|
|
 |
||||||
 |
Opinion Another Attitude Paul motivates anti-war voters Other than Barack Obama's meteoric rise to the brink of the Democratic nomination for president, the primary season's remarkable political phenomenon has been Ron Paul.
About 15 percent of Americans consider themselves libertarians. They've traditionally voted overwhelmingly Republican — enthusiastic Goldwater and Reagan supporters. Cynical liberals view them as Republican fellow-travelers. However, unlike the current homogenized incarnation of the Republican Party, Libertarian views range from a similar paleoconservative anti-tax, anti-government, anti-regulatory fetishism to exquisitely progressive or "liberal" views on many social issues. Libertarians deplore the war on drugs, accurately pointing out its lack of effect on drug use while inflicting egregious abridgments of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. Libertarians advocate eliminating discrimination against gays and lesbians through repeal of the Federal Defense of Marriage Act as well as all state laws and amendments defining marriage. Paul ran as the Libertarian in the 1988 presidential campaign. But he's been elected to Congress 10 times as a Republican. First arriving in 1976, he voted against almost every spending bill even if that meant his constituents would lose their farm subsidies or local help for hurricane protection. Paul is anti-choice. Libertarians definitely don't advocate government assuming control of women's wombs, but it's difficult to imagine a pro-choice Republican being elected in Texas. Paul's political forebears include Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio, Dwight Eisenhower's opponent for the 1952 Republican nomination. As Paul's former chief of staff Lew Rockwell points out, those hardback fiscal conservatives and isolationists understood that war is a "'big government' program." No candidate has generated more Internet buzz than this pro-gun, pro-life, anti-tax, anti-war Republican. Paul counts more Google searches, YouTube subscribers and Web site hits than any other presidential candidate, and more Meetup members than the front-runners of both parties combined. Paul's Nov. 5 Internet "Money Bomb" event pulled in $4 million from more than 35,000 individual donors, a single-day online-fundraising record in a primary. His two biggest Meetup groups are in the rather liberal enclaves of Austin and San Francisco. There's been a considerable buzz on the anti-war left supporting the only candidate of either party willing to talk more than superficially about the Iraq fiasco. Paul points out that blowback from years of American meddling fuels terrorism, not the patent absurdity that they attack us because of our freedom or wealth. This has not endeared him to the Republican establishment or its media lackeys. He's been squeezed off the stage whenever they could get away with it. The most consistent and abiding Libertarian thread is distrust of government. Unlike the more establishment "country club" GOP libertarianism, probing some of Paul's writing or the minds of ardent supporters yields views veering precipitously toward the margins, even paranoia. Libertarians find fair company in faulting Alan Greenspan's politicization of the Federal Reserve and more than 20 years of debasing our currency by juicing the markets and printing money. Monetary policy is a constant Libertarian concern. But return to the Gold Standard? It's difficult to see how a return to the decision of the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference at Bretton Woods could be accomplished. This begs the larger question of a brand of isolationism that was well in sync with the earliest days of the Republic but seems naive and unrealistic in the modern world. The old John Birch Society shibboleth that the United Nations is a conspiracy for one world government still surfaces. Newer is that the North American Union is a plot to impose a single currency in North America. Regardless of who might be advancing the "Amero," it seems about as probable as a return to the gold standard. Third parties have primarily fertilized the major parties, only occasionally supplanting them as Lincoln's Republican Party vanquished the Whigs. Paul echoes many of the same populist views as Pat Buchanan who has similarly been marginalized by the party for reasons both good and bad. Perhaps a good rout this fall will change that. Most Americans want their government to regulate the arrival of lead-laden toys from abroad and want to fund enough inspectors to ensure tainted beef isn't marketed by unscrupulous packers. On the contrary, if the American electorate isn't willing or able to hold government accountable for its burgeoning surveillance, maybe these guys are onto something. I'd rather take my chances on beef than live in a police state. William H. Seewald: Longtime Amarillo resident and columnist. E-mail
comments about this story Posted: March 6, 2008
|
|
