taking. (Hey, we might even see a double nomination *g*.)
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Both the current and former Presidents have often been accused of divisiveness. It occurs to me that that may not be their fault - the nation may simply be so culturally and socially fragmented today that it is beyond reclaiming whatever semblance of unity it may have once had.
If that’s what we’re trying to accomplish, it’s a fool’s crusade. But if our goals are a little more modest, it’s a much different story. An alternative to the two tired old major parties doesn’t have to get the whole country united behind it - just enough to light a fire underneath the major parties’ butts. Then, whether that fire wakes up the major parties or consumes them will be all up to them.
August 22nd, 2007 at 8:50 pm
It appears as though the recollections of the GOP platform are horribly distorted. Ron Paul may have differences with the current party, but that embodiment has only been around in the last few years.
It is like the statement republicans are pro-war - this is only believed by people with no grasp of history.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:48 am
Assume, for a second, that Ron Paul is elected president and that he continues his policy of voting against every bill presented to him that does not conform with his view of the Constitution. What would happen?
The only way for Congress to pass a bill would be with a supermajority, and unless one party gets a supermajority of both houses (that’s not going to happen), the government would be completely stalled if the GOP and Democrats were not working together to compromise on bills that would pass by a two thirds margin. How’s that for unity?
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:41 am
“The freedom message brings us together, it doesn’t divide us.”
- Ron Paul
August 23rd, 2007 at 11:59 am
If you agree with Ron Paul please sign the petition to Abolish the Federal Reserve.
Now in August 2007, the world financial systems and investment markets, real estate and the availability of credit are all under direct assault due to past actions of the Federal Reserve in the United States.
Read and sign the Ron Paul Is Right – Abolish the Federal Reserve Petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/fed/petition.html
Please link to the petition and forward this message to your friends and help the general public wake up during the current financial panic conditions to the problems we face from the Federal Reserve and Ron Paul’s solution.
Also read comments from hundreds of signers who aren’t shy in saying what they think of the FED.
August 23rd, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a “unifer” only in the sense that government supported rape is a “unifier”. If you think a woman should sexually accept a man and that the only reason she doesn’t is that she hates him, the solution to her hate is not to hold her down while he rapes her.
In the new Declaration of Independence, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should top the enumerated offenses of the tyranny.
And, yes, inter-racial hatred is increases every day that the government forces integration, especially exacerbated by open borders, on the people.
The rape is going to stop. The only question is whether it will be stopped by the resulting decay of the civilization enabling it, or whether civilization will be stopped from further enabling it. Certainly the rapists like Donklephant, would prefer the former.
August 23rd, 2007 at 8:57 pm
I am squarely with the Paulonians here.
Unity is seriously over-rated.
Some recent evidence from author and economist Stephen Slivinski in support of divided government as a desireable state.
August 24th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Jim writes:
Assume, for a second, that Ron Paul is elected president and that he continues his policy of voting against every bill presented to him that does not conform with his view of the Constitution. What would happen?
The only way for Congress to pass a bill would be with a supermajority, and unless one party gets a supermajority of both houses (that’s not going to happen), the government would be completely stalled if the GOP and Democrats were not working together to compromise on bills that would pass by a two thirds margin.
He then asks, “How’s that for unity?”
The question should be, “How is that a bad deal?”
August 25th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Hi Justin. I’m with James Maynard on this one. In the minutes of a 1939 Nazi meeting, Hitler was quoted as saying the following.
“The period which lies behind us has indeed been put to good use. All measures have been taken in the correct sequence and in harmony with our aims. After six years, the situation is today as follows: The national-political unity of the Germans has been achieved apart from minor exceptions. ”
Clearly (at least to me), unity, in and of itself, is not a laudable goal. I think, rather, we should focus on whether he (Ron Paul) is right instead of how the ideas would be received.
August 30th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
[...] Also, in a time where we need unity, do you think Paul’s “Dr. No” way of politics will actuall… [...]