Tag Archive for 'ron_paul'

Is the Left FINALLY Seeing the Light On Obama?

Written by Colin. Published on June 17, 2010 ago in Current Events and Politics. 2 Comments

John Stewart has let loose on Obama for being just as much of an authoritarian statist as President Bush (US link; UK link). If the left finally willing to recognise that Obama is a statist and that statism has no party (or rather, has adherents in both parties)?

In the philosophical tradition (the French and UK), the left has been libertarian. In the recent pragmatic (US and German) tradition, it has been on the right. It’s time for both conservatives and liberals to unite on common ground to reduce the police-state, wars, corporatism and government spending.

The answer takes courage. It means that Republicans need to not support statist republicans – either don’t vote, or vote Constitution or Libertarian Party. It means that Democrats need to not support statist Democrats – either don’t vote, or vote Green or Libertarian Party. Either way: STOP VOTING FOR STATISTS.

Republicans and conservatives failed miserably last time. George Bush almost immediately proved that he was an authoritarian to the core – yet he received virtually unwavering support. His philosophy was adopted by many conservatives who blindly supported the measure for which they now criticise Obama. When Ron Paul spoke up on this, they ridiculed him (many now support him, even more support his son Rand).

But if this is a partisan change in the right, then it is doomed to fail. The end of a partisan shift, is merely to elect party members (re: Republicans) into office. But a philosophical shift will see beyond partisan allegiance and will seek philosophical progress in whichever party it may be found. The left now has its opportunity to awaken in the wake of Obama’s complete lies on so many critical issues. Hopefully anti-authoritarians on the right will embrace them and ally with them – not engage in partisan bickering.

Ron Paul In 2012? New Poll Shows Paul Most Popular Candidate Among Independents

Written by Colin. Published on June 11, 2010 ago in Politics. Closed

From the latest poll:

One thing that’s very interesting about these numbers is that Ron Paul is the most popular out of the whole group with independents. They see him favorably by a 35/25 margin. The only other White House hopeful on positive ground with them is Romney at a +2 spread and they’re very negative on the rest: -5 for Huckabee, -16 for Gingrich and Palin, and -17 for Obama. All five of the possible GOP contenders lead Obama with independents, but Paul does so by the widest margin at 46-28.

It has been easy in the past to write Paul off as irrelevant but this anti-politician climate is giving his movement some steam. Paul’s going to have an interesting choice in the next year or so. If his goal is really to be President rather than to influence the national dialogue then he should probably keep on trying to win the GOP nomination, as improbable as that might be. But if he wants to guarantee himself a major role in the 2012 contest he should run as a third party candidate instead. Polling at 5-10% nationally in the general election would get his views a much wider airing than just trudging along through the Republican nomination process and hoping to get 10-15% in each primary.

Now among all voters, Paul still loses to Obama quite clearly. However the popularity among independents marks an incredible strategic advantage both in early caucuses and primaries, as well as in a general election.

What Rand Paul Might Have Said: Four Other Media Appearances To Consider

Written by Colin. Published on May 21, 2010 ago in Current Events and Politics. Closed

I’ve already made my position clear that I agree fully with Rand Paul’s intentions about the Civil Rights Act. I will echo some of the sentiments of others that he could have been clearer, but at the same time, the Rachel Maddow show was a kangaroo court. Despite Rand Paul’s attempts to explain his position, he obviously knew that he was being set up and wriggled, finagled and squirmed in his explanation.

Here are a few other ways this issue has been dealt with.

1. Barry Goldwater

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacJtYPHKiE[/youtube]

Goldwater didn’t win any friends by this. He was unabashedly critical of the Civil Rights Act and made it clear as to why. He also called out LBJ’s flip-flopping on this, but to no avail. It remains a black mark on his legacy in the eyes of many to this day.

2. Ron Paul on Meet the Press circa 2008 (forward to 4:44)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-iJP4BAAQ4&feature=related[/youtube]

Ron Paul is also unapologetic and unabashedly purposeful in his remarks. But he is wise. He first finds a place of agreement with where discrimination is wrong, and then shows the principle behind the law. “It has nothing to do with race relations.” And then he lays the smack down and Russert quickly moves on.

3. John Stossel

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrsNGSCC6aI[/youtube]

Stossel isn’t running for office, and therefore is the most upfront. He says that he would go even farther than Rand Paul and seek repeal of the law. But Stossel, again, brings the issue away from race right away to show the principle. The anchor then tries to make the emotional point against Stossel, which he authoritatively dismisses with the axiomatic case of how people who refuse customers which others serve will eventually go out of business. This goes over the anchor’s head, and probably would be over the head of most Americans.

4.  Ron Paul circa yesterday

Here Paul again finds a point of agreement, showing MLK as a person who favoured the repeal of laws and for civil disobedience. He then proves his knowledge of integration history and shows how the government is no friend of civil rights. In this context, Paul reveals in plain language the greater principles at stake here. Lastly, he makes the axiomatic point, just like Stossel and then criticises the witch hunt going on about the issue.

What all of this shows is that Rand’s big mistake was trying to speak out of both sides of his mouth. He should have taken the libertarian position, dealt with the flack and then moved on. Instead, his shiftiness on the show and subsequent backtracking has made him look disingenuous (which is not new).

Rand Paul may have principles somewhere in there, but he behaves like a politicians and that makes him incredibly different than his father.

New Tea Party Poll – It’s Palin vs. Paul

Written by Colin. Published on April 19, 2010 ago in General. 6 Comments

A fascinating poll was just released by Politico, and it is Palin vs. Paul for the heart and soul of the Tea Party. Members of the group were asked who they think should be president in 2012:

1) Sarah Palin 15%
2) Ron Paul 14%

But this is also embodied in a deep philosophical divide. 43% of those polled said government does too much, but should be promoting “traditional values.” 42% said that government does too much and should not promote any set of values. That is your basic conservative/libertarian divide right there.

Basically, half of the Tea Party is the original group which supported Ron Paul and were mobilised and brought into the republican party by his emergence. The other half are your standard conservatives (not Neo-Cons) who would still likely vote for and support Neo-Cons over democrats.

I think this means two things. 1) The GOP needs to will over these libertarians and republitarians to win in the future 2) There is a solid group that is now politically active, and WILL NOT support Neo-Cons.

Interesting times indeed.

Debra Medina’s Loss and The Ron Paul Effect

Written by Colin. Published on March 3, 2010 ago in Current Events and Politics. 10 Comments

Debra Medina will not be governor of Texas.

However while it is easy to focus on what is immediately in front of us, we must remember the bigger picture here. As Medina said in a sort-of concession speech:

We are winning across this state the hearts and minds of fellow Texans.

There is no question that with just under 20% of the vote she has shown her ideas to be popular enough to effect an election.

That was all Ron Paul needed, less then that in fact, in order to catapult himself to amazing opportunities over these past couple of years. Yes, Ron Paul lost the 2008 election, but his popularity (and the popularity of his ideas) signalled a pottential sea-change. He may have lost the election, but he is still winning the battle for hearts and minds.

That is what I call the “Ron Paul Effect” which is the seeming paradox of influence and power that comes when a grassroots candidate loses an election. I believe this happens if the candidate awakes a substantial philosophical change in voters, not merely convincing them to vote for them in the short-term, but convincing them to adopt a set of principles and beliefs for the long-term.

Medina is likely to benefit from this effect, as her issues, like Paul’s, are philosophical. She is not an austro-libertarian like Paul, but her brand of conservatism is still a set of time honoured traditions and principles.

Debra Medina has stood up and made herself the leader of a bloc of people in Texas who support less taxes, less spending, nullifying federal mandates, constitutionalism and principled gun ownership. That is no small task – and it represents a furthering shift of some of these more “radical” ideas from the fringes of politics into a cohesive force to affect change in a meaningful way.

The great deception in American politics is that pragmatic voting is all that matters – the polls, the media all say that X candidate “can’t win” so better to vote the lesser of two evils. I’m sorry – but this isn’t really about the political process. Elections are a sideshow in the great festival of ideas. Characters like Medina and Paul, while losing elections, are winning over masses of people with ideas.

Sustainable, long-lasting, fundamental change is not won in elections. Certainly not in one election. Advocates of principled libertarianism must continue to see the forest through the trees. Yes, we put a lot of work in on elections. We donate a lot of money. But the electoral process is a means, not an end.

Ron Paul, often ridiculed, mocked and ignored – obtained a majority of cosponsors on a bill to audit the Federal Reserve. Think about that for a moment. That single act is more significant then having Ron Paul in an office where no one understands, supports or believes him.

Medina, from the haggard look in this video, is understandably disappointed in the election result. I am as well. But now is not the time for mourning over things that didn’t really matter. The election served it’s purpose – Medina’s ideas are now more well known and understood then they ever were. Time to shake off the dust, get back up, and win more hearts and minds.

Libertarian Infighting Dooms It As A Political Movement

Written by Colin. Published on February 25, 2010 ago in Politics. 50 Comments

Libertarian philosophy is among the most robust and developed among political philosophies because it practices what it preaches: ruthless competition in the marketplace of ideas, especially with itself. Libertarianism is a big, big tent – much bigger then mainstream political movements. But this is also the feature that causes it the most problems when trying to unite into a sustainable political movement.

Just as in a free-market, eventually a branch of the philosophy wins out and begins to effect real political power: see Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign and the emergence of Austrian Economics as the current big things going on the libertarian movement. For a while, a lot of differences are set aside and the movement unites in a push to gain political traction. However, like any political movement, it begins to be plagued with confusion over what to do with this new found power, and the competition for how/what/who to wield it erodes its base and plunges it back into radicalism.

I fear we may be seeing this now with the current libertarian surge. At the very least it is being set up by the emergence of several “under-leaders” who have already began to quibble:

  • Rand Paul: Ron Paul’s son has ticked off many of his father’s supporters by embracing some standard conservative foreign policy, including support for Gitmo and more socially conservative values.
  • Alex Jones: I think Jones’s ideas are nutty, but he is in the libertarian movement, albeit on the fringes (yes, he’s on the fringes of an often fringe movement). However, he recently lambasted Debra Medina who has spent the last week rabidly denying that she thinks 9/11 was any kind of inside job. Jones evidentially believes her and is withdrawing his support for her.
  • Debra Medina: Assuming she doesn’t win the Texas governorship, I wholly expect that she can win a senatorial or congressional election. But her deep philosophical convictions about questioning government have muddled her answers to the 9/11 truth question and alienated her from some supporters.
  • Glenn Beck: A rift exists between Beck and Medina, and Beck and Jones. In fact, all three do not like each other. beck has made a lot of friends in the libertarian movement, but he has also made enemies with what has happened with Medina and his occasional ideas about killing terrorists rile up the more anti-war in the libertarian movement.
  • Reason Magazine: They just came out with this piece absolutely slamming Ron Paul as having “half-baked crusades” and “silly books.” Reason has had a veiled acceptance of Ron Paul over the past few years, but this seems to be wearing off. The same article offers praise for the CATO Institute as a “serious” libertarian organisation.
  • CATO: Cato has also begrudgingly accented to Ron Paul for the sake of unity. But their decades old spat with the Mises Institute and Austrian Economics eventually puts them at odds with Pauland more ideological libertarians.
  • Mises Institute: They represent the most ideological libertarians, often embracing anarchism. With Ron Paul emerging and promoting Austrian Economics like crazy, they have seen a surge in readership and interest. However, they despise monetarist and Chicago School libertarians and have very little tolerance for the political process.

All of these groups and leaders have began to see alliances forming for control over this well of power created by Ron Paul. I believe they are starting to look as follows:

  1. The rEVOLution Purists. People who will defend the more radical ideology and philosophy of libertarianism:
    Ron Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Mises Institute, Tom Woods
  2. The Pragmatic Club. People who will promote a “bread and butter” libertarianism in the media, academia and journalism:
    Reason, John Stossel, Rand Paul, CATO, Peter Schiff, Libertarian Party
  3. The Republitarians. People who will promote some degree of a watered down version in politics/punditry
    Debra Medina, Glenn Beck, Rand Paul, Bob Barr
  4. The Pet Projects. People who will use libertarianism as a means to advocate conspiracy theories, unsubstantiated hypotheses or untenable:
    Alex Jones, Ayn Rand Institute, Jesse Ventura

Currently, people in these wings would still unite around Paul. I could pull Alex Jones, Glenn Beck, Peter Schiff and Judge Napolitano out of each group, and all of them love Paul. But without Paul’s leadership, these groups suddenly have more overpowering differences then they do similarities. It’s like a wedding where all kinds of friends and family of the bride and groom come together for a time – but without the marriage, these people suddenly have much less reason to be together.

A valid political movement needs a big tent, but also a unified vision and goals. Ron Paul has provided that and called a lot of disparate elements into a common group. But that unified front may be fracturing again as Ron Paul ages. As an ideology and philosophy, this process is what makes libertarianism so strong and vibrant. As a political movement, it is the seed of destruction.

UPDATE: Tom Woods has now issued a counter-attack against Reason here.

Bob Barr Nails Mike Huckabee’s CPAC MIA On The Head

Written by Colin. Published on February 23, 2010 ago in Current Events. 18 Comments

I voted for Bob Barr in 2008. In some ways, I feel a little bad about it because Barr doesn’t always get it right. Also, my wife wrote in Ron Paul – and I realised that this what I should have done.

However, Barr had some wise words about this year’s CPAC; which suddenly no one is talking about (probably because it wasn’t the GOP establishment love-fest it normally is). Mike Huckabee even refused to go – saying it was “more libertarian” then he would have liked. Barr uses Huckabee’s absence to make a wise point about the current attitude of mainstream republican leadership:

Huckabee’s statement is not only representative of the rise of our shared values; it’s also a telling example of how Republicans work.

For many years, I have chosen to attend and speak at CPAC and many other events – “conservative” and “liberal” – knowing good and well that I may very well be booed for delivering a pro-liberty message. I also know countless others who do the same. Does the fear of facing an opposing argument keep us out of attendance?

Heck no!

Unlike Huckabee and his colleagues who feel entitled to respect and a cheering crowd, we embrace the opportunity to deliver a pro-liberty message to those who may not want to hear it.

That’s one clear difference between them and us. We’re willing to fight to get our nation onto a path of liberty, while they walk off of the field when times get tough.

Think about it. As early as twenty five years ago – there was massive debate in a political party – even up to the convention, about what it’s platform and candidates should be all about. The Republican Party has instead become a party of unity for it’s own sake, and severely compromising conservative principles to get elected. What is “libertarianism” today, was once an accepted and nourished wing of the GOP.

Sarah Palin has Endorsed Rand Paul

Written by Colin. Published on February 2, 2010 ago in General. 4 Comments

This is an interesting move. Sarah Palin, whom I personally believe is a driving force behind the re-integration of the Tea-Party movement into the GOP, has gone and endorsed Rand Paul. Paul is the son of Ron Paul, and, while a little more muted in his ideas, is nevertheless a pretty radical republican.

Rand Paul, unlike his father, is much more of a typical politician (I mean this in a neutral sense). He is pretty deft about how he answers questions and what information he includes when speaking to certain groups. For example, he is for “bringing the troops home” just as his father is for it. Yet his website reads under  “National Defense:”

Defending our Country is the most important function of the federal government. When we are threatened, it is the obligation of our representatives to unleash the full arsenal of power that is granted by and derived from free men and women.

Moreover this is the second item on the page. And there is nothing on the page that talks about “undeclared wars,” “peace” or “bringing our troops home.” Moreover, Paul is a big fan of GITMO. At the same time, his video on the page makes it clear that he is for cutting the military budget and for declaring wars. He also makes it clear that he is against the Iraq war. He also criticises the “military-industrial complex.”

In this sense, its not entirely surprising that Palin endorsed Paul, because Paul seems closer to Palin then his dad. At the same time, it does indicate that Palin is ultimately a “rogue” element in the conservative movement. And that perhaps I am being to critical of her.

How To Sabotage An Argument, Part 2

Written by Colin. Published on July 20, 2009 ago in General. 3 Comments

This is the second and final article in a series on how to basically lose an argument before you start it [part 1 here]. This line of reasoning is based on the premise that people who engage in an argument are doing to so in order to discover and communicate truth.

Hence, four more ways to sabotage your argument:

Ascribe Nefarious Intentions and Motives to the Other Side
This is quite prevalent in large, seemingly irreconcilable debates: abortion, religion, left versus right, etc… People who are pro-choice are not seen as intelligent people who are making a self-ownership case for abortion (although this would be wrong), but as “baby killers” or people who “support murder” or “do not support life.”This is ridiculous. Aside from the negligible portion of the population who are homicidal, no one else wants to see babies being killed. These people are not wrongly motivated – rather, they are wrong in methods.

Political leaders are called evil all the time – some of them are. George W. Bush has been hailed as the great Satan for the last seven years or so (and Obama has not been treated any different – except by the media), but it is very realistic that Bush has pursued what he has out of good motives and intentions. He has been sincerely wrong, probably criminally so, but he is not necessarily out there to thwart humanity and bring about apocalypse.

Attack the Personal Actions of Your Opponent
This line of reasoning follows from a very valid principle – practice what you preach. But at the same time, for the purposes of arguing things that aren’t always liveable (or if they are, aren’t lived anyway) it is completely useless. Ron Paul was attacked in the 2008 election for being one of the higher proposers of appropriations (earmarks) in congress. It was alleged that because Paul put forward earmarks, that someone this discounted what he said about fiscal responsibility. But truth isn’t dependent on our acting it out (Paul also voted down every single earmark he proposed). Just because someone doesn’t stop at stop signs, doesn’t mean they would be wrong to suggest that stopping at them is a good idea.

Become Self-Righteous About Your Arguments, Facts and Case
This is an easy mistake to make. After all, if we didn’t think we were right, then why would we argue? But this is not a problem with being right, it is a problem with believing one is infallible or that a morally neutral position is somehow “right” in the sense that it is good, while the other side is bad/evil. But more than that, it is a condescending attitude toward your opponent and/or his ideas. This is presuming a certain argument before your opponent makes it. With your own ideas, it is a blind refusal to allow them to be penetrated by other’s reason, logic or facts.

Forget That You Are Speaking With A Person
This is the most important thing, and the summary of the article.  We aren’t arguing with robots, with brainwashed automatons, with ideologies – we are arguing with people. People deserve to be respected and treated as people – they are intelligent, rational beings – despite how silly, ignorant or radical their worldview is.

Links: The “Patriot’s” Bible and Chuck Norris

Written by Colin. Published on July 17, 2009 ago in Current Events. Closed

Chuck Norris now on board with a Fed Audit

Ron Paul and Barney Frank team up to decriminalise MarijuanaChurch-ish?
Did Stephen Harper Steal Jesus?

The latest in the state religion’s takeover of Christianity – the American Patriot’s BibleHurt Mail, The New Hate MailBishop NT Wright on what the Episcopal Church just did

Would you pledge your soul as loan collateral?

Prohibitions
Synopsis: Give a Native alcohol, and he’ll beat his wife. Let’s re-instate the federal “buffer zones” banning liquor stores near Indian Reservations. ‘Dim Injins can’t handle thar fire-water!’