Thursday, 27 December 2007

Why I Support Ron Paul

First off let me say the elections in this country are a sham.

I do not mean to suggest that the United Nations monitor our election process, but according to our own measures of democratic elections abroad, we do not even come close to the standards we hold to other nations. There is plenty of reputable investigative journalism available (albeit, mainly outside the mainstream media) that not only proves that the 2000 election was hijacked, but also the 2004 election. If memory serves, "The Daily Mirror" ran a headline in 2004 that stated "How can 59 million people be so Dumb?". No doubt, Kerry ran a very poor campaign. One would almost think Kerry didn't want to win, running as Bush Lite – but I was still astonished by the outcome. I say astonished, because it truly was an incomprehensible and illogical result. Consider these facts:

1. Bush's approval ratings before the 2004 election among registered actual voters was at best estimates only 48 percent, yet somehow managed to get 51 percent of the vote. But these incumbents never made surges from their last horse race number:
1956 Eisenhower's final horse race projection 59.5%, his actual share of the vote 57.8%
1964 Johnson's final horse race projection 64%, his actual share of the vote 61.3%
1972 Nixon's final horse race projection tally 62%, his actual share of the vote 61.8%
1976 Ford's final horse race projection number 49%, his actual share of the vote 48.1%.
1980 Carter's final horse projection numer 44%, his actual share of the vote 41%.
1984 Reagan final horse race projection tally 59%, his actual share of the vote 59.2%.
1996 Clinton's final horse race number 52%, his actual share of the vote 49.2%

2. Over 122 million Americans voted in 2004, an increase of 17 million over the 2000 presidential election. Turnout jumped from 54 percent of eligible voters in 2000 to 61 percent in 2004. This was also a year where spontaneous protests cropped up in just about every urban center, and to my knowledge the only time a political party's convention also saw a strong, consolidated protest. The media did their best to ignore these inconvenient facts, but the truth is that Bush & Co. managed to upset a good number of Americans sufficiently to get them to travel to Washington D.C., and New York to voice their strong opposition to Bush's policies.

3. National exit polls projected Kerry at 51 percent and Bush at 48 percent, yet later the media widely reports such polls as being the most inaccurate of any election as well as a reluctancy among Republican voters to admit whom they voted for? Hmm…I have yet to meet any of those reluctant Republicans.

I could go on for pages, but to me it comes down to two simple questions. Why would voters show up in record numbers to reelect an unpopular incumbent president? And why would all the polls be so inaccurate in regard to one single election? I think the answer is all too obvious, and it is as simple as this: Bush stole the 2004 election. But lest I invite you to infer that Kerry would have been our savior, allow me to assuage such an inference. Kerry undoubtedly would have made little difference since he too would have furthered the neoliberal corporatist agenda.

Perhaps this is why half of the registered voters stay home? They see little point in voting, and I must say they are right. I believe that all eligible voters be registered to vote and required to vote in all elections, or otherwise face a fine or community service. Yet a vote of "no confidence" for any political office would be on all ballots. Should "no confidence" get a majority of votes, the election would be deemed suspended until a candidate inspire enough of the citizenry to claim a "mandate".

The Undivided States of America – we're not red and blue; we're purple

This is the "us" versus "them" map the media loves to show of the 2004 presidential election.

A more realistic depiction, yet one must also account for population centers.

I am a journeyman lithographer, and I can tell you that if you take 48 percent cyan (blue) and 51 percent magenta (red), you'll get purple. We are the purple people, folks! I use this illustration because I do not believe the myth of a divided nation that the media hypes. I have traveled across this nation on several occasions, and my experiential knowledge tells me another story. Call it anecdotal if you will, but I am more inclined to believe it. Most Americans are neither liberals nor conservatives. Most of us are centrists. Just as most of us are not bible-thumping proselytizers or raging atheists. Most of us are rather secular with some kind of nebulous religious affiliation. Yet most of us really want the same thing, and one thing that is a high priority is a protection of liberty and personal freedom. And not so surprisingly, most Americans are wary of career politicians and big government. What unites us is far more than what divides us. "E Pluribus Unum", "One out of Many". It's a good motto, and much more accurate than "In God We Trust", which belongs in a prayer book, not on our national currency. The sooner we get "god" out of government the better. Meanwhile, God in all his infinite glory can reside perpetually within his Universal Kingdom where no one can monopolize him.

Democrats I like, and why they don't stand a chance.

I like Kucinich and Gravel. Both of these men have proven records and stand on principled philosophies. Unfortunately, the DNC will ensure that neither one of them, or for that matter any true progressive, will ever stand a chance at winning their party's nomination. This is why I have reregistered as a Republican. I am tired of lending my support to candidates that cannot seem to rise to more than a mere couple of percentage points. The Democrats cannot sell their message to the people, because they have none. Now the Democratically controlled Congress actually has managed to fall below the Bush Administration in its approval ratings. And finally there are particular voters that actually get out to the polls on wedge issues that will always hurt the Democrats. Abortion and Guns are both non-issues in my mind, along with gay unions. I have an opinion on all three, but I don't think they are of such importance compared to the issues that really matter (see priorities). Ron Paul would actually cross that divide, whereas all the Democrats are guilty by association.

The Democratic Party has abandoned true progressive ideals.

Yes, the Republican Lite Party is owned and operated by the very same corporate interests. Whoda thunk it?

Third parties – Why bother?

Green Party? Reform Party? Constitutionalist Party? Libertarian Party? There is plenty of talent and good ideas, but the chances of winning a presidential bid in the present electoral system is about as likely as winning the state lottery two weeks in a row.

It's the primaries – tell the media to be quiet! (Or better yet, just stop listening)

We should be looking for the candidate that best represents our interests, not the candidate that the network news deems fit. Nor should you vote the "lesser of two evils" in order to "win". What are we "winning" anyway?

What are our priorities again?

I'd say, that number one is getting out of Iraq and just about everywhere else. Secondly is our economy and our monetary policy. Thirdly is rescinding all these horrible "free trade" agreements that have sent our jobs overseas where labor and environmental protections are not upheld. And finally, we should ensure that our government is truly representative of the people and make certain that our liberties are protected. Ron Paul gets an A on all of the above. Kucinich does almost as well, but he doesn't see a problem with our monetary policy (the Federal Reserve) and he supports the IRS and the Federal Income Tax. As long as those two things remain in place, there will be big, bureaucratic government and the military-industrial complex. Gravel does better, since he sees a connection between the IRS and a loss of sovereignty. No other candidates stand near these issues.

Growing autocratic nature of U.S. Government – Free Republic or Autocratic Empire? You decide.

This is the question of the century. Maybe even the next millennium!

Unifying messages and populist movements, and why they scare the bejesus out of the establishment.

See if the more support Ron Paul gets, the more the media will try and smear his character. Ask yourself why the corporate controlled media would do such a thing. I doubt the media will find much dirt on Paul, and he is smart enough to see them coming. So far, the worst anyone can come up with is guilt by association, since he received campaign contributions from some unsavory people. Apparently he also has some problems with the theory of evolution. Yet he is hardly alone. I don't see how any educated person can deny evolution as fact, but Paul doesn't actually go that far. I don't see why this should be reason not to vote for him. Maybe I wouldn't hire him as a science professor, but I have no doubt he can handle himself in the office he is running for.

Yeah, but can Ron Paul win?

Short answer: yes. He is a populist candidate, but he is smart enough to run as a candidate from one of our two major political parties. H. Ross Perot was the last populist candidate who ran independently in 1992. Even after dropping out of the race and later reentering, he was able to garner an unprecedented 19 percent of the popular vote. No third party candidate in recent times has rallied such a showing. I believe it was due to the populist nature of Perot's campaign, and had he not initially abandoned his bid for the presidency; I believe he likely would have actually stood a chance at winning a number of electoral votes, perhaps even upsetting Clinton's chances. Remember that we were in an economic recession at the time with an incumbent president who had upset many fiscal conservatives. I think that by the best estimates, 2008 will be a year of recession and stagflation. There is even a likelihood that our continued monetary policies will see another major devaluation of the dollar, in which case Americans will assuredly be open to a discussion of new economic policies. Such policies would undoubtedly include a major reduction in spending abroad. The only candidate besides Kucinich and Gravel who is against the continued occupation of Iraq, happens to be Ron Paul. His message is a unifying one that crosses all sorts of political ideologies, and it is common sense to most Americans. His message is a message of freedom and the responsibility inherent in maintaining liberty.

Once inaugurated, what can be done, actually?

My guess is a whole lot more than Giuliani or Clinton. The "war" in Iraq is opposed by 70 percent of Americans, so it shouldn't be that difficult for us to end our occupation. Paul would do a good deal to balance our budget, bring jobs home and stabilize our economy. Paul would also rescind all these gross violations of our liberties, like the Patriot Act. All of this would be far better than any of the corporate sponsored candidates.

Issues that seldom get discussed and the sorry state of "debate" in the media.

A few issues that come to mind immediately are monetary policy, economic policy, strategic power and policy abroad, government's true responsibility, just to mention what pops into my head. Nothing of any substance is ever debated in the media, and those "hot button" divisive issues are just shouting matches between hot airbags. A Paul presidency, or any true populist candidate would force a national dialog. It is about time we have such a thing, since most Americans are woefully ignorant on the real issues.

What is our responsibility as citizens?

We must take back our government and seek empowerment. We must insist upon our national sovereignty. We must elect populist candidates and unseat these career politicians once and for all. And finally, we must ensure that government remains of, by and for the people!

And if it comes down to Neoliberal Autocrat A or Neoliberal Autocrat B?

Or Neocons, if you prefer (it's all the same poor philosophy; fascism by another name). I suggest we either boycott the election or write-in "no confidence" on the ballot. I am not going to lend credence to a failed and fundamentally undemocratic election.


This may very likely be our last chance at saving our republic. Now is the time for each and every one of us to act. We must save our heritage and pass something of value on to the future generations. May God help us.

No comments: