ibaghdadi
09-14-2011, 10:47 PM
I've been a Ron Paul fan for better than half a decade now, and was there to watch the 2008 campaign. Recently, with the Arab Spring, there's been an explosion in my follower count on Twitter (http://twitter.com/iyad_elbaghdadi) (pushing 8000 now), and importantly, many of my followers are influential accounts (both in politics and in media) and come from all over the world.
I have to tell you that I haven't seen as much interest in Ron Paul - and as many attacks & cheap shots against Ron Paul - over the past week than I have seen ever since I started on Twitter. Previously, Ron Paul to most was interesting but eccentric - someone to listen to for the occasional epic truth he'd say, but not someone to take seriously.
This is changing guys, very fast. I don't know if others can corroborate my sentiment. We are making some people very, very nervous. I feel a shift here from totally ignoring Ron Paul (and his fans) to taking cheap shots, to try to "knock us down a notch". There are a few things I want to talk about and discuss.
Cheap Shots Revisited
Last night someone ranted about how Ron Paul's a "racist". Someone else asked how many baby's he has delivered for free (a shot at his position on health care). Someone made a remark about his age and how frail he looks standing next to Perry and Romney and others.
Any long-term Ron Paul fan will know how to immediately and resoundly answer these, but perhaps there should be an FAQ-type "cheat sheet" for new comers. (Maybe it exists but I don't know about it, in which case it should become more public and more widely disseminated).
Ron's Foreign Policy
This is where we lose the conservatives, esp. the Israel-firsters. Ron Paul's foreign policy positions are very mature, but sometimes I feel he's out of touch with current events. The shift taking place in the Arab world is of cataclysmic, tectonic proportion, and if the movement takes a look here it'll find immensely helpful arguments for bringing the troops home and stopping the wars and defunding Israel.
To touch on this very quickly: Alqaeda is no longer relevant in the Arab world; easing pressure on Iran will probably allow its people to follow with their own popular revolution (hopefully more successful than 2009); defunding Israel will finally allow for a real peace process, instead of arm-bending dictators into signing with no real consent or support from their people.
It's important that Ron Paul sounds current, indeed forward-looking, in these matters.
Ron's Position on Health Care & Entitlements
This is where Ron Paul loses the liberals & some of the seniors. We know about unintended consequences and how the government ends up raising the price of everything when it gets involved in supposedly "humanitarian objectives" - but the average person doesn't and isn't bothered to learn a lot about it.
At the heart of this is an assumption that the government is the only agent of influence within society - that if the government doesn't do something, it just won't get done at all. This is the assumption that must be attacked. This is the heart & soul of statism.
How's this for a health care/entitlements position: "A society that allows the poor to starve to death, or the uninsured sick to die of disease, is an immoral and callous society. Someone should take care of the poor, sick, and hungry. But it shouldn't be the government - this is beyond its mandate. Americans are a charitable and humanitarian people, and there are many institutions that will gladly cover the shortfall when government rolls back."
How Fast should Change Happen?
We lose our audience on many questions because we fail to distinguish between "ideal solution" and "practical solution". Confusing the two would be disastrous. Accepting a convenient solution as a final one, or implementing the ideal solution immediately, would both result in disaster. This should be made clear so we don't sound like crazy radicals.
It must be made clear that when we talk about how the ideal situation should look like, we aren't saying that we want to do it tomorrow, but we want to move towards it so we can achieve it within say a generation. And we must have the practical, convenient, immediately actionable alternative on hand as a response.
Would it be better for the movement if Ron is NOT elected?
I keep wondering about this, in light of the very, very bad shape the US economy (indeed the world economy) finds itself in. Just yesterday I attended a live web seminar in which Doug Casey and Lew Rockwell (and others) spoke; the general mood is that this is very nearly beyond fixing. Someone (can't remember who) said that when he talks to politicians on either side, they get it, they really do, but can't get to stomach the solution.
Which means that, for the most part, Obama & co. will try to stabilize the patient so that it crashes & dies on the next President's watch. I keep thinking that the movement as a whole will benefit a lot more if Ron Paul is remembered as the voice of reason who called the great catastrophe and suggested solutions that no one heeded to, rather than being remembered as the President on whose watch the catastrophe occurred.
Anyway, that's my two-pence. Follow me on Twitter (http://twitter.com/iyad_elbaghdadi) for more discussions on this and other points.
I have to tell you that I haven't seen as much interest in Ron Paul - and as many attacks & cheap shots against Ron Paul - over the past week than I have seen ever since I started on Twitter. Previously, Ron Paul to most was interesting but eccentric - someone to listen to for the occasional epic truth he'd say, but not someone to take seriously.
This is changing guys, very fast. I don't know if others can corroborate my sentiment. We are making some people very, very nervous. I feel a shift here from totally ignoring Ron Paul (and his fans) to taking cheap shots, to try to "knock us down a notch". There are a few things I want to talk about and discuss.
Cheap Shots Revisited
Last night someone ranted about how Ron Paul's a "racist". Someone else asked how many baby's he has delivered for free (a shot at his position on health care). Someone made a remark about his age and how frail he looks standing next to Perry and Romney and others.
Any long-term Ron Paul fan will know how to immediately and resoundly answer these, but perhaps there should be an FAQ-type "cheat sheet" for new comers. (Maybe it exists but I don't know about it, in which case it should become more public and more widely disseminated).
Ron's Foreign Policy
This is where we lose the conservatives, esp. the Israel-firsters. Ron Paul's foreign policy positions are very mature, but sometimes I feel he's out of touch with current events. The shift taking place in the Arab world is of cataclysmic, tectonic proportion, and if the movement takes a look here it'll find immensely helpful arguments for bringing the troops home and stopping the wars and defunding Israel.
To touch on this very quickly: Alqaeda is no longer relevant in the Arab world; easing pressure on Iran will probably allow its people to follow with their own popular revolution (hopefully more successful than 2009); defunding Israel will finally allow for a real peace process, instead of arm-bending dictators into signing with no real consent or support from their people.
It's important that Ron Paul sounds current, indeed forward-looking, in these matters.
Ron's Position on Health Care & Entitlements
This is where Ron Paul loses the liberals & some of the seniors. We know about unintended consequences and how the government ends up raising the price of everything when it gets involved in supposedly "humanitarian objectives" - but the average person doesn't and isn't bothered to learn a lot about it.
At the heart of this is an assumption that the government is the only agent of influence within society - that if the government doesn't do something, it just won't get done at all. This is the assumption that must be attacked. This is the heart & soul of statism.
How's this for a health care/entitlements position: "A society that allows the poor to starve to death, or the uninsured sick to die of disease, is an immoral and callous society. Someone should take care of the poor, sick, and hungry. But it shouldn't be the government - this is beyond its mandate. Americans are a charitable and humanitarian people, and there are many institutions that will gladly cover the shortfall when government rolls back."
How Fast should Change Happen?
We lose our audience on many questions because we fail to distinguish between "ideal solution" and "practical solution". Confusing the two would be disastrous. Accepting a convenient solution as a final one, or implementing the ideal solution immediately, would both result in disaster. This should be made clear so we don't sound like crazy radicals.
It must be made clear that when we talk about how the ideal situation should look like, we aren't saying that we want to do it tomorrow, but we want to move towards it so we can achieve it within say a generation. And we must have the practical, convenient, immediately actionable alternative on hand as a response.
Would it be better for the movement if Ron is NOT elected?
I keep wondering about this, in light of the very, very bad shape the US economy (indeed the world economy) finds itself in. Just yesterday I attended a live web seminar in which Doug Casey and Lew Rockwell (and others) spoke; the general mood is that this is very nearly beyond fixing. Someone (can't remember who) said that when he talks to politicians on either side, they get it, they really do, but can't get to stomach the solution.
Which means that, for the most part, Obama & co. will try to stabilize the patient so that it crashes & dies on the next President's watch. I keep thinking that the movement as a whole will benefit a lot more if Ron Paul is remembered as the voice of reason who called the great catastrophe and suggested solutions that no one heeded to, rather than being remembered as the President on whose watch the catastrophe occurred.
Anyway, that's my two-pence. Follow me on Twitter (http://twitter.com/iyad_elbaghdadi) for more discussions on this and other points.