Letter to Collin
The following is a response to an open Facebook posting made by a friend of mine, who is a very outspoken Ron Paul supporter.
Dear Collin,
I used to be unsure of Ron Paul completely, then I thought he was a decent choice, but he never made it to the point where I thought he’d be the best choice. For a while now, my opinion of him has been steadily declining, though I do still have a lot of respect for him and still think that he has more merits than the other Republicans.
My first concern with Ron Paul has always been about economics. I certainly don’t think he’s corrupt, but I sure don’t think that his position of releasing corporations from as many standards and regulations as possible is in the interests of the people. Laissez fair economics do not work, and when we tried to implement it in the past, lead to the rise of kingly tycoons and oppressive monopolies at the direct expense of all honest American workers (read: pretty much all but 1% of the nation got burnt, and badly).
It’s easy to sell the vision of “Lower taxes and unleash the corporations!” But please, we’ve tried that more than once, so can we try to actually look at the numbers and admit that progressive economies are doing really well?
I’ve also come to question him more and more on his stances on civil rights. He says a lot of wonderful things about how he’ll stand up for us and give us our rights back, but then he completely nullifies himself by always ending with, “…so I’ll leave it up to the states.” If he thinks that the federal government doing something would be oppressive, then why does he turn around and basically say that it’d be okay if the state governments did it to me? The answer is simple. With his hands off approach to everything, he is making himself and our democratic system less capable of guaranteeing our rights or enforcing pretty much anything, leaving us defenseless against the greedy, powerful groups that just want to exploit everything and everyone they can. His lack of support for net neutrality is a prime example of where his “hands off” answer to everything means allowing our rights to be trampled and our media controlled by internet service providers. Freedom in the digital age is only going to get more important, so I’m very sad to see him do nothing to protect my rights aside from “letting the states deal with it.”
I think that you should think about Barack Obama more. Now, here’s a guy who has already done a lot of really obvious things that needed to be done, like introduce the bills that make it so we now can see more clearly who is bought and paid for in congress. He’s trying to make our nation more open and transparent. In government, he’s advocating using open systems and machine-readable information standards that would actually allow citizens groups to dig their noses into every little nook and cranny of bills. As far as the lives of the people go, he’s committed himself to supporting things like network neutrality to guard our rights to access whatever information we want to see from whatever sources we want it free from coercion and control by internet service providers and the connected phone companies and other monopolies. Strengthening standards and regulations instead of “letting other people decide,” promoting transparency instead of “trusting things will handle themselves,” and actually getting up and protecting my rights instead of saying “it’s up to the states, not me” is good by me.
Ron Paul has his merits, but his policies leave a lot of room for doubt for me. Maybe I’m just being overly skeptical, but then again, now seems like a pretty good time to be skeptical. And the fact that every time I’ve gone and talked about my doubts to Ron Paul supporters (who have all been very polite) and only gotten “I’ll have to think more about that” as answers doesn’t help sooth my doubts either.
Barack Obama is a breath of fresh air this nation has been holding its breath for, and he’s got a real chance of winning the democratic nomination and the White House. I don’t see you denouncing Ron Paul, but in the event that he no longer seems like he has a chance of winning in your eyes, I hope Barack Obama can have your vote.
Your friend,
James
Loading ...
January 28th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
I don’t really have time to write a response as I have class tomorrow and it’s 1 AM, but the gist of my thoughts on this is that essentially the government does not have the moral obligation or right to impinge upon the rights of business or the individual; additionally, the federal government does not have the right to impose its will upon such a vast amount of people as our nation consists of. Individuals will vote for small government policies in their individual states if they are concerned with the protection of their rights, thus, in a politically aware society the question of state governments impeding on rights is no longer an issue and is complemented by the fact that no one is being governed by people who live thousands of miles away.
Morally, I basically believe that societies are composed of individuals, and for government to impede the rights of an individual destroys the basic moral fabric of the society. Further, I do not believe there are any positive rights, only negative rights.
I’d go into more detail about this but I’m really tired. As for Obama, I respect him to a certain extent; he’s at least partially right about the war (though very wrong on foreign policy in general, along with virtually all of the candidates) and I perceive him as a person who generally means what he says, which is a very important trait for any politician. I just fundamentally disagree with him on the role of government; regardless of whether you believe laissez-faire policies worked or not (I believe that the economic failings of the late 20′s and 80′s, along with our current economic woes, had more to do with the meddling of the Federal Reserve—an impediment on the free market—than anything else) I do not believe that it is government’s responsibility to regulate business and that individuals must be solely responsible for their own well-being either via work or voluntarily-bestowed assistance.
Ok, sleep time. We’ll talk more later.
January 29th, 2008 at 4:27 am
I agree with most of what Collin said.
I’d like to add that state government’s have the added bonus of being closer to the people they are governing. It is much easier to influence policy and debate in your state capitol than it is in Washington. Also, state governments have constitutional roles that should be respected.
In regards to Barack Obama, the idea that the Illinois senator is commited to ethics reform is laughable. Did you follow what happened in late-2006 when he initially supported the McCain-Lieberman-Nelson bi-partisan bill but then backed out at the last minute in order to support a partisan alternative?
Here is what McCain said about the matter:
“When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership’s preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter. … I’m embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in political to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won’t make the same mistake again.”
Besides that, what exactly has Barack Obama done in his two years of service in the Senate prior to running for President that makes him worthy of becoming our next president. He can talk all he wants about hope and change, but is a lack of hope really America’s biggest problem. Obama is so slim on the specifics of his policy and so high on rhetoric that though I think he is a far better person than Hillary Clinton, he deserves to lose the nomination to her.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:11 am
If you really believe that something is a right, then it should not matter who is taking it away. If it’s actually a right, then it should be protected, period. I am no more comfortable with an overbearing state government telling me how to live my life than an overbearing federal government. My rights as an individual should be actively defended, not passively abandoned to whoever feels like doing anything.
That’s not at all saying state governments shouldn’t have the ability to do things for their citizens. There are tons of local issues that local governments can deal with. I would not feel comfortable telling the midwest how they should farm, or how they should plan their infrastructure, or otherwise tell them how to do things that really only affect them in their state. Similarly, issues that are only relevant inside a city should be decided by the people of that city alone.
However, when it comes to inalienable rights, let’s keep them inalienable, please. The federal government has an obligation to protect the rights of the American citizens.
As far as Barack Obama’s commitment to ethics reform goes, the only thing laughable would be if anybody expected McCain to say anything else. While it’s a very cute, feisty little spin on Obama’s motives, it doesn’t really even attempt to address his actual accomplishments.
It was Senator Obama who made it so we could actually follow the money, and it was Senator Obama who supported using open technology and clear, machine-readable information standards to help make everything more transparent so that it wouldn’t just be the government that could police the government.
And on the topic of actions speaking louder than words, I find it funny how all these other “more experienced” politicians didn’t do this stuff in their trillions of years of service. To me, this speaks not only of Obama’s integrity, but also of his competence.