Log In | Register
Sure it's embarrassing to have stood by Newt Gingrich, thinking all of his dirty laundry had already been aired, only to find out that there might be more. I still think he's probably the most intelligent, the most knowledgeable, and, perhaps, even the most pragmatic of all the candidates. He's also probably the candidate best suited to navigate the highways and byways of Washington in order to get things done and, frankly, there are certainly many areas on which we agree. The problem is, there may be too many areas on which we disagree, and I'm not sure how many more pair of dirty socks and shorts I can take. It is from this perspective that I take yet another look at Dr. Ron Paul.
The good news, and the bad news, is that a vote for Ron Paul should not be looked at as a wasted or "protest" vote. At the moment, he certainly has a valid chance of winning the nomination for President of the United States. As with the other candidates that find themselves in his position, the chance of victory propels him from a man with interesting ideas to a man whose negatives, as well as positives, need to be examined. Much has been written about Dr. Paul, not always with the most positive of spin, but there is no doubt that as the viability of his candidacy has risen, so has the rhetoric.
On the plus side, there is no doubt that Dr. Ron Paul actually personifies the "hope and change" promised by Barrack Obama, with Paul's emphasis on changing the government by limiting it and placing his hope in empowering the individual. His views are well known, and few would argue that he is a favorite of the establishment. He has the experience of being in private practice as a physician, is not an attorney, and, apparently, has served his constituency well since 1997. Of particular interest to me is, unlike every President since Ronald Reagan, he is not affiliated with either Harvard or Yale. This also suggests that any Supreme Court vacancies which occur during his presidency might also have the chance of being filled by someone other than an alumnus of either of those two fine educational institutions. He has stood up to the Federal Reserve, as well as Wall Street and the Big Banks and, finally, he claims to be for individual freedoms and the rights of the individual, sometimes disputed by those who wish to retain those freedoms only for themselves and thus they, in my opinion, misunderstand and misrepresent his positions.
Now, on the negative side, one has to wonder if he is up to the job, and I mean no disrespect, and not that I think he could do a poorer job then the present occupant. There is always a difference between giving an opinion, and making a decision and thus being one of 435 House members is much different than being one President. Further, when one looks at his performance in the House of Representatives, one wonders how many allies he would find should he be elected. His foreign policy outlook is a bit naive, in an area where there are few, if any, "do-overs" or "take-backs" and thus radical changes would have, whether positive or negative, radical consequences. Similarly, it's not necessarily a question of what the goal is domestically, but rather how to move in the right direction without capsizing the ship of state.
Obviously my thoughts above only scratch the surface, both negatively and positively, regarding Dr. Paul's candidacy but, having said that, I find I am beginning to lean once again in his favor. There are problems, some of which may be below the surface with unexpected results. For example, although I am for a return to "hard" money, we must be careful that in doing so, the status quo is not simply solidified at the present level of inequity. Similarly, an "open-border" policy might be based on libertarian principles, but a massive increase in new immigrants can only keep wages low, while benefiting those with significant assets. The question is whether he will be used, just as the present President has been, to implement policies which others might not be able to implement because of their perceived political views. If Dr. Paul is truly a "constitutionalist" than our saving grace may be that he can impact those areas in a positive way, but be much less able to do so in other areas.
So, is Ron Paul our last chance? I, personally, am beginning to think so, and thus, even with my concerns regarding some of the harm he might do, I have to wonder if changing the political paradigm isn't worth it.
Comment collapsed by the community
