Lens of Liberty

Tonight’s Fox News GOP debate from South Carolina was a frustrating thing to watch. Rep. Ron Paul, after being largely ignored for the first thirty five minutes, struggled to give a clear defense of his foreign policy. In front of a fairly hostile crowd, Paul stumbled through a question about the assassination of Osama bin Laden and the war in Afghanistan. Because foreign policy is the one are where he will struggle to win over GOP base voters, the Congressman needs to be clear and effective when discussing that issue. It just didn’t happen tonight.

Video of that segment:

h/t RonPaulFlix

I thought Rep. Paul gave a number of great answers on the effect of the drug war on minorities, cutting defense spending, and taxes, but the it’s the foreign policy issue that will keep many Republicans from supporting him. That’s the issue on which he needs to convince voters.

As the campaign for the GOP nomination moves from New Hampshire to South Carolina, Rep. Ron Paul has confounded the expectations of the mainstream punditry and likely many of his own supporters. Despite his continued success, there are several issues which continue to dog his campaign. The racist and homophobic statements made in newsletters that were published under his name have been a problem for Paul for almost two decades and he has yet to effectively deal with them. There is also the tendency of his campaign to draw support from unsavory fringe elements and then fail to disassociate himself from them.

I personally find it hard to believe that Ron Paul is a racist. Whatever may have been written in those newsletters, as disgusting as some of it may have been, I have never heard him say anything racist, nor does he support any policies which could be reasonably categorized as racist. If he isn’t a racist, how do we explain the offensive, racist things published under his name? There are really only two explanations. Either he is a grossly negligent manager or he is willing to tolerate racism from others if it advances his agenda. Neither is an admirable trait in someone seeking the Presidency. The latter is especially damning.

Paul’s tendency to look the other way when those supporting him or even speaking for him make hateful statements or propose repulsive policies is not a easy thing to overlook. It doesn’t comport with Paul’s espousal of a belief in individual liberty to ignore such vile rhetoric. You have to ask how it is that Ron Paul can take on the monetary elites, speak out against the military-industrial complex, often as a lone voice against powerful entrenched interests yet he never finds a way to denounce two-bit cranks who are too often drawn into his sphere. When making a decision to support any political candidate, let alone someone seeking the Presidency, these are not questions that can be easily dismissed, if at all. What must be asked is this; in this election, given the alternatives, are these fatal flaws?

What are the alternatives? Realistically, it’s Romney and Obama, but to my mind it doesn’t much matter, all the candidates represent the status quo. On the issues that matter, the issues that will define the direction of the country, they are nearly identical. Mitt Romney is a Republican Bill Clinton without the philandering. He has no real core beliefs that I can see, at least none that can’t be changed when expediency demands. President Obama has proven over the last three years that anything he claims to stand for is ephemeral. Neither man can be counted on to restrain the growth of the State, or to protect individual liberty.

Consider the parallel ironies of 2012 Presidential race. Obama was elected by those who were angry at the excesses of the Bush administration only to find that, in nearly every meaningful way, Obama continued Bush’s agenda. The base of the Republican Party who were so outraged by the bailouts of the banks and of Wall St and by the passage of Obamacare, has somehow managed to propel a Wall St insider who pioneered the individual mandate to a commanding lead for the GOP nomination. The absurdity is almost too great to be believed.

So, knowing that the two realistic alternatives represent the same doomed course, with more war, more debt, and more attacks on civil liberties; can one overlook Ron Paul’s flaws? I have turned this question over and over in my mind. I cannot simply dismiss these troubling tendencies; I cannot pretend they don’t exist or that they are merely a creation of the establishment out to destroy him. In order to support Ron Paul, you have to accept that these flaws are part of it. It must never be condoned or defended or excused, simply accepted.

I believe that Ron Paul will sincerely attempt to do what he proposes; restore individual liberty, devolve power from Washington, bring an end to the wars in the Middle-East. Actually implementing those things will be exceeding difficult, if not impossible given the makeup of Congress but at least the effort will be made, and that is a step in the right direction. Given the gravity of the problems we face, is there any choice but to live with Ron Paul’s flaws?

The newsletters are offensive, but are they more offensive than the thousands of deaths caused by the wars we are waging? I abhor the sickening bigotry of some fringe Ron Paul supporters, but is it worth giving up on our most basic liberties because of them?

When it is all said and done, after all the wrestling and soul searching, the only answer I can come up with is NO.

A few weeks back I wrote that I thought #OWS had gotten all they could out of the camping-as-activism idea. I think the events of the past month have shown that to be correct. Krist Novoselic, formerly the bassist for Nirvana, made the same point on the Alyona Show (video below). At some point, your movement has to get beyond battling with local municipalities and the police and start,  you know, doing something.

I’m don’t know the full extent of Novoselic’s political work, he seems too devoted to the idea of  ”democracy”, but I think he’s correct with respect to the limits of occupying as means of creating political change.

While driving into work this morning I heard a local talk show host discussing the Herman Cain harassment allegations. The host made the comment (I’m paraphrasing from memory) that because the accuser received money to settle the charges of sexual harassment, she has zero credibility.

Move along, nothing to see here folks.

The logical gymnastics that the politically brainwashed will perform to avoid admitting that someone on their side of the aisle may not walk on water is simply astonishing. It’s possible that all three of the women currently accusing Cain are lying (anyone associated with Gloria Allred is immediately suspect) but surely the accusations must give even the most ardent Cain supporter a moments pause.

In the summer, my wife and I spend many Sunday afternoons with friends in the right field stands of Citizens Bank Park cheering for the Phillies. Our distance from home plate, about 400 ft, never stops us from booing umpires over the size of the strike zone. Similarly, NFL fans will inevitably judge every review of a close play in their team’s favor. It is all part of the fun of being a fan, believing that your team is always right, that every close call that goes against them is a conspiracy.

In politics its Team Red vs Team Blue . Cain is on Team Red, so all those fans are going to question the motives of the women coming forth with these allegations. Not many years ago, however, when it was someone from Team Blue being accused of inappropriate behavior, there was no such doubt from Team Red. Back then it was Team Blue who believed the whole thing was a Vast Team Red conspiracy. It’s all great fun, and cable news companies love the ratings, there’s only one problem.

Politics is not sports.

Unfortunately, that’s what we’ve built it into and politicians love it. It helps them obscure the fact that they’ve run the country into the ground. Debt, war, evaporating liberties, are all swept under the rug so that our team can win the big game on election day.

Joke’s on us though because in reality, there is only one team.

Yesterday afternoon, I decided to stop by at the OccupyLancaster site in Lancaster, PA to see for myself what was happening. To begin with, I recognize that Lancaster is a small city  and that it’s dangerous to draw conclusions of the worldwide Occupy movement from what I saw there. However, most of the themes that we’ve seen from OccupyWallStreet and other cities were present at Art Park in Lancaster yesterday.

There was a march earlier in the day with a larger crowd than the 50 or so that I found in the late afternoon. There were a dozen or so protesters holding signs up to cars passing by on Prince St, two guys banging on drums, a girl with a hula hoop, and a guy conscientiously walking around picking up trash and cigarette butts. The general atmosphere was what you would find on a fall afternoon on a college campus. I stood around for 25 minutes or so, took a brief video with my phone to capture the scene (posted below), gave a guy directions who was trying to remember where he parked, and I left. No one ever approached me, or spoke to me. I’m not very adept at walking up to strangers and starting conversations, so I didn’t initiate any interactions either.

As I was driving home, I began to think about the movement and what they appear to stand for, of course it is all very nebulous right now. Corporations appear to be the main villian, and two of the more common complaints from the protesters are about corporate bailouts along with corporate personhood and the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, in short crony capitalism. This angle is the movement’s best tool for mass appeal. Across the political spectrum, the American public despise the bailouts and the corruption of politics.  What the Occupiers (is that what we’re calling them?)  fail to understand is that the evil at the root of these problems is government. We have allowed government to accumulate an astonishing amount of power, and that power creates the current environment of corruption, it is not a solution for it. It is self-defeating to argue for less corporate influence in politics while simultaneously advocating more regulatory power for the federal government.

Like the Tea Party, it looks like the Occupy movement has legitimate grievances shared by many Americans, but they haven’t yet developed any practical proposals to address those grievances. Until they recognize the real cause of the corruption, they won’t have a prayer of effecting the kind of change they seek.

-It simply does not matter which political party happens to be in control, government can be relied on to do only one thing well, relieve you of your liberty. Politicians have become skilled at selling you on the idea that they can provide you with that which you lack and most fail to notice that any largesse provided is at the price of our freedom. The price is too high.

-The Republican party, if their campaigns are to be any indication, believes that lower taxes should be the focus of economic policy. It’s not surprising that they continued to be successfully portrayed as the party of the wealthy. Since those at the top pay the overwhelming portion of taxes they will see the most immediate benefit from lower taxes. What the GOP needs to learn is that lower taxes are not the definition of, but the result of good policy. A government properly limited to its constitutional role would not need to confiscate nearly one third of all the wealth produced in the country.

Lindsey Graham is a winner, just ask him:

I’m not sure what he thinks he’s won, but I know that Americans have lost their liberty, control over their government, and face serious economic problems in the near future in large part because of Sen. Graham, his party, and his colleagues across the aisle. So congratulations!

If anything good can come out of the morass in which the Republican party now finds itself, it is that worthless politicians like Sen. Graham are replaced with people who have respect for the values this country was founded on, most importantly liberty.

Enter Gov. Mark Sanford:

I don’t know if Sanford is the real deal, but at least he is speaking the right language. Instead of pointing libertarians to the door, as Graham proposes, Sanford say he wears the label “libertarian” as a badge of honor.

Last week, I wrote that it was a bad idea to let Sanford and fellow Governor Rick Perry use the Tea Party name for their town hall meeting, and I stand by it. But to be clear, I said that not disparage those two men, but the positions they hold. The Tea Parties must remain citizen driven if they are to have any effect.

Anyone who has wished that there were more people like Ron Paul in congress got some good news today. The Congressman’s son, Rand Paul is considering a Senate run in Kentucky. Now if we can just find a few hundred more!

Rand Paul for Senate 2010 website