From: Viktor
I think Ron Paul was merely expressing his friendship and admiration for Kucinic, who, unlike most other Democrats, occasionally exhibits some principles and stands for peace. This seems to me like the media latching onto some off-the-cuff remark and trying to make a controversy out of it. I wouldn't worry about it too much. Also, I don't think Ron is confused about his personal principles at all. Don't get so hung up on labels. No two libertarians will agree on everything (well, maybe unless they are both committed market anarchists :).
In terms of voter confusion, if someone would reject Ron Paul because of this one remark, that person is a lost cause IMHO. You will not be able to covert everyone, and there will be those who do not look too deeply into things. You can't cater to that crowd. That is exactly the kind of pandering I would hope Ron stays away from. Let him speak his mind, because that is what got him where he is now. We just have to hope that a large enough percentage of people are ready to hear his message.
Let me paraphrase Thoreau: "It has been said that the government that governs best is the government that governs least. Well, I say that the government that governs best is the government that governs not at all. And someday, when people are ready for it, that is the kind of government they shall have."
Someday, people will be ready for it. Ron Paul is guiding them in the right direction. Whatever happens, that, in the long run, is an accomplishment more worthy than any election.
I view libertarianism little"l,' Libertarianism big "L," classical liberalism, liberty of the individual protected against the collectivist State, and libertarianism in the sense of John Stuart Mill of On Liberty it the general property rights, civil liberties (upholding the liberties of the people defined in the Bill of Rights against government intrusion,) and more generically, freedom for the individual, including property rights, under a consistent theme of protection that is generally defined as liberalism and libertarianism.
It is generally perceived as a far right wing belief system, with the left wing preferring the Social Collective represented through a collectivist state who will dictate through a nanny state for the social harmony and good as Government defines it, running roughshod over individual hooligans who oppose the State imposed order causing disorder.
They are entirely polar belief systems. The Collectivist State rights or the Individual "natural" rights of the citizen.
Yet while Ron Paul seems to speak quite openly about libertarianism, as classic liberalism, quite openly, the campaign, and imho opinion, the campaign message, and possible the candidacy as a whole is split and torn over what libertarianism, or more technically, liberalism is.
The confusion in the campaign, at least I perceive, and I suspect many potential volunteers and voters will feel it too, and perhaps impeed support.
I see warps and twists and potholes around the issue of social conservatism, and even some religious/family values issues.
Quite frankly, and I may be in the wrong place here, this is an issue of impurity to me, and one that creates even finer orthogonal axis or branches of existing axis on matters important to voters.
Classic social conservatism, say for instance from the Neo-Cons, has roots in law and order family values reaching such extremes as to invite police states and bible puritanicalism in Government promote value systems that can call into question the separation of Church and State, among our religious liberty protections of the First Amendment and the Non-Establishment Clause, as well as other civil liberty protections such as right to public trial, especially on treason allegations, protections from unreasonable search and seizure Rand Paul has gone to such great lengths to defend re: the Patriot Act problems, etc.,
In this regard, imho, the social conservatism heavily advocated now in the campaign has inconsistent ideology.
As best as I can understand it, this is the breakdown.
Ron Paul is a religiously guided man, not at all a problem in its own right, we all are entitled to our belief system and to be guided by it, but he splits with social conservatives over civil liberties issues such as excess police power of the State, and the State in rather Socialistic Collectivist ways violating the Peoples' property rights through State seizure and interventionism, and regulation of property and commerce.
This violation of property rights is another huge no no as far as classic liberalism goes.
I know thatI think in seeing his candidacy I see where he fits and why, but it seems to me there could be some room for improvement in the vocabulary in defining his social conservatism as different from other police state friendly law and order at any cost type social conservative.
- When the left wing demanded their free speech rights and other civil liberties/political rights of the First Amendment against Government repression, the left got branded "liberals" forever creating confusion about what liberty is and which party supports it. This is not Ron Paul's fault.
- There seems to me to be a great deal of confusion, and sometimes even debate, about whether Ron Paul is a Libertarian, libertarian, a classic social conservative, a classic liberal, or something else or something unique to him.
Part of the problem may lie with me as the listener, since I tend to be more of a social liberal. I also agree with Ron Paul that being very far to the right often means being in a circle rather than an axis, and fining out you meetup with the left on a lot of issues, the center being in the center instead of out at the perimeter of the circle.
So while I do agree conceptually with he is stating, I also find some in-clarity about what the specific message of philosophy is defined as, in some kind of nutshell that cab be gotten across to voters.
Again, while this may be my own issue of confusion about the message or demographic, and I may not be a Ron Paul true purist, I wanted to let you know about my impressions because I think it is possible other reachable potential voters may be experiencing some ill-definition problems in the message too.
I do hope I have not offended anyone with this.
--- On Wed, 9/21/11, bruce <majors.bruce@gmail.com> wrote:
From: bruce <majors.bruce@gmail.com>
Subject: [ronpaul-30] Fwd: [NEWS] Ron Paul says he'd consider putting Dennis Kucinich in his Cabinet
To: ronpaul-30@meetup.com
Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2011, 7:42 PM
Ron Paul says he'd consider putting Dennis Kucinich in his Cabinet< another "over the top comment" that makes me scared as hell of the goofy one >Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) says he would consider putting the liberal congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in his Cabinet if he were to win the presidency in 2012.
Paul said his libertarian political philosophy helps him connect with some on the far left ? including Kucinich, who shares Paul?s general anti-war stance.
Paul joked that if he brought the Ohio congressman aboard in his administration, he might have to create a "Department of Peace."
"You've got to give credit to people who think," he said.
"Being pragmatic is about forming coalitions," Paul said at a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor. "I probably work with coalitions better than the other candidates. I don't think I've said anything negative here about the president."
Paul?s bid for the GOP nomination has yet to catch fire, though he enjoys perhaps the most passionate following in all of politics. He has had difficulty elevating himself to the top tier of candidates and complained that the media is not taking his campaign seriously.
But the congressman said he?s playing the long game, and values bringing political change over winning the presidency.
"Politics doesn't drive me as much as economic policy," Paul said. "We're in a big mess, personal liberty is under attack."
Paul said his presidential campaign is more about an "educational effort" of libertarian philosophies than a reflection of his personal ambition.
"There are a lot of people who just don't want to hear this," Paul said. "Very few people understand this, they don't have an understanding of how free markets work."
The congressman said the fact that other Republican candidates are talking about the Federal Reserve or rolling back entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare are victories for his campaign. Paul also says his campaign ? coupled with a financial crisis that has brought into question the stability of the American economic system ? is changing the prevailing attitudes of voters.
"It requires a lot more education and a lot more inroads," Paul said. "But absolutely, I think the whole country has come this way."
But Paul continues to struggle in the polls, hovering around 9 to 10 percent of likely Republican primary voters. While his showing is consistently better than some candidates who have garnered more attention, he is unsure of how he will propel himself to the top of the field.
"The supporters believe it's possible, I don't know," Paul said. "There's no reason to rule out the fact this can explode. Something has to give here."
Paul attributed some of the problem to the media, arguing that significant campaign milestones and rallies were underreported. And he acknowledged that as a candidate, he is responsible for delivering his message in a way that voters can appreciate.
"It partially is my fault, and I think that's what I work on most, refining my message," Paul said.
But Paul rejected the idea that he should adopt a more pragmatic or conciliatory strategy that would enable him to either grow his base among those skeptical of some of his views ? particularly in terms of non-interventionist foreign policy ? or achieve smaller pieces of his domestic policy goals legislatively.
"If you give up your principles, you're not being very pragmatic," Paul said.
.
__._,_.___MARKETPLACE![Yahoo! Groups]()
.![]()
__,_._,___
--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (ronpaul-30@meetup.com)
This message was sent by bruce (majors.bruce@gmail.com) from The Arlington/Alexandria Ron Paul Meetup Group.Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668 | support@meetup.comTo learn more about Ed Donegan, visit his/her member profileThis message was sent by Ed Donegan (eddonegan@yahoo.com) from The Arlington/Alexandria Ron Paul Meetup Group.
--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (ronpaul-30@meetup.com)
Meetup, PO Box 4668 #37895 New York, New York 10163-4668 | support@meetup.com
--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list (ronpaul-30@meetup.com)
This message was sent by Viktor (not.viktor@gmail.com) from The Arlington/Alexandria Ron Paul Meetup Group.
To learn more about Viktor, visit his/her member profile
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment