CaveDog
01-26-2008, 03:52 PM
Below is the first post to my new blog regarding Ron Paul...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to admit that I didn't immediately warm to Ron Paul's campaign this time around. I did vote for him back in '88 when he ran as a Libertarian, but at the time I was more disillusioned with the two party system and even though I understood they didn't stand a chance of winning I wanted my vote to encourage the Libertarian party to continue.
Admittedly, over the years I began to consider politics from a more "practical" standpoint. Even though I've had a longstanding interest in history and political philosophy and understood the constitution as well as it's underlying principles, I had myself convinced that those principles could be "flexible" in light of reality. There were two factors which ultimately challenged that view. One, George Washington's farewell address and secondly, Ron Paul indirectly reminding me of it.
Some consider the constitution as "antiquated", unequal to the task of modern government and thus justify dismissing it. However, Washington spoke to this point long ago and I view this as relevant even today. He pointed out that the constitution contains provisions for amendment. We have the ability to change it, to adapt it to our circumstances, so calling it antiquated points to nothing but our lack of political will to do so. As Washington proposed, in the absence of amendment we are still obligated to obey the constitution in whatever it's current form may be. Ron Paul's dogged dedication to the principles of the constitution reminded me of that truth and hence my illusions about the flexibility of those principles began to crumble until ultimately Dr. Paul essentially shamed me into casting my vote in his favor during the recent New Hampshire primaries. His strict constitutionalism forced me to examine whether my views were truly patriotic or merely nationalistic.
It's easy enough for me to grasp why some on the left have a visceral dislike for Ron Paul. Anyone who views government as the answer to every question is bound to cringe at the suggestion of Congressman Paul's minimalist approach to government and if anything defines the left, it's the insatiable desire to worship at the alter of statism. That's fine by me, the left is entitled to it's political view and I'm entitled to oppose it. What puzzles me more is the same visceral negative reaction from many on the right. After all, the hallmarks of conservatism are small government and respect for constitutional principles, views Dr. Paul espouses with a vengeance. My observation is that the discord on the right lies largely in the arena of foreign policy. Many on the right are committed to the idea of American global dominance. Some out of a belief in it's necessity, perhaps some merely because it's to their benefit.
But America is not a nation based upon any tribal or ethnic foundation but rather a nation built upon a foundation of ideas. As such, the measure of patriotism can only be the degree to which one embraces those ideas. Where our constitution enshrines those ideas it's difficult to ignore it and claim patriotism as one's motivation, but at the same time many want to claim the title of patriot while conveniently dismissing constitutional constraints.
I've come to see this disconnect as the fundamental root of the angst greeting Dr. Paul's message. Many on the right have confused nationalism with patriotism and cannot abide having that illusion challenged. As I've mentioned, in a nation such as ours one cannot claim patriotism as their motivation when their actions either ignore or outright defy the document through which our government derives it's just authority. In all the years which I've examined our constitution and it's historical background I've found nothing which indicates an intent on the part of the framers for the United States to police the world. In light of their well known aversion to "foreign entanglements" the assertion that they could have meant to authorize such a policy becomes ludicrous. None of the amendments to the constitution since would seem to grant that authority so I can only presume it does not exist, an inconvenient thought if you're committed to the idea of American global dominance. The game becomes one of pretending it's OK to pursue policies which the constitution meant to govern those policies does not authorize. As long as no one mentions it, the game continues smoothly. Ron Paul shows up and refuses to play the game, which threatens to overturn the proverbial apple cart.
Regardless, I can only presume that the emotional nature of the criticism coming from some quarters on the right must be rooted in some deep seated recognition that as unwelcome as the message is, he has a point. I realize some may not like that explanation, but it's the only rational explanation I can apply to the almost knee-jerk reaction I observe. Ron Paul stands on stage with the other candidates and challenges the disobedience to the constitution which the nationalistic game in progress requires in much the same fashion he has challenged the congress on similar matters for years. Ron Paul has made himself a thorn in the side of the nationalists at all levels. They ignore him, they attack him, they laugh at him, but he just won't go away and let the comfortable game of denial go on. They dismiss him, I think, not for his political stances so much as the fact that he causes them to face the truths which they would rather not. It's simply not enough to roll up the constitution, set it aside and do what we feel is right simply because we feel it's right. That document represents the ideals of our nation every bit as much, perhaps more than the flag and we cannot wave the latter without obeying the former.
Ultimately, faced with the options of accepting Dr. Paul's argument or embracing the denial required to refute it, I chose to hang my head and admit I was wrong. As the father of our country advised, it would be better to amend the constitution poorly than ignore it altogether. Unless we choose to amend, we must obey and that understanding, no matter how grudging, compels me to argue in favor of Ron Paul's candidacy. Unlike some of my conservative compatriots I saw no other option but to examine my priorities and reorder them in the fashion which true patriotism so uncompromisingly demands. Ron Paul forced me to finally do this and for that I am in his debt. If I truly love my country and value the greatest experiment in human rights the world has ever seen then I can do nothing less. I must accept that even if it's material preservation requires some departure from the framers' vision, I cannot endorse that departure if it undermines our constitution and more importantly the principles which it embodies. Preserving the nation materially while gutting it's principles ultimately leaves us only a shell and while the defense of home and country has it's noble attributes, the even nobler mission of defending that shining city on the hill to which the world may look for inspiration becomes infinitely diminished without the principles which make it what it is. Somehow, we must find a way to preserve all, not just some and simply choosing the easy answers won't do.
If we mean to follow the example of Rome and exchange our republic for empire then let's at least make it official. If not, then let's obey the constitution as we rightly should. If it be true that the world requires our protection whether they like it or not then let us declare it so and eliminate the hypocrisy. If we choose not to, then honor and duty require that we abandon our global dominance gracefully. In the final analysis I think that's the core of Dr. Paul's message and upon much reflection it's a message I cannot refute and thus must acknowledge and support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to admit that I didn't immediately warm to Ron Paul's campaign this time around. I did vote for him back in '88 when he ran as a Libertarian, but at the time I was more disillusioned with the two party system and even though I understood they didn't stand a chance of winning I wanted my vote to encourage the Libertarian party to continue.
Admittedly, over the years I began to consider politics from a more "practical" standpoint. Even though I've had a longstanding interest in history and political philosophy and understood the constitution as well as it's underlying principles, I had myself convinced that those principles could be "flexible" in light of reality. There were two factors which ultimately challenged that view. One, George Washington's farewell address and secondly, Ron Paul indirectly reminding me of it.
Some consider the constitution as "antiquated", unequal to the task of modern government and thus justify dismissing it. However, Washington spoke to this point long ago and I view this as relevant even today. He pointed out that the constitution contains provisions for amendment. We have the ability to change it, to adapt it to our circumstances, so calling it antiquated points to nothing but our lack of political will to do so. As Washington proposed, in the absence of amendment we are still obligated to obey the constitution in whatever it's current form may be. Ron Paul's dogged dedication to the principles of the constitution reminded me of that truth and hence my illusions about the flexibility of those principles began to crumble until ultimately Dr. Paul essentially shamed me into casting my vote in his favor during the recent New Hampshire primaries. His strict constitutionalism forced me to examine whether my views were truly patriotic or merely nationalistic.
It's easy enough for me to grasp why some on the left have a visceral dislike for Ron Paul. Anyone who views government as the answer to every question is bound to cringe at the suggestion of Congressman Paul's minimalist approach to government and if anything defines the left, it's the insatiable desire to worship at the alter of statism. That's fine by me, the left is entitled to it's political view and I'm entitled to oppose it. What puzzles me more is the same visceral negative reaction from many on the right. After all, the hallmarks of conservatism are small government and respect for constitutional principles, views Dr. Paul espouses with a vengeance. My observation is that the discord on the right lies largely in the arena of foreign policy. Many on the right are committed to the idea of American global dominance. Some out of a belief in it's necessity, perhaps some merely because it's to their benefit.
But America is not a nation based upon any tribal or ethnic foundation but rather a nation built upon a foundation of ideas. As such, the measure of patriotism can only be the degree to which one embraces those ideas. Where our constitution enshrines those ideas it's difficult to ignore it and claim patriotism as one's motivation, but at the same time many want to claim the title of patriot while conveniently dismissing constitutional constraints.
I've come to see this disconnect as the fundamental root of the angst greeting Dr. Paul's message. Many on the right have confused nationalism with patriotism and cannot abide having that illusion challenged. As I've mentioned, in a nation such as ours one cannot claim patriotism as their motivation when their actions either ignore or outright defy the document through which our government derives it's just authority. In all the years which I've examined our constitution and it's historical background I've found nothing which indicates an intent on the part of the framers for the United States to police the world. In light of their well known aversion to "foreign entanglements" the assertion that they could have meant to authorize such a policy becomes ludicrous. None of the amendments to the constitution since would seem to grant that authority so I can only presume it does not exist, an inconvenient thought if you're committed to the idea of American global dominance. The game becomes one of pretending it's OK to pursue policies which the constitution meant to govern those policies does not authorize. As long as no one mentions it, the game continues smoothly. Ron Paul shows up and refuses to play the game, which threatens to overturn the proverbial apple cart.
Regardless, I can only presume that the emotional nature of the criticism coming from some quarters on the right must be rooted in some deep seated recognition that as unwelcome as the message is, he has a point. I realize some may not like that explanation, but it's the only rational explanation I can apply to the almost knee-jerk reaction I observe. Ron Paul stands on stage with the other candidates and challenges the disobedience to the constitution which the nationalistic game in progress requires in much the same fashion he has challenged the congress on similar matters for years. Ron Paul has made himself a thorn in the side of the nationalists at all levels. They ignore him, they attack him, they laugh at him, but he just won't go away and let the comfortable game of denial go on. They dismiss him, I think, not for his political stances so much as the fact that he causes them to face the truths which they would rather not. It's simply not enough to roll up the constitution, set it aside and do what we feel is right simply because we feel it's right. That document represents the ideals of our nation every bit as much, perhaps more than the flag and we cannot wave the latter without obeying the former.
Ultimately, faced with the options of accepting Dr. Paul's argument or embracing the denial required to refute it, I chose to hang my head and admit I was wrong. As the father of our country advised, it would be better to amend the constitution poorly than ignore it altogether. Unless we choose to amend, we must obey and that understanding, no matter how grudging, compels me to argue in favor of Ron Paul's candidacy. Unlike some of my conservative compatriots I saw no other option but to examine my priorities and reorder them in the fashion which true patriotism so uncompromisingly demands. Ron Paul forced me to finally do this and for that I am in his debt. If I truly love my country and value the greatest experiment in human rights the world has ever seen then I can do nothing less. I must accept that even if it's material preservation requires some departure from the framers' vision, I cannot endorse that departure if it undermines our constitution and more importantly the principles which it embodies. Preserving the nation materially while gutting it's principles ultimately leaves us only a shell and while the defense of home and country has it's noble attributes, the even nobler mission of defending that shining city on the hill to which the world may look for inspiration becomes infinitely diminished without the principles which make it what it is. Somehow, we must find a way to preserve all, not just some and simply choosing the easy answers won't do.
If we mean to follow the example of Rome and exchange our republic for empire then let's at least make it official. If not, then let's obey the constitution as we rightly should. If it be true that the world requires our protection whether they like it or not then let us declare it so and eliminate the hypocrisy. If we choose not to, then honor and duty require that we abandon our global dominance gracefully. In the final analysis I think that's the core of Dr. Paul's message and upon much reflection it's a message I cannot refute and thus must acknowledge and support.