PDA

View Full Version : On the BIG rhetorical question without merit




Proemio
01-05-2008, 11:15 PM
There is a recurring rhetorical question causing confusion and unnecessary tension. The question goes something like this:


If Ron Paul can't get the right people to run his campaign properly, how will he be able to run a whole country?

or

If we trust Ron Paul with the presidency, we must trust TheCampaign.

The short answer: It doesn't follow - Apples and Oranges - bogus

As president, Ron Paul can nominate his cabinet on any criteria he wishes. Experience per se is not necessary, while character and philosophical kinship surely is.

As candidate, that is far from being the case. With campaign staff, the required considerations are actually the other way around. He has no choice but to appoint people familiar with the intricacies of election rules and what could be called "electoral street smarts", that is, professionals who by necessity have already operated in that historically corrupt environment we seek to clean up, and are by default well connected with the establishment and the colleges who perform similar functions for the Rudies and Hillaries and the other Johns.

These pros are as exchangeable between traditional candidates and parties, as for instance lawyers are between clients and cases. In order to ensure their survival/career, they are beholden to the process rather than the cause - appearances not withstanding.

When you have a candidate who proposes to "oust the mountebanks" - i.e. the beneficiaries of the corrupt environment, you get some interesting dynamics in play. Only the staffers themselves know where their loyalties lie. Neither Ron Paul nor the grassroots nor the staffers themselves can do anything about that unique pickle. We all have to live with it and operate accordingly - Paul, HQ, you and me. Honest staffers can survive questions just as well or better than honest supporters who may have a 'wrong' idea or make a 'bad' comment.

With all the travel, interviews, speeches, etc., etc. every day, all day, it's completely unreasonable to expect Ron Paul to do anything more than propose, guide and sign off on concepts. Concept is one thing, execution is quite another. Execution can be flawed by anything from honest mistake, to incompetence, to design. That's where the supporters come in - watch our man's back. Ron Paul's core message actually demands that stakeholders (You! You pay for it) hold the managers (theCampaign) accountable.

There is no doubt in my mind that Ron Paul would rather hang out and plan stuff with the grassroots he clearly loves and respects. He can't. He is not permitted. The electoral system was set up and refined over decades, precisely to prevent such a close-knit Ron Paul Grassroots Revolution. The insane, hyperactive, money driven circus doesn't even allow meaningful consultation with family and friends; just the way it's intended. The establishment does not like competition or surprises, to put it mildly (BTW, that applies to any establishment, even benevolent ones like 'ours' - once we win).

Is TheCampaign running to lose? I don't know - hope not, but hope alone doesn't cut it. Is there some campaign staff working to that end? Does the sun rise in the East? It happens regularly between the pre-selected establishment candidates, for sport and profit; imagine when the stakes involve the ouster of the whole lot.

It's also important to keep perspective. It's no bigger a problem than the virtually unlimited resources of the chosen competitors. We have the message, the ideas, the committed base and the growing numbers; they only have money and "change" that isn't. (Hilary took a dive because she put the word "change" 20 times into her first two stump-sentences. That was a couple too many - people woke up;-)

In summary: The original question is regularly asked by friend and foe alike; increasingly by foes. The first because of genuine but misguided concern "Can we question theCampaign without questioning Ron Paul?", and the latter with the intent to diminish Ron Paul and to end inquiry/debate "Don't question theCampaign!!!". The question itself is bogus and should be 'banned', i.e. ignored.