febo
05-03-2012, 01:06 PM
I decided to get involved in the Comments section of the HuffPost's article on Paul Vs Paul.
I was struck by how vehement the anti-Pauls were.
One of the sticking points had never occurred to me before - there seems to be an assumption that because RP has a "philosophy", to consider supporting him requires one to accept this philosophy hook line and sinker.
That's a shame - I think many people are wary of "joining" a philosophy - it smacks of extremism, "belief", blind faith etc.
If these folks could be made to feel differently, that they would not be in danger of an identity crisis, that they don't have to agree with everything that Paul says, maybe they'd concentrate more on his 2012 policy proposals and see that voting for RP this time is a savvy move.
I was struck by how vehement the anti-Pauls were.
One of the sticking points had never occurred to me before - there seems to be an assumption that because RP has a "philosophy", to consider supporting him requires one to accept this philosophy hook line and sinker.
That's a shame - I think many people are wary of "joining" a philosophy - it smacks of extremism, "belief", blind faith etc.
If these folks could be made to feel differently, that they would not be in danger of an identity crisis, that they don't have to agree with everything that Paul says, maybe they'd concentrate more on his 2012 policy proposals and see that voting for RP this time is a savvy move.