I spend a lot of time doing research and reading about stuff. The upcoming presidential election has been no exception. I see a lot of coverage being expended upon the conventional wisdom candidates, and not so much on Ron Paul. Some consider him a nut or unfit for office. I had questions about him in 2008, but was not as involved politically as I am today. After a couple of years of seeing how things work, and then seeing not only how Dr. Paul talks but what he does, I'm supporting him in 2012.
First, I'll look at some conventional wisdom issues I've heard about him, and try to address these factually:
1. He wants to legalize drugs.
Response: If you study Dr. Paul's positions for any length of time, one consistent thing you'll see is he firmly believes in a weak central (federal) government and strong state governments. This is consistent with how the founders laid out our nation. As to a drug policy, he does support the medical use of marijuana. He believes the war on drugs has been a failure, and like other things not mentioned in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution these powers are best left to the states. I take this to mean that if 50% +1 of the voters in any state wish to enact a drug law that says _______, they are free to do so without any federal intervention.
2. He's weak on national defense.
Response: Dr. Paul believes in the word defense, not offense. He articulates a non-interventionist foreign policy, and wants to get the US military out of the numerous foreign countries in which it is currently located. In this 2007 interview with Tim Russert, Dr. Paul said "To operate our total foreign policy, when you add up everything, there's been a good study on this, it's nearly a trillion dollars a year. So I would think if you brought our troops home, you could save hundreds of billions of dollars. It's, you know, it's six months or one year or two year, but you can start saving immediately by changing the foreign policy and not be the policeman over the world. We should have the foreign policy that George Bush ran on. You know, no nation building, no policing of the world, a humble foreign policy. We don't need to be starting wars. That's my argument."
3. He supports homosexuality and gay marriage.
Response (emphasis added): Dr. Paul has consistently articulated a position that is in line with the Constitution. He does not believe it is the job of the central government to be involved in things such as marriages. In this paper, he wrote: "Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313), I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill. HR 3313 ensures federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by forcing a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another state. The Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate marriage remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the Constitution intended.
4. He supports abortions.
Response: Read HR 1096, filed this year by Dr. Paul. It defines life as beginning at conception, and recognizes each state has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State. Again, a strong 10th Amendment / State's rights position.
Next, I'd like to look at a few of the 45 bills he's sponsored this session of Congress. Keep in mind that under the 10th Amendment, all powers not defined in Article 1 Section 8 are reserved to the states, or to the people. What's really nice (and unusual) about his bills are that they are usually very short- one to three pages.
HR 1146 would enhance the sovereignty of the USA by removing us from the United Nations.
HR 2615 would enhance the protections of gun owners by amending and removing federal laws that conflict with the second amendment.
HR 2616 would enhance aviation security without trampling the rights of citizens by allowing the flight crew and certain law enforcement officers to be armed. Just one armed crew member or passenger could have prevented 9/11/01 from being completed to the degree that it was. Look at what happened on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania.
There are 42 more. As I've noted, a consistent theme here is that he supports the framework of this nation as founded. Under his vision, we'd see dramatically less federal spending- it would indeed be reduced to constitutional levels. See my Big Government page here for an example of how far off base we've gotten at the federal level, and the lack of results. So what is the benefit by doing so? I wrote about it here in February before I knew much about Dr. Paul. With less spending comes less taxes. Dr. Paul observed that we could get by with no income tax if we reduced federal spending to constitutional levels.
I really like what Ron Paul says, and then tries to do. We've had decades of big government leaders from both D and R parties. What would happen if we had 8 years of a small government leader like Ron Paul?
This video from the 2012 debate sums him up as well as anything.
Freedom means you have just that- freedom to succeed, or freedom to fail. What happens after both is where we seem to differ as Americans. If you succeed, then some want to take 90% of your money. If you fail, some want to give you everything you may ever need at the taxpayer's expense.
I find it odd that Herman Cain is the "Tea Party" candidate when you look at the ideas promoted by the Tea Party as a whole-
1) Limited government,
2) Free markets, and
3) Fiscal responsibility
Dr. Paul excels at each of these. Where he differs from the average politician is that he practices what he preaches, and continues to do so.
I'd urge anyone to look beyond the sound bite or conventional wisdom. Dr. Paul has the view (prescription?) to get us out of the malaise we've been suffering from for far too long. His campaign website is here.
UPDATE DECEMBER 2011
With the departure of Herman Cain, this leaves a block of voters that need a candidate that best represents them. I submit Ron Paul is that candidate. If you fall into the trap of "he can't win", I'd ask you invest 34 minutes and watch the following video which originated several years ago. The title of The Real Newt Gingrich is be self-explanatory. If you can't invest 34 minutes, then think about your vote. Do you want to invest 4 years in such a person as this that has repeatedly failed to support and defend the Constitution?
The Real Newt Gingrich from Frank on Vimeo.
