Tuesday, July 17, 2007

The Man Who Should Be President


I was raised to be a Republican. It was just a part of who we were. I remember in 5th grade giving a speech in front of my school endorsing George Bush, Sr. over Michael Dukakis. Being a Republican was part of my DNA.


In my adult life, I no longer see in the Republican party the things that I was taught to love about them. Small government, lower taxes, emphasis on personal responsibility, financial responsibility, etc. None of these exist in today's Republican Party.


I have also discovered some issues which I have only considered important as an adult. Non-interventionist foreign policy and maintaining national sovereignty are two more conservative principles that the Republicans utterly fail on.


But the problem isn't one of political philosophy. The politicians and the talking heads on TV try to explain it as such, but its not. I'm convinced that neither party sets policies or introduces legislation based on a core political philosophy. Rather, both parties operate based entirely on two things.


First, the Republicrats operate according to the desires of the special interests which fund them. The Dems are owned by socialist-leaning environmental, human rights, unions, etc. The Republicans are owned by corporate interests and fundamentalist Christian interests, among others.


The second factor that determines the activities of the Republicans and Democrats is the Republicans and Democrats. No matter the issue, if one party makes a proposal or takes a position on an issue, it is without exception opposed by the other party. It would stand to reason that, if these groups that were divided only along philosophical grounds, there would be occasional overlapping of conclusions, since different philosophies overlap on occasion. But agreement is NEVER present, thus indicating that political philosophy has nothing at all t0 do with American politics.


In the midst of this jaded cynicism, I see a ray of hope. Although Ron Paul is running for President as a Republican, he doesn't resemble one -- and for all the right reasons! He opposes the war and has from the beginning, opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants, wants to eliminate the current tax and monetary systems and drastically shrink the size of government. He also holds membership int he Libertarian Party and was their nominee for President in 1988. He is rarely even approached by special interest lobbyists because he has proven that he can't be bought. He actually operates according to a philosophy which is never compromised -- constitutionalism. In other words, he operates by principle, making him unique in Washington. His approach to legislation is to take the proposed legislation and actually consult the Constitution to see if it allows the federal government to act in such a way. If the Constitution gives permission, he votes Yes; if it doesn't, he votes No. What a novel idea!


I'll probably have more to say about him as time goes by, but for now let me just leave a few points from his website.


Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:



  • He has never voted to raise taxes.

  • He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.

  • He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

  • He has never voted to raise congressional pay.

  • He has never taken a government-paid junket.

  • He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

  • He voted against the Patriot Act.

  • He voted against regulating the Internet.

  • He voted against the Iraq war.

  • He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.

  • He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S.
    treasury every year.

  • Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each
    year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

So what do you think? Who's your pick for Pres and why?

No comments: