Memorial Day thoughts on Ron Paul

There's a great article in the New York Times yesterday about Ron Paul.

Paul informally called it quits a few weeks ago, but technically all he did was "suspend" his campaign. But supporters, like myself, refused to let it happen. Although neo-conservative John McCain has all but sealed up the nomination on the Red side of the ballot, Paul's supporters just won't go away. And according to the article, we're mad as hell, the Iraq war being the most common thread.

The article is a bit unfair, casting all of Paul's supporters as rag-tag generation X-ers, which clearly isn't true. However, Paul's status as "Dr. No" in the House is mentioned, and that has been the catapult to cull a lot of support (Paul votes "no" on anything that expands the government's power or intrusiveness into people's lives). The article does, however, clearly illustrate that Paul's supporters won't go away, and that it's more than just a reactionary message against the current administration.

You see, in my opinion, many of today's outraged Democrats (and there are many!) are reactive in their political approach to America's current situation. Some Dems are indeed sincere in their fervor for change this time around, and that is wonderful, for around our necks the current administration makes Coleridge's albatross feel more like an ostrich. However, I find that many Dems have not quite studied out what it is they truly stand for. All they know is they don't want another Bush. Again, that's fine and dandy, but there's no meat to it, no purpose; it's just an equal, opposite reaction, void of any real motive. If they got their way this fall (and I predict they will), what then? Will they notice or do anything about the potential problems with the widespread sweeping executive authority that Bush has nabbed for the presidency? I doubt it. Again, it is good that so many Dems are against the current outrageous administration, but I get the feeling that they are that way simply out of the bipolarization of American politics, not because they are truly motivated to think one way or the other. Since their party doesn't like what the other party is doing, they stick with it without much thought or understanding.

Enter Ron Paul. There was even a time when Fox News, supposedly the most "fair and balanced" of them all, hosted one of the Republican debates (of course) and wouldn't let Paul in because his stance is so different from the others. Well, Paul is a Republican by name, but a libertarian (lower case "L") by trade. That's because he hasn't been "neo-conned" like many of the others. He clings to paleo-conservative thought, which is anti-interventionist, pro-freedom, limited government, very pro-civil liberties, laissez-faire economics, etc. etc. This is strange to most modern Republicans, who haven't noticed that the wool has been pulled over their eyes and that their party has been hijacked by neo-conservative, Keynesian zealots, beginning with Regan and finding its zenith in Bush.

Because of these changes in the Republican party over the last 30 years, and because Paul hasn't been duped with any of it, I submit that he is an issue-oriented candidate. His party may swing this way or that way (ala Hillary, who sounds like a generic neo-con at times like these), but in the end, he stands firm on what he believes - personal freedom and liberty. And that's where I think his supporters differ from their respective counterparts. They are not reactive to another party's choices or decisions, but rather wear the Republican (or libertarian) label proudly for what it could be under the leadership of a paleo-conservative like Paul. They (or "we," I should say) actually know what we stand for, and if the Republicans or the Democrats want to come with us, so be it. We welcome all who are interested in responsible foreign policy, stronger and sound monetary policy, and most importantly, greater individual freedom and liberty.