Ron Paul.
He's someone I respect quite a bit. I don't agree with all of what he says... I think his views of what government should be are gorgeous, classic. Simple and beautiful. They make sense. The beef I have with it is this: we have already strayed so far from what he discusses in his book; the intial purpose of the constitution and the Founding Fathers' desire for how our government should work; what it was allowed and not allowed to do, and the duties of each branch. We have changed things a lot since then. We are nothing like the government the founding fathers envisioned. Some people (Ron Paul, and his supporters, the constitutionalists, and others) think that this is a tragedy, something that needs fixing or else American society will be hanging by the threads of the shredded purpose of the constitution. Others, like me, feel that the government and its branches and duties have made necessary adaptations in order to keep up with the needs of our evolving society.
The post I linked to in the title is about the fallacy of liberal and conservative labels, and how it detracts from the real changes need to be made in American government. The author of this post feels we need to go back to what the founding fathers envisioned.
What do you think? I think everyone ought to have an opinion on this... a lot of people, it seems to me, don't even realize that we are not the country the founding fathers started us out to be. Go read this person (I love and adore) his post, if you want. And if you want, read the book. I'm going to, now that he's done with it. :)
3 comments:
you don't think i would touch this with a ten foot pole, do you?
Honestly? I really like Ron Paul. I think many of his ideas are a touch outlandish, but of all the candidates (yes, I know he has withdrawn), he seems the most capable of affecting real, meaningful change.
And I will say this, if Ron Paul ever became president, we would be instantly thrust into the most horrible economic crisis this country has ever seen (and that is different from reality... how?). However, we would come out of that crisis stronger, wiser, more protected, and more capable of staying that way.
If Ron Paul were still running, he would likely have my vote. I say that without fully understanding everything, but what I do know and have heard is inspiring and hopeful in ways that no one else has even begun to dream of let alone offer. More than any other candidate, Ron Paul is more interested in doing what is right and best for America than what is "correct" or falls in "party lines."
Personally, I'm sick that my being a conservative means I hate the poor. I'm sick that my being conservative means I'm racist, oppressive, and discriminatory. And I'm sick that NoSurfGirl being a democrat means she hates babies and capitalism and so on. Ron Paul offered at least a limited release from the bindings of political party lines, and that's enough for me.
I was talking to Skywalker about all of this last night, and you know what I think? It's all about seeing the good things in each candidate/politician. I mean, there are good things about McCain, Obama, Palin, Biden, Paul. Even Hillary Clinton (whom a lot of my friends and family strongly dislike). I think, to really get the measure of a candidate, you should talk to someone who likes them, and really hear them out... and then you understand where they are coming from better (the candidate) than you would if you just listened to rhetoric or attack ads.
I think, Dave, that's why you and I both like Ron Paul. Because we both know, and have talked to, someone who really likes him. :)
Post a Comment