paulagain
09-23-2008, 08:43 PM
Dear Friends,
You won't believe how long I've been lurking on these forums without registering...! So what is it that has made me take the plunge? Answer: Dr Paul's statement, "A New Alliance" and the fact that I read its significance in a way that I haven't seen anyone else draw attention to (apologies if you did and I missed it - there are a lot of posts to keep up with!):
Ron Paul - to state the blindingly obvious - has his eye on the big picture. He says as much when he writes
Yet in the long run, this last-minute change in plans [Bob Barr's no show] will prove to be of little importance. I’m convinced that problems like this always seem bigger at the moment, yet things usually work out in the end.
He is attempting to win the American people over to a constitutional libertarianism (and, in the short term, to the four key principles regarding foreign policy, privacy, the national debt and the Federal Reserve). In his statement he describes those he has been able to win over or make common cause with:
In the past two years at the many rallies where I talked and shook hands with literally thousands of people, I frequently asked them what brought them to our campaign. There were many answers: the Constitution, my consistency, views on the Federal Reserve, the war, and civil liberties. The crowds were overwhelmingly made up of young people.
Oftentimes I welcomed the diverse groups that came, mentioning that the crowd was made up of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Liberals and Progressives with each group applauding. Even jokingly, I recognized the “anarchists” and that, too, was met with some applause. In conversations, many admitted to having been Democrats and members of the Green Party and supporters of Ralph Nader, yet they came to agree with us on all the issues once the entire philosophy was understood. That’s progress.
So who is holding out on the message of liberty?
Ironically the most difficult group to recruit has been the evangelicals who supported McCain and his pro-war positions. They have been convinced that they are obligated to initiate preventive war in the Middle East for theological reasons. Fortunately, this is a minority of the Christian community, but our doors remain open to all despite this type of challenge. The point is, new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than from those conservatives who have been convinced that God has instructed us to militarize the Middle East.
It seems evident to me that Dr Paul would like to win many more evangelical Protestants over to the cause of peace and limited government. So who does he endorse? An evangelical Protestant!
With the short-term view of the typical politician you might think it nuts for Ron Paul to say that "new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than [pro-war] conservatives" and to then endorse Chuck Baldwin! But he's not your typical pol (he's a statesman) and his mission is much larger.
I do not believe that Dr Paul is necessarily asking us all to rally behind Chuck Baldwin (I know some of you have taken it that way). In fact, at the National Press Club he specifically called on us to vote for whichever third party candidate is most in line with our values. (He also clearly endorsed - in the broader sense - not voting at all.)
Believe me, I'm not a Constitution Party sort of person - I really find it hard to imagine going for that. I'm one of those "from the left" (well, sort of) that Dr Paul mentions. But I am excited by the idea of breaking evangelicals away from the warmongers. I think Dr Paul (who has the media spotlight, given that he actually has a clue about what is happening economically) may have taken a vital step in his long war for liberty with this endorsement. I certainly hope so.
I wanted to share my response to Dr Paul's statement because it seemed to me that an understanding such as this could be helpful in fostering tolerance within this freedom movement.
Now, will I go back to lurking for another 18 months? We'll see!
Best wishes,
Paul
You won't believe how long I've been lurking on these forums without registering...! So what is it that has made me take the plunge? Answer: Dr Paul's statement, "A New Alliance" and the fact that I read its significance in a way that I haven't seen anyone else draw attention to (apologies if you did and I missed it - there are a lot of posts to keep up with!):
Ron Paul - to state the blindingly obvious - has his eye on the big picture. He says as much when he writes
Yet in the long run, this last-minute change in plans [Bob Barr's no show] will prove to be of little importance. I’m convinced that problems like this always seem bigger at the moment, yet things usually work out in the end.
He is attempting to win the American people over to a constitutional libertarianism (and, in the short term, to the four key principles regarding foreign policy, privacy, the national debt and the Federal Reserve). In his statement he describes those he has been able to win over or make common cause with:
In the past two years at the many rallies where I talked and shook hands with literally thousands of people, I frequently asked them what brought them to our campaign. There were many answers: the Constitution, my consistency, views on the Federal Reserve, the war, and civil liberties. The crowds were overwhelmingly made up of young people.
Oftentimes I welcomed the diverse groups that came, mentioning that the crowd was made up of Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Liberals and Progressives with each group applauding. Even jokingly, I recognized the “anarchists” and that, too, was met with some applause. In conversations, many admitted to having been Democrats and members of the Green Party and supporters of Ralph Nader, yet they came to agree with us on all the issues once the entire philosophy was understood. That’s progress.
So who is holding out on the message of liberty?
Ironically the most difficult group to recruit has been the evangelicals who supported McCain and his pro-war positions. They have been convinced that they are obligated to initiate preventive war in the Middle East for theological reasons. Fortunately, this is a minority of the Christian community, but our doors remain open to all despite this type of challenge. The point is, new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than from those conservatives who have been convinced that God has instructed us to militarize the Middle East.
It seems evident to me that Dr Paul would like to win many more evangelical Protestants over to the cause of peace and limited government. So who does he endorse? An evangelical Protestant!
With the short-term view of the typical politician you might think it nuts for Ron Paul to say that "new devotees to the freedom philosophy are more likely to come from the left than [pro-war] conservatives" and to then endorse Chuck Baldwin! But he's not your typical pol (he's a statesman) and his mission is much larger.
I do not believe that Dr Paul is necessarily asking us all to rally behind Chuck Baldwin (I know some of you have taken it that way). In fact, at the National Press Club he specifically called on us to vote for whichever third party candidate is most in line with our values. (He also clearly endorsed - in the broader sense - not voting at all.)
Believe me, I'm not a Constitution Party sort of person - I really find it hard to imagine going for that. I'm one of those "from the left" (well, sort of) that Dr Paul mentions. But I am excited by the idea of breaking evangelicals away from the warmongers. I think Dr Paul (who has the media spotlight, given that he actually has a clue about what is happening economically) may have taken a vital step in his long war for liberty with this endorsement. I certainly hope so.
I wanted to share my response to Dr Paul's statement because it seemed to me that an understanding such as this could be helpful in fostering tolerance within this freedom movement.
Now, will I go back to lurking for another 18 months? We'll see!
Best wishes,
Paul