This article was originally published at americanchronicle.com on April 28th, 2008
Reports of Ron Paul´s early demise were greatly exaggerated. Above all else, he still survives. He is still in the running for the presidential nomination. Like a baseball team going into the bottom of the ninth down ten to nothing, there is still hope, though perhaps not as much hope as we would like. But then, anyone who has supported Ron Paul should have always known it would be an uphill battle. They should have realized that it would take more than unprecedented contribution numbers, unrivaled grassroots support and innovative campaigning to win. Ron Paul was and is up against more than just his fellow Republican candidates, he is up against an established elite that has built up a system of dual political hegemony and has created rules and laws to insure the failure of any challenge to that hegemony. He´s up against banking and other corporate interests, a military industrial complex. They certainly would not want the masses to be honestly informed. They wouldn´t want the message of freedom to get out. That would weaken their grip on the control they enjoy. Unfortunately, the vast majority of our fellow citizens remain fooled by the left right paradigm created to provide the illusion of choice, or at the very least they remain silent and complicit. The powers that be do not want a Ron Paul presidency. It is no wonder all the grassroots efforts undertaken so far seem so ineffective, and yet Ron Paul remains in the race, however tenuously.
This in and of itself is an amazing achievement, particularly considering that from the beginning of his candidacy we have been told by the mass media that Ron Paul is "unelectable." I wonder why the talking heads working for corporate television and political pundits writing for establishment newspapers and magazines would say such a thing. Just what is it that makes a candidate unelectable?
Could it be that Ron Paul is unelectable because he is too honest? I know I have often told people who have suggested that I run for office that I am too honest to be involved in politics. I guess that is because I am too honest to participate in election fraud or other such chicanery. If I knew what was going on I would report it regardless of who was engaging in such activities. I would not simply tell people that I didn´t want to know what was going on so I could maintain plausible deniability. I also would not take money from special interest groups who would expect me to vote for some law just to make them money or protect their business. Because of this, I´m fairly certain my name would not get out to the general public and not enough people would know my positions on issues to elect me. Goodness knows we can´t have an honest man in the highest political office, not in this country. The fact that someone as honest as Ron Paul has made it to the position he has is another great accomplishment and a feather in Ron Paul´s hat.
Could it be that it´s because Ron Paul is too principled? He does, after all, take seriously his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. His voting record proves this. In the debates he took part in, he often times referred to the constitution when talking about his positions on issues. He speaks of constitutional money. He speaks of the constitutional power of the congress (not the president) to declare war. He speaks of the unconstitutional nature or the "war on drugs." He references the Constitution so much that one would think he actually read it and understands it. How very unusual for a politician in his position. It would be nice to hear other politicians talk about the constitution with such reverence. It would be nice to see them voting against unconstitutional laws. It would be nice if more of our congressmen took seriously their oaths of office. But to be that principled just must not be what the citizens of the United States of America want to see in a president. It must be a fatal flaw that makes him unelectable.
Could it be that Ron Paul knows too much about the monetary system in this country? He often times speaks of the economy like he knows what he´s talking about. Perhaps that´s because he´s actually taken the time to study and get to know economics. He understands why we´re experiencing the economic travails we´ve been experiencing lately. He understands how the economy´s been manipulated and how to stop such manipulations. Heaven knows we wouldn´t want a leader who understands economics. Heaven knows we shouldn´t have competition in banking or sound constitutional money. Heaven knows we don´t want anyone in the highest office who would stand up to the Federal Reserve and has a history of doing so. Such a brave, intelligent individual is most certainly unelectable. The American people hardly deserve such a leader.
Could it be that Ron Paul has far too much integrity? He´s been married to the same woman for fifty years. He does not flip-flop on any issue, choosing instead to always vote no on any legislation that is not covered by the constitutional mandate. One knows where Ron Paul stands on a given issue and he will not change. He always sides with the idea of freedom. He always champions the constitution. Judging from his voting history, one knows he will keep any campaign promise he makes, if indeed he would make any promises. Of course, everyone knows that only flip-floppers and those who make promises they can´t possibly keep are the only electable candidates. Everyone knows that only candidates surrounded by controversy and scandal in their professional and personal lives are electable. Why would the people want otherwise?
Could it be that Ron Paul is unelectable because he´s against war? He´s not just against the Iraq war, he´s against all war. He wants to bring all our troops home and stop policing the world and maintaining a costly empire. He abides by the axiom that we should stay out of foreign entanglements, that we should have free trade with all and entangling alliances with none as Thomas Jefferson advised. Such an humanitarian stance could most certainly make one unelectable. After all, why would we want a world where the American military is not responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians in their own countries? Why would we want a world where civilizations much older than our own are allowed to run their own business? Why would we want to peacefully coexist with others? And most of all, why would we want to save all that money and spend it here at home on infrastructure and other public necessities? Anyone taking such a silly stance is certainly unelectable, even when considering that a majority of voters are against the Iraq war and would like to see our soldiers brought home.
Ron Paul is unelectable because the establishment says he is. If one believes that he is unelectable because of any of the reasons I gave above, then that person either believes the brainwashing talking heads and pundits in the mass media or perhaps they benefit from one of the situations that are antithetical to freedom and liberty. He is unelectable because many people fail to completely understand politics and vote strictly for the politician that the party tells them to vote for regardless of where that person stands on the issues. He is unelectable because somehow he has been painted as crazy or an extremist for believing in the principles that made this country great. When did believing in freedom become extreme? When did speaking about and supporting principles of liberty become a symptom of insanity? The collectivists have so thoroughly penetrated the government and brainwashed the public that they have forgotten the ideas of individual freedom and personal responsibility.
Ron Paul is unelectable because many people don´t want freedom. They want to be taken care of by the government. They want to be told what to do. They want to be told how to live their lives, what to put in their bodies, and they want the security blanket and protection that mommy government offers them. They are afraid to take responsibility for their own lives. They are frightened at the prospect of thinking for themselves and making their own decisions. They believe that somehow civil society will break down should the free market be allowed to operate without regulation. And these people want to use government to force me and other freedom lovers to give up the same cherished liberties that they have given up. After all, these are the people who have voted for establishment politicians who demand total control of everyone, everywhere, all the time.
Yet Ron Paul is likely one of the most electable candidates that this corrupted, unfair two party system has given us in a long time. With a little time, a little explaining, and a little thought many people would agree with the stances that Ron Paul has taken. If the Republican party were to present him to the public as their candidate, they would bring such a variety of new people into their fold that it would overwhelm the opposition. Democrats, third party people and folks who have given up hope on the political process and no longer vote would flock to the party once the message of freedom was given to them and hope for their future was restored to them. The Republican party may yet realize that they have a golden opportunity here to restore the republic. But this, of course, would mean that the establishment would have to relinquish much of its control to individuals, something they are most likely not willing to do. It is for this reason that some may think Ron Paul is crazy for hanging in there. Perhaps he is, but maybe he´s crazy like a fox.