In a campaign where a frontrunner without experience tricks the media into reporting otherwise and a guy who reflexively wants to “double Guantanamo” wins the Iowa straw poll, a little common sense can be refreshing. But in today’s political climate, there’s no sense more uncommon than the Constitution. That’s why voters from all across the political spectrum should seriously consider voting for Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul.
Liberals squirm at the thought of a strict constitutionalist government, given its association with anti-Roe Supreme Court justices and gun rights. But if Americans are serious about ending an era marred by outrageous political antagonism, we may find that the best compromise for our modern political dilemmas is the one the founders reached more than 200 years go. Unlike the other Republican candidates, who only embrace states’ rights to explain away their logical fallacies (see: Rudy Giuliani), Ron Paul has been a true small-government conservative throughout his political career.
If pandering to religion-inspired special interests hadn’t become GOP dogma in recent years, Rep. Paul, R-Texas, would be swimming in the mainstream. Instead he treads water in national polls, which only gauge name recognition, but drive mainstream media coverage. After all, a spot in their narrative must be won through careful manipulation of conventional wisdom and fact. While the founders thought two large parties would encourage compromise, I can’t imagine they would approve of the scope and functions of our government and its military-industrial complex.
Indeed, American foreign policy from the Cold War era on would be a comic farce if so many innocent lives weren’t lost. From Saddam to bin Laden, our greatest enemies were armed, funded and lifted to prominence with our own tax dollars. The short-sightedness of our elected officials has been galling — all the while, politicians pander to us with the bread of outlandish earmarks and the circus of Terri Schiavo and the moral crusaders. It’s hard to argue that we would be fighting a war against the nebulous philosophy of terrorism if we had resisted the urge to micromanage Middle Eastern governance to counteract the Soviets.
Of course, the biggest draw of a constitutionalist philosophy to liberals is a non-interventionist foreign policy. That’s a scary prospect to experts because conventional wisdom has strayed so far from the Constitution. Logic would dictate that we stop taking sides in far-off wars, even if a favorable outcome appears to be good for our short-term security.
Although I don’t doubt a Paul presidency would be, on the balance, good for the nation, his libertarian philosophy isn’t perfect. It would give states the right to craft their own abortion laws, which would result in a massive and entirely unregulated underground abortion industry. Nothing is black and white in this world, and some of our government’s reaches into state sovereignty have been for the greater good.
Despite this, liberals and conservatives must remember that concession is the meat of compromise. Oddly enough, the twisting of the U.S. Constitution to respond to modern sensibilities is precipitating the fall of humankind. If we truly respected property rights like the Constitution demands, industries wouldn’t be allowed to pollute our air and water without fair compensation. Nothing would clean up negligent polluters faster than collective fees for new cases of asthma.
Dr. Paul is a more attractive and realistic candidate than the usual libertarian fringe offering because he’s not a zealous extremist. He isn’t touring the country wailing about welfare abusers and imploring the poor to stop being lazy. Instead, he speaks of a slow transition from government support and correctly asserts that without the income tax, our government wouldn’t be able to fund its foreign adventures.
Although he has gained a large following on the Internet, the media seems content to dismiss him like they did Giuliani when he first entered the race. Thus far, most journalists covering the race have done so as lousy authors; they see a predictable storyline and run with it.
We can see it when they cast Hillary Clinton as the most prepared candidate when she has held public office for a shorter time than Barack Obama, let alone Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. Then they help us pretend Mitt Romney’s purchase of the Iowa Republican fundraiser er… straw poll was significant to anyone who wasn’t there.
Dr. Paul might not be the perfect candidate for most Americans, but if we want a president with a fair mind and consistent principles, the Texas congressman merits a second glance. Hopefully his hypothesis, “freedom is popular,” will prove correct.
Bassey Etim ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and journalism.
