Ron Paul A Closer Look…

Ron Paul has been in and out of Congress since 1976. The conservative candidate was trained as a doctor and subscribes to the ideology of the National Libertarian Party. He first ran for President as a Libertarian party  candidate in 1988. His bid in 2008 and now are for the Republican nomination. Paul’s Libertarian party affiliation is a defining characteristic of him as a candidate, because this party’s ideology is not cohesive with Democrats or Republicans. Libertarians are more right than left and more conservative than liberal but that is where the similarities end with a major party.

The National Libertarian Party motto is “Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom.” But this slogan goes beyond the Christian Conservative Tea Party leanings of no excessive government spending whatsoever and government should only intervene on private conservative issues of choice. This motto literally means government should not have any say whatsoever over the choices private citizens choose to make as long as those choices do not violate the laws of this country. 

For example, the House of Representatives recently voted to make “In God We Trust” the national motto. Paul who didn’t participate in the vote told The Hill: 

“I would have voted ‘no’ not because I don’t like the motto and don’t think we can use it but ‘no’ because we were telling the states what to do.”

Paul takes defense of states’ rights and subsequently the 10th Amendment to the Constitution more seriously than any of the other candidates. The 10th Amendment states: 

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Ron Paul’s hardline interpretation of this amendment means that even if there are tenets of this society, culture, and life that he does not agree with, he will not necessarily vote for or against them to create balance, he will leave the decision up to the will of the states and thereby the will of the people of those states. That means on the issue of abortion or gay marriage, Ron Paul does not believe that the Federal government has the right to mandate either of those practices be legal or illegal but rather the legality of such private affairs and matter be left up to the people. If the people want to regulate those matters it is their business.

However, because this is politics Paul’s positions on those issues are not as ideological in practice as they are in theory. As I mentioned at the top of the post Paul was trained as a doctor. A medical doctor; specifically an OB-GYN. He began a private practice and worked as a doctor for 30 years. Working as an OB-GYN Ron Paul has seen first hand what abortion looks like as well as the miracle of birth. Because he’s had a first hand view of both sides of the conception scale Paul is decidedly pro-life. He abhors the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that is Roe v. Wade. However, he justifies his condemnation of the decision by believing that life begins at conception and that abortion is murder. Murder is illegal and of course that which is illegal should be regulated by both state and federal laws. 

In a 2007 Presidential debate Paul was asked about abortion and specifically, what he would do to restore legal protection to the unborn. He responded: 

“As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there’s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there’s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.” (source)

Like most politicians Ron Paul has been able to align his personal beliefs with his party’s beliefs; where the two do not necessarily gel he has been able to offer analysis to make the fit. His “politicking” so to speak is masked as nobility and is justified in rhetoric that may or may not always make sense. 

For example, Ron Paul and his son Rand Paul — Congressman for Kentucky — infamously stated that they ideologically do not support the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On June 4, 2004, when Congress celebrated the 40th anniversary of the legislation signed by former Texas Democratic President Lyndon Baines Johnson, Ron Paul dissented. Before Congress he remarked: 

“I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,… the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society…

…The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society… the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.”

Paul’s diatribe on the merits and effectiveness of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 only goes to show that his belief in states’ rights and moreso an individual’s rights to hire whomever they want on whatever basis that they want even if those belief bar some potential employees on the basis of race is a freedom that we should all have, not one that should be taken away. 

Some people champion Ron Paul’s hardline Libertarian stance. Some see it as a hindrance to progress. If we take the Libertarian motto as it is “Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom” and apply it to modern society we may have a recipe for destruction or a blueprint for greatness. The outcome is left in the hands of the people. The motto assumes everyone to be moral and just so that in the face of extremely limited government the people will prosper on their own exercising their freedoms and following the laws of the land. 

However, we know that not all people are just or moral. All people will not follow the laws of the land and at times, as our current President has stated there will be some problems, some issues, some matters that are so big, so troubling, and even so divisive that only government can solve. Right now no issue is bigger, more troubling, or more divisive than what to do with our economy.  

Ron Paul voted against the bailout of Wall Street. But not only did he vote against the bailout; he blamed the economic collapse of 2008 solely on the Federal Reserve and the Federal Government for too much regulation. He defended the banks and a free market capitalist system. Yet we know it was the free market capitalist system, excessive deregulation and the defacto repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act that created market conditions so unstable that there was nowhere else to go from up but crashing down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBStWyQW6Rk

Ron Paul is the kind of President that would be great if we lived in an ideal world where there was no evil, no predators, no prejudice, no discrimination, no racism, no gaps between the rich and the poor, the educated or uneducated, or those with insurance and those without insurance. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4Am2bWQRNw

Unfortunately we do not live in an idyllic society. We live in a world where at times there is a need for government in an extensive capacity and at times where government can remain in a limited role. It is up to us the voters to decide what kind of country we live in and determine what President would be best to govern it. Though I find it quite ironic that a man who believes the role of government should be blunted is running for President. 

Staff Writer; Nikesha Leeper

To connect with this sister feel free to visit; Change Comes Slow.