PDA

View Full Version : How Much Could a Ron Paul Presidency Really Accomplish?




gocrew
12-26-2007, 05:11 PM
www.thngstff.blogspot.com (http://www.thngstff.blogspot.com)

When the spleen overtakes me, I can be as negative and grouchy as any man ever was. Though not a consistent cynic, my transient forays into gloom are quite as deep and seemingly unshakable as if I had spent a lifetime staking my claim there. But I am just a tourist in the realm of pessimism; a frequent tourist but still nothing more than a visitor. Often enough my fellow human beings provide enough evidence to convince me, at least for a while, that my disdain is unwarranted, or at least not wholly warranted. In America today there is a movement afoot – a revolution some have called it – that has proved more than enough to keep me optimistic for months at a time. As it becomes clearer and clearer that Ron Paul will make a serious challenge for the Republican nomination, and looks to be easily the most likely of the group to take it, I do not think it too early to consider how effective a president Ron Paul could be.

Even among his supporters there is a lurking skepticism about how much a Paul administration could accomplish. When he takes aim at the IRS even those whose hearts flitter giddily at the pronouncement will quickly come back down to earth with a sigh, glumly declaring that, “He’ll never be able to do it.” Perhaps he won’t, but let’s not discount that WE might.

When Ron Paul thanks us for inviting him to our revolution, he’s not just being humble. He may be the guest of honor, but the party is about all of us. If this is to be a revolution, then it needs to be about ideas, not about a man. Though we may dispute the particulars, we are in agreement that government must play a smaller role in our lives, even a drastically smaller role. It is incumbent upon us, therefore, without getting stuck on details, to support others who espouse similar beliefs.

Once elected, President Paul, even alone, can do much to further the cause. As commander-in-chief of the armed forces he can bring home our troops and close the vast, international network of military bases that the US government has established. If nothing more than this gets accomplished it will have been worth the struggle to see him elected. Not only will so much violence have been ended and so much future enmity prevented, but also fresh wounds can begin to heal, the budget will have been substantially reduced and the now feckless military-industrial complex will have been deprived of that impulsion by which they induce politicians to lay siege to civil liberties. A rough estimate of the effects, the effects of the effects and the effects of the effects of the effects of this troop withdrawal as they ripple through our country and around the world – even from a conservative perspective – is quite enough to gladden the heart.

This much Ron Paul has already promised, and as president there is little to nothing that could be done to stop him. The final result of his other promises, e.g., vetoing unbalanced budgets and imprudent spending, is less certain, but it must be noted that big increases in federal spending are generally driven by spendthrift presidents. The mere elimination of a squandering president’s demands would likely ease the pressure to increase the budget.

Apart from the above, a president may grant pardons and clemency to criminals, and Lord knows there are many who unjustly languish in prison as these words are written. Rather than paying for their imprisonment, we would be better off if their productive capacities were put to use, and they certainly would be better off. President Paul might also decide to take a swipe at a multitude of executive orders, orders which he no doubt views as unconstitutional. I am not aware of his position on this, but he could well conclude that any act of nullifying an executive order is precisely as constitutional as the original order itself. Indeed, the many tens and tens of thousands of regulations in the Federal Registrar could be wiped out as quickly as Dr. Paul can swipe the tip of a pen across parchment. I have seen estimates that these regulations represent an annual drain on the economy of $800 billion, and that figure is a few years old. Should he pursue this course, the lives of Americans everywhere would improve as unproductive labor reverted to more productive activities.

All this is that part of the revolution which will likely soon be in Dr. Paul’s hands. The greater part of it is up to us. I feel safe in assuming that no supporter of Dr. Paul is behind him because of his looks, his speaking ability or his fame. If it is the ideas which charge us, then let us take the fight for these ideas elsewhere, encouraged by how popular we now know them to be. Ron Paul will not – cannot – be elected in a vacuum. Already there are Republicans running for other offices and calling themselves Ron Paul Republicans. If they truly are Ron Paul Republicans, Dr. Paul can grant his endorsement to the ones he trusts in this respect, and we can help to get them elected. As Dr. Paul himself has said, politicians are good at gauging which way the wind is blowing, and many of them are already sympathetic to some of his positions. If the movement serves only to elect Ron Paul as president of the United States, it will have accomplished much but sold itself short. If it moves on beyond this election to change the face of American politics, if it fills Congress with men and women who want to work with Dr. Paul, not against him, then it truly could be a revolution.

A few successful policies early on can work to sway millions. A few libertarian-minded Congressmen can influence dozens of others. A few million Ron Paul supporters can get many other decent people elected to Congress and elsewhere. By the 72-year cycle theory of American history, we are four years late for a political overhaul. If we want that overhaul, let us dedicate ourselves right here and now to extending the revolution beyond – far beyond – the Paul presidency. Let’s use our momentum to make America what it never quite was but always should have been.

dircha
12-26-2007, 05:27 PM
The next president will have a Democratic controlled house and senate probably at least for his or her entire first term.

Here's some of the highlights of what a Paul presidency could accomplish in his first term in cooperation with Congressional Democrats:
- Bring 90% of our troops home from around the world
- Repeal the Patriot Act
- Stop the use of torture and rendition
- Stop unconstitutional spying on Americans
- Create tax credits for individual medical insurance to de-subsidize employer funded medical insurance
- Establish real Congressional oversight of the Federal Reserve
- Legalize Constitutional currency
- Cooperate with Congressional investigation of the Bush administration

PunctualEel
12-27-2007, 09:38 AM
He could VETO any bill sent to him that defies the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

Imagine it!

Washington would shut down in the furor that followed. Members of Congress would howl with indignation because someone had the audacity to point out that they can't just do anything they want.


This scenario make me happy to think about.

ChickenHawk
12-27-2007, 09:54 AM
He could VETO any bill sent to him that defies the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

Imagine it!

Washington would shut down in the furor that followed. Members of Congress would howl with indignation because someone had the audacity to point out that they can't just do anything they want.


This scenario make me happy to think about.

Congress would most likely override the majority of his vetoes making him almost irrelevant and wildly unpopular. This is the reason Reagan had so much trouble accomplishing what he set out to do. You either stand your ground and go down in flames or make significant compromises so you can at least win a few battles. The government is set up to make change extremely difficult for a reason.

PunctualEel
12-27-2007, 10:13 AM
Dr. Paul would have to find a way to make this work, at least most of the time. He would have to convince the People that his way is right, then maybe some Congressional "conservatives" might grow a spine.

Otherwise what would be the point of his presidency?

Compromise is how we wound up with the Federal Govt we have today.


(All of it would be easier we could get rid of the 17th amendment)

FreeTraveler
12-27-2007, 10:20 AM
Congress would most likely override the majority of his vetoes making him almost irrelevant and wildly unpopular. This is the reason Reagan had so much trouble accomplishing what he set out to do. You either stand your ground and go down in flames or make significant compromises so you can at least win a few battles. The government is set up to make change extremely difficult for a reason.

Two words: Bully Pulpit

Dr. Paul is great at putting things in simple terms. Working with us, he could make it known that if Congress didn't get behind him, there would be a new Congress in 2010.

ChickenHawk
12-27-2007, 12:23 PM
Two words: Bully Pulpit

Dr. Paul is great at putting things in simple terms. Working with us, he could make it known that if Congress didn't get behind him, there would be a new Congress in 2010.


I think you over estimate how easy it would be. Many libertarians see their point of view as being so obviously right and based in common sense that if people had the opportunity to learn about it they would support it overwhelmingly. Unfortunately many people are frightened by the concept of limited government and nearly limitless liberty. It's just the nature of probably half the population to be dependent on others. No amount of liberty is going to change that.

This leads to extreme discontent among libertarians because they feel they are being oppressed. Since they don't realize (and can't comprehend) that they are being oppressed by the will of the people they assume that it is a vast conspiracy by a few evil men. This leads to them attacking the offending institutions and alienating even more people.

I'm not saying this to discourage people, I'm just pointing out that if you don't comprise you will fail completely. Ron Paul "gets away" with a lot because he is a Congressman and represents a relatively small number of people many of which know him personally. He would have to change his approach to be President or governor or even a Senator. I really hope he understands this. I suspect he does.

Thomas Paine
12-27-2007, 12:25 PM
First, the people must retake the White House via electing Ron Paul as President. The next order of business will be for the people to retake the Congress from the Republicrats.

Liberty Star
12-27-2007, 12:59 PM
It will take more than just one Presidency and one election cycle to fix all that has gone wrong with American policies. A Ron Paul Presidency won't accomplish everything RP advocates but it will start U-turn on terrible policies and start moving things in the right direction. That will be revolution of sort and a sea change in itself. It will take braoder education of the masses and some time to put policies and things completely back in right order. But that won't happen unless we take the bold and most difficult first step in the right direction and reject status quo.

Also a RP victory will send a strong message or rather shock wave across political establishment powerhouses. Winds of change will bring about major changes for future elections and inspire more defenders of American Libeties to stand up and help change America for the better.

ronpaulblogsdotcom
12-27-2007, 01:04 PM
I would vote for someone that would not lead in stupid ways or to encourage more war and spending.

Anything more than that is gravy.

1000-points-of-fright
12-27-2007, 01:10 PM
IMO, he will either not get the nomination, or win in a landslide. A landslide victory will show congress which way the wind is blowing. If there's one thing we know about congress it's that they're wind-socks. Keeping their jobs is the most important thing to them, so they'll either suddenly all become constitutionalists or get voted out.

Matt Collins
12-27-2007, 01:26 PM
If there's one thing we know about congress it's that they're wind-socks. That's hilarious! I've never heard that before :D

Matt Collins
12-27-2007, 01:26 PM
I think you over estimate how easy it would be. Many libertarians see their point of view as being so obviously right and based in common sense that if people had the opportunity to learn about it they would support it overwhelmingly. Unfortunately many people are frightened by the concept of limited government and nearly limitless liberty. It's just the nature of probably half the population to be dependent on others. No amount of liberty is going to change that.

This leads to extreme discontent among libertarians because they feel they are being oppressed. Since they don't realize (and can't comprehend) that they are being oppressed by the will of the people they assume that it is a vast conspiracy by a few evil men. This leads to them attacking the offending institutions and alienating even more people.

I'm not saying this to discourage people, I'm just pointing out that if you don't comprise you will fail completely. Ron Paul "gets away" with a lot because he is a Congressman and represents a relatively small number of people many of which know him personally. He would have to change his approach to be President or governor or even a Senator. I really hope he understands this. I suspect he does.

Fascinating perspective and I tend to agree with most all of it. However I would disagree with the last paragraph that talks about how Ron must change once he becomes President.

HOLLYWOOD
12-27-2007, 01:52 PM
Just expose all the corruption and outlaw it... ROMAN EMPIRE/SCUMBAG POLITICANS, LOBBYISTS, BRIBING HACKS, CORPORATIONS, WEALTH, ILLEGAL COVERT OPERATIONS, & etc...

loupeznik
12-27-2007, 01:54 PM
A president that did nothing would be an improvement.

Dr. Veto