Help! I'm being attacked by Paulies....
Several times now, I've been invited by women I barely know through some loose associations to check out Ron Paul. They send me links to meetup and his campaign site and ask my opinion on his ideas. These are women I don't want to offend so I answer as diplomatically as possible - not even close to the blunt brutality of my soccermom posts that I recognize often lack tact and the finesse required to maintain relationships. Despite my best efforts, these ladies have all gotten annoyed because I didn't heartily endorse Mr. Paul and jump headfirst into the bandwagon. I don't think I'm going out on a limb here to suggest that Paul's followers are less than rational.
So... here in the corner of cyberspace where I unload my opinions, I am posting what I think of Ron Paul. If you find yourself in agreement, feel free to cut and paste the response I didn't send (yes, my replies were even more wishy washy and weak in hopes of protecting relationships).
Dear (insert Ron Paul groupie's name here),
As for what I think - well, most of what he says is extremely appealing. A return to basic constitutional ideas would be more than welcome, although to be honest, I don't believe that Paul's message is practical. Perhaps I'm too much of a cynic but I don't foresee a President convincing Congress to dial back the spending, cut taxes (remember the Bush cuts were approved only on a provisional basis) and cut programs. Too many people in Washington and locally have their hands in our pockets to turn back the clock to an earlier style American political system.
People tend to look at the President as the real mover and shaker in DC but that is a media myth. Because he is a single man we focus attention on him but an executive officer is only as effective as the Congress that backs him and the judges that sustain the Congressionally initiated legislation. Even if the GOP won the Congress back and Paul was elected - a good portion of the Senate and House would have to agree that the fed has grown too powerful and should be neutered with substantial job losses and department dissolutions. They'd have to risk offending constituents, businesses and special interest groups who have ever-extended hands and often exchange votes for entitlements. These changes would have to survive the thousands of lawsuits brought before the court by recently unemployed federal workers and constituents claiming to be suddenly disenfranchised by the disappearance of one program or another.
The stars are aligned in such a fashion, my friend, and I believe that if Paul were elected his power would be limited to the veto because he'd have no Congressional support.
I feel similarly about Paul's foreign policy message. It is unbelievably naive. Even in Jefferson's day, when the nation followed an isolationist policy we were drawn into the Barbary wars to defend our national financial interests. In a world that is shrinking due to technological advances, withdrawing is even less of an option. We have porous borders and satellites beaming communist and terrorist doctrine throughout the heartland. Our isolationist days are over. Besides, consider how the world would react if we just picked up our toys and came home. Those same folks who desperately want us to mind our own business are the first in line to cash the U.S. taxpayer funded welfare checks that our government doles out annually. Do you really believe that the world will leave us alone when we stop handing out the money? The U.N harrasses us presently because they don't believe we pay enough! See how much you like paying higher prices because trade agreements have been discarded in the wake of a Pauline administration abandoning the international payoffs. Until you have traveled the world and seen firsthand the love-hate relationship most nations have with these United States, tune out the anti-war rhetoric and take the word of someone who has literally drunken from the cholera infested waters of the third world - you don't have a clue. Continuing to pay out while abdicating the right to act in accord with our self-interest is no option either. It would make America the biggest patsy on the world stage and amounts to international extortion. You want to see blowback?
I suppose what it boils down to is that I do agree with Paul - the system is broken. But I don't see him altering it and I'd rather have someone who can effectively negotiate the system and make gradual changes than one who promises the world but I know won't be able to deliver. The only way to accomplish Paul's vision is through revolutionary tactics.
Ron Paul's message appeals to every true conservative - to every true American - he is articulating our fondest hopes and dreams, a return to a simpler time less encumbered by overreaching federalism. Unfortunately, no matter how desperately I want to believe Paul is a voice crying in the wilderness, I just can't see a return to the promised land any time soon.
