Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Ron Paul: An Enigma who Could be the Next President

Despite accusations by some that Ron Paul is being ignored by the mainstream media, there has been an uptick in coverage of the good doctor’s campaign. Scan the channels and you’re likely to see Ron Paul’s face more than once.

The fact remains, however, that many media outlets dismiss Ron Paul’s candidacy as a chimera. Even a cursory review of the headlines in scores of newspapers and magazines reveals the prevailing wisdom that Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, and Mitt Romney are all more viable choices than the congressman from Texas.

Evidence of such relegation to second banana status on the part of the traditional sources of news is everywhere. Take for example the fact that CNN spotlighted a Sarah Palin appearance instead of covering a speech by Ron Paul, a declared candidate for president. As the U.K.’s Telegraph put it:

In a particularly shoddy bit of reporting, CNN refused to cover Ron Paul’s speech in preference for footage of Sarah Palin. The show’s host told his roving reporter, “If you get video of Sarah Palin or a sound-bite from her, bring that back to us. You can hold the Ron Paul stuff.”

Recently, an article published by The Moderate Voice online refuted the notion that Ron Paul can’t win, however, arguing: “It’s hard to tell if the idea that Ron Paul cannot win in 2012 is more ignorant, in its complete lack of historical sophistication, or more arrogant, in its claim to certainty amid all the complexity of 300 million lives and the myriad issues that affect them.”

There is little doubt that there are thousands of people in this country of 300 million who have legitimate reason to fear a Paul presidency. First, those dependent on the nanny state to feed, clothe, and house them. Second, the corporate welfare cheats that rely on the largesse of government that keeps their businesses “too big too fail.” Third, the globalist elites that have come to rely on their congressional and executive co-conspirators to perpetuate the prosecution of the “Global War on Terror” and the concomitant obliteration of all constitutional strictures against such entanglements.

Why is Ron Paul such an enigma? There are several likely reasons. First, his reliably consistent libertarian views anger those in the media and in the Establishment who benefit from a two-party system. A man such as Ron Paul, who doesn’t fit neatly within the lines of the political Venn diagram, confounds the elites and confuses many others.

As a libertarian, Ron Paul is unapologetically both fiscally conservative and anti-war. The latter position is generally thought of as typical of a Democrat. Just when you think you have him pegged, however, you learn that Dr. Paul is an ardent foe of government entitlement programs across the board. This is a longtime plank of the conservative Republican platform. Then, there is the notion espoused by Ron Paul that government needs to keep its nose out of the business of the governed. For example, he opposes the “war on drugs,” the “war on terror,” and pretty much every other unconstitutional intrusion of government into realms outside its approved bailiwick. This bent is attractive to independents, but certainly not to either mainstream Republicans or Democrats. These ideological intricacies are difficult for many to process.

Although he is an engaging speaker and a deep thinker, Ron Paul often relies on the lessons of history to buttress his claims. For example, his opposition to the several foreign invasions being carried out across the globe, Congressman Paul points out that war is generally just an excuse for the expansion of government. As described in a recent London Telegraph article:

According to the Ron Paul history of the United States, the innate goodness of the American people was corrupted by war with foreign powers. War excused the growth of the state: taxes were created to pay for arms, welfare to buy the consent of the public, prison for the dissenters. What began as a temporary measure to expand the American empire evolved into a monolithic central state. Patterns of traditional living — small, simple, charitable — were absorbed or destroyed by the new “progressive” bureaucracy. Ergo the state, fueled by war, became the motor of social decay.

Finally, there are among both major political parties who are disillusioned and feel that they have been betrayed by those carrying their respective banners. Perhaps in November they will rally round Ron Paul, recognizing that he alone among all the candidates for president offers consistent and constitutional cures for the economic and social ills that plague our nation. He can win. One vote at a time.

Full article: http://www.thenewame … e-the-next-president