Ron Paul is not much liked by the media, studies show, so why do his supporters consider him better than Obama, Cain, and Romney?
Oh, that crazy Uncle Ron. Before the Neoconservative takeover of the Tea Party, before Occupy Wall Street, there existed a group of people that passionately supported their 2008 Republican candidate. This group were chastised as borderline terrorists. Or demonized by being cultish. He has, more so than the Occupy Wall Streeters, more so than the current Tea Party followers, a following that is more passionate, more revolutionary than any other current group. More passionate followers than Obama, Cain, and Romney combined. His supporters think he's the best candidate running. Why? Are they nutcases or is Ron Paul qualified? Let's evaluate it by what we might agree are the most important topics in politics today.
The Economy
Psh, Ron Paul, a former doctor, how could he possibly be more qualified than two successful business men such as Herman Cain or Mitt Romney? Or how could he be more qualified than Obama who has his top economic "experts" fixing the economy now? It may surprise people but Ron Paul is well-versed in Austrian economics. Many people probably haven't heard of this but that's not surprise. Most of the economists in charge right now aren't well-versed in Austrian economics. Rather they are in the complete opposite camp known as Keynesian economics. Now, to keep this simple, lets just compare who said what and when. In 2002, Ron Paul said the following:
"Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie, Freddie, and HLBB have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans... the government's policies of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing."
I ask the reader, can you not relate to this? Surely you can see how everyone has either lost all their equity or, even more dramatically, their house. The next quote comes from a leading Keynesian and Nobel Prize winner, Paul Krugman. This was his quote in 2001:
"During phases of weak growth there are always those who say that lower interest rates will not help. They overlook the fact that low interest rates act through several channels. For instance, more housing is built, which expands the building sector. You must ask the opposite question: why in the world shouldn't you lower interest rates?"
He denies ever calling for a housing bubble but this leaves him either ignorant or a liar. By advocating lower interest rates, he is aware this will help boost the housing sector: he is thus advocating a bubble.
Okay, okay, so he knows economics a little bit but what can we do about it? Well, Cain and Romney were for the bailouts. Cain admittedly said that he advocated it but hated the way that it was handled. But when does government really ever handle anything correctly? What did Paul say about the bailouts? He was against them from the beginning. This is him in 2008 talking again about the TARP bailouts:
"I think it's a bad bill. I think it's bad for the taxpayers. I think it's doing more of the same thing. The same policy that we're following now with this bill is exactly how we got into that trouble."
Who could argue with that? We saw bankers get richer. CEOs get a boost in their income. Yet none of that helped the majority of Americans. It caused the Federal Reserve to print up more money, which is given to the large corporations, in turn they are able to buy things cheaper because the money hasn't come down to normal people, all the while, once the money comes down to the average citizen, prices have gone up because of the increase in the money supply. These bailouts screwed the American public and it's no surprise. Did the auto bailouts work? Did GM really pay back all the money they received? No, they paid back the small loan but not the money received from TARP or their Escrow accounts. These policies failed us. All the while Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, and Barack Obama all either fully supported, or flip-flopped on the issues. If this is not evidence enough of corporatism, or a buddy-buddy corporate system, take a look at the individual donors of Cain, Romney, and Obama then compare it with Paul:
- Top contributors for Obama work for Microsoft.
- Top contributors for Romney work for Goldman Sachs
- Top contributors for Cain work for Wausau Homes
- The top contributor for Paul work for the government. More specifically, the United States Air Force.
This sounds awfully strange for a Republican candidate, right? Wait, there's more. That last fact leads to the next reason why he should be president.
Antiwar
Yes, if you have not already heard of Ron Paul, this may surprise you. However, Paul has been chastised by the Neoconservatives for being against all of these military interventions. He was against the Iraq war, he wants to bring our troops home (although Obama said our troops are coming home, it may be a surprised that he intends to leave military and private contractors there), and not just from Iraq, he wants to bring them home from EVERYWHERE. This means every single military base around the globe. So what to do about the Muslim extremists?
Before we have to discuss that, we should discuss the reasons why we were attacked on 9/11. Why does Al-Qaeda exist in the very first place? Paul believes what the CIA, 9/11 Commission, University of Chicago Professor Robert Pate, and the former head of the bin Laden task team had already confirmed. No, it's not because we are a free and prosperous country. In order to figure it out, one does not need to look far. Many times before bin Laden died he reiterated what he says right here:
"The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target."
That doesn't seem too complicated. Many Neoconservative pundits have argued that they hate us because it's in the Koran, they hate us for our freedoms, or that the fight against Islam goes back many years. While all that may be true, it would be a complete disservice to say that the core argument for the fight against America is anything but what bin Laden stipulated. More evidence comes in favor of this conclusion when we look at what the "Christmas bomber" said. He stated that the motive behind the attempted bombing stemmed from the killing of innocent people in Iraq, Yemen, Palestine, Somalia, and Afghanistan.
It should be noted, though, that Paul supported the initial invasion of Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden. Along with that he introduced what is known as Letters of Marque & Reprisal. What this would have done is specifically targeted the terrorists of 9/11 because it wasn't a country that attacked us. He would like to focus less on expanding imperialism like the attacks Obama has done in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Pakistan, Africa, and Iraq. He'd rather focus on military intelligence and defense. When asked how he would handle a threat, he chastised Obama for bypassing Congress, then went on to say that the Constitution says that he'd need to go to Congress, make his case that there is a threat, then they'd have to vote on it. Once they voted on it, he would then go about attacking the threat. In addition to that, he does not believe that there should be other countries, anywhere, at all, receiving foreign aid. Whether it is Israel or Iran, not one should receive foreign aid, especially in our current economic crisis.
Social Issues
This used to be a big deal but I would think that compared to the prior topics it is not as focused. While many may be annoyed with his reasoning, I find it a difficult but attractive position. When it comes to gay marriage, abortion, or drug laws, he advocates leaving it up to the states. Many people say that the state shouldn't be able to prohibit or the state should prohibit everything. While that may be up for debate, what is not up for debate is the fact that a states right issue acts as a safeguard against Federal tyranny.
In the case of abortion, many people are upset with his Sanctity of Life bill which would reverse Roe V. Wade and ban the issue from being a federal matter. Many either lie or don't understand the wording of the bill. It does not ban abortion, it gives it back to the states, letting the states decide. Why is this a desirable position? In order to reduce the amount of tyranny, it could be argued, that if we let the federal government deal with these issues, they could make it legal or illegal in ALL the states rather than just one. If one particular political party becomes the majority, they could easily push their agenda on the minority and states. The safeguard comes in when the federal government cannot oppress ALL the states. In this context, states rights act as a safe guard to federal tyranny. There is a historical instance of the safe guard against federal tyranny, as well. In the case of slavery, Federal government tried to pressure the Northern states to give the slaves back to the Southern states but the Northern states rejected this, even though it was in the Constitution to protect the Southern states. This also applies to all social issues such as drug laws or gay marriage.
Other Important Stuff
For anyone concerned about social security, for the older folks he says will keep it. For younger people, they have the opportunity to opt out of the system. Paul realizes that social security was sold to the public as an insurance deal but the motive behind it was to bring in more money. This has become a reality, seeing as how Congress continues to dip its hand in the fund. Opting out of social security seems like the best idea, giving the opportunity for younger people to keep their money and invest it in their future themselves or currently.
Paul was a doctor for many years and never took a patient with Medicare or Medicaid. Harsh right? Wrong, he treated them for free. Paul notes in his book, The Revolution, "In the days before Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and elderly were admitted to hospitals at the same rate they are now, and received good care. Before those programs came into existence, every physician understood that he or she had a responsibility towards the less fortunate and free medical care was the norm."
Pharmaceutical companies enjoy the FDA because it allows them to artificially raise prices by restricting drugs from other countries or saying that the pharmaceutical company has to spend a certain amount on testing before they can release their drugs. This sounds like a very good safeguard but in actuality, it's killed a lot of people by not allowing drugs to get on the market soon enough. Another problem are laws that the American Medical Association lobbies for. In the name of "protecting" consumers, the Congress passes expensive licensing laws, prohibits the amount of doctors allowed in the country (especially after 9/11), etc., causing an artificial scarcity, so while demand is still skyrocketing, supply is low (the law of supply and demand dictates that prices will be higher). They also banned mutual aid organizations, which, a long time ago, provided poor people with healthcare for a dollar a year (this is only $11 in inflated adjusted numbers). These laws get in the way of lowering prices. Paul recognizes the problem that the crisis stems not from insurance, but the cost of healthcare. He also recognizes when you force someone to buy healthcare, you are automatically enriching the pockets of health insurance companies or businesses offering medical insurance (because now they don't have to pay anything).
Paul Has a Chance to Beat Obama
What many Republicans don't understand is that when they elect somebody like Romney or Cain, they are securing themselves a particular voting group. Many Ron Paul fans will end up voting for Ron Paul or a third party because they do not see any difference between Romney, Cain, or Obama (which there isn't). This will be completely detrimental to Republicans. They will lose votes from Independents as well as Republicans which would lead Obama to his second term (or as I call it, Bush's 4th term). This isn't some threat that if they don't vote for Paul, Paul supporters won't vote for their guy, it's simply stating an observation.
Now, how can Paul beat Obama? By now many people realize the faults of Obama. He is supportive of corporate welfare, wars, bailouts, and he's obviously in bed with Wall Street. Paul on the other hand brings a complete opposite perspective. Many people realize that he has been the most consistent (Democrats agree) congressional member. Videos of Paul from 1988 have surfaced only to find him saying the same things he is saying now. Paul can steal votes from Obama by his consistence, opposition to corporate welfare, and his continual opposition to war. Neither Romney, Cain, nor Obama can stand up to what is happening in this country. It is first up to the Republicans to make him the Republican candidate. Once that is done, get a Paul vs Obama debate and watch Obama's support tip in favor of Paul. Not convinced? I'll leave you with a short video that will hopefully change your mind.
