Ron Paul in Arizona!
Posted By Dutch on December 7, 2009
People should have the right to injest whatever they want!
Barry Goldwater, Jr.
We were also treated to a brief musical performance by Jordan Page;
Jordan Page, Pete Seeger for the Right-wing!
When Congressman Paul finally arrived to speak, the crowd had grown to about 2,000 on Hayden Lawn in the heart of ASU’s campus.
Congressman Paul is making the rounds supporting his new book, “End the Fed.” His support among college-age and 20-somethings around the nation is something to behold. Perhaps all of that liberal-biased, public education isn’t as effective as conservatives believe. On the other hand, my opinion on the matter is that Congressman Paul has simply tapped into the same anti-establishment sentiments so prevalent in the late 1960’s.
Congressman Paul’s primary message is “You can’t trust anyone over 30!” Well, not really, but it is very close to this. Congressman Paul tells us that the Federal Reserve is a secret NON-government organization that is manipulating the US currency (Dollar) on behalf of the largest financial institutions in the country (e.g. Goldman-Sachs, AIG, etc.). He accuses the political leadership of both parties for using the FED to manipulate the national and international economy in order to finance their “interventionist” wars. He calls for the repeal of the 16th Amendment (i.e. eliminating the income tax) and for a return to the Gold standard. While he never mentions the Bermuda Triangle, I believe that he is just as much a kook as those who believe in it.
Congressman Paul speaks in mild mannered tones. This lulls people into thinking that he is reasonable, kind of, like how Al Gore lulls people to sleep during his speeches. You don’t really appreciate exactly how crazy each one sounds because you are too busy fighting to stay awake. It isn’t until much later when you read in black and white exactly what each one said that you realize just how wacked each one really is. For one thing, Congressman Paul is a very poor public speaker. He has few applause lines for someone who has traveled and spoken as far and wide as he has, and what’s worse, he usually steps all over the few applause lines he does have. He is earnest, fervent, and nuts.
By now, most of you who worship the ground upon which Congressman Paul walks must be steaming at my slander, but please understand that I actually like the Congressman. He is one of the few politicians who doesn’t slander other politicians. He doesn’t lie or present different faces and views to different audiences; he says exactly what he believes the same way to everyone wherever he goes. Unfortunately, like most of the truly paranoid, he actually believes what he says, and so doesn’t recognize how genuinely nutty it all sounds and in fact really is!
Auditing the Federal Reserve is a good idea just because they have fought being audited for so long. No Quasi-governmental agency should go without being audited. Best-case examples are FANNIE-MAE and FREDDIE-MAC. The malfeasance and mismanagement of these two agencies underwrote the Real Estate bubble of 2005/2006 that collapsed in 2007 and resulted in the ruination of the Financial Sector in 2008. The Federal Reserve contributed to this mess by their extreme lowering of interest rates AND the prolonged time period by which they allowed them to remain low.
Eliminating the 16th amendment is popular among the far right, and my guess is that it will become even more popular, if Obama, Harry, and Nancy propose raising income taxes as high as they have discussed. However, it still isn’t likely to happen.
Nevertheless, these aren’t the ideas that expose Congressman Paul for being a nut. It’s his extreme libertarianism that reveals him to be completely out of touch with reality.
Case #1: Legalizing Drugs
Most people recognize that the “war on drugs” has been far from successful in eliminating drug abuse, but what the libertarians refuse to acknowledge is how much worse it would be if we didn’t at least try to stop drug trafficking. Somehow, Congressman Paul’s view of history has been distorted into believing that Drug lords, Gangs, violence, and the accompanying social ills would suddenly all go away, if we only legalized drugs. This is complete nonsense! These criminal pushers, bullies, pimps, and violent thugs existed before drug laws were passed. Drugs were just one part of a larger problem of general immoral behavior of gambling and prostitution. All of the wacky claims by the libertarians and extreme liberals that these are victimless crimes has been completely debunked by the evidence of the lives left bankrupt, beaten, addicted, and dead. This isn’t just about legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes, it’s about gross stupidity in the face of hundreds of years of social depravity brought about by these behaviors, which once addicted are hardly “voluntary.”
Case #2: Non-Interventionist Foreign Policy
This sounds good on the face of it. Congressman Paul even quotes our founding fathers dictum of avoiding entangling alliances. In theory, most of us are in agreement with these ideals; but reality is a B****! Each specific example to which Congressman Paul points is one where the US either was attacked or answered the call of an ally. One might make an interesting case that Wilson hoodwinked everyone in the 1912 election when he promised he would not enjoin the US in WWI, or that Roosevelt antagonized the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor, but in neither case were we “intervening” in others affairs without entreaty. I’m sure South Koreans are more than glad that we “intervened” on their behalf. Only fellow nutter, Ted Turner, believes that North Korea is a paradise. South Vietnam asked for our aid, we didn’t just hop on planes and show up uninvited. Panama failed to honor their agreement with respect to maintaining the canal. We had every right to protect our interests. Iraq attacked Kuwait. We have strategic interests in that area of the world to protect the flow of oil to us and the rest of our allies in Europe, Australia, Japan, etc. Furthermore, just as the violation of treaty gave us the right to “intervene” in Panama, so did Saddam Hussein’s violation of his “terms of surrender” following Gulf-War I give us the right to intervene in 2003. Do I really need to justify our attack upon Afghanistan? (How long we stay and what our objective should be are open to discussion, but it is ridiculous to characterize this as an act of US “intervention” into other’s affairs or entangling alliances). Finally, all of the alliances during the “Cold War,” such as NATO, Iran’s Shah, Somoza in Latin America, even Batista in Cuba can be rationally justified in the face of Soviet hegemony. The alternative was worse. (If you don’t believe me, then ask yourself whether or not there would have ever been a “Cuban Missile Crisis” had JFK succeeded in the “Bay of Pigs” attack of overthrowing Fidel Castro.)
Congressman Paul is by all measures, an honest, intelligent, and well-meaning public servant. However, he has embraced views, much like the John Birch Society, that devolve into conspiracy paranoia and undermine credibility in those areas where he can make a solid case for investigation.
Our “libertarian” brothers-in-arms have passion and dedication in fighting against Statist oppression, but until they abandon their fondness for fighting mythical conspiracies, like Don Quixote and his dragons, they will simply end up bitter, disillusioned and completely ineffective.
About The Author
So true, Dutch, and well said. Some extremisms in the defense of liberty are vices … no?
The problem with bureaucracies, such as the Fed, is that they can’t be shrunk or managed — hat tip to Max Weber. Although I’d be willing to eliminate agencies, including quasi-governmental agencies, history suggests that they’ll reappear elsewhere. So the goal isn’t to get rid of the fed, or any single agency, but to shrink the entire government.
Of course, a small government tends to grow larger. So shrinking is a constant process, not a one-time act.
What bothers me about the Paulistas is their one-shot, short-term radicalism. Paranoia undergirds such radicalism. What is needed is a more mature, long-term, and constant vigilance. Although its not as sexy as a revolution, the sum total of little cuts, here and there, eventually add to a smaller government. Similarly, standing vigil over those cuts, every day, year after year, for one’s lifetime, will help keep government small.
This isn’t as fun as a revolution, of course, but far more effective. Liberty isn’t won or lost in fell swoops, but by aggregating small, silent and unnoticed acts.