![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chris_gerribThe conservative end of the Internet is abuzz with news that Ron Paul, a libertarian candidate for the Republican party's presidential nomination, raised $4.2 million in one day. They're upset that the mainstream media isn't taking Ron seriously, while conveniently forgetting the flash in the pan that was Howard Dean. At any rate, Ron's getting a surprising amount of traction, and could even pull support from Democrats. I think this is because of three issues.
1) Ron is dead-set against the War in Iraq. It's not that he's a pacifist, rather he's following the old-school conservative / isolationist line. One of Bush's stated reasons for Iraq, to create democracy, is a variant on the old "make the world safe for democracy" line. This was official Democratic party policy from 1918 to 1968. The conservative line during that period was "vital national interests," something that many of that mind still believe in. At any rate, his stance on Iraq puts him and Kuchinich as the only "out now" alternatives, and certainly the more palatable to the conservatives.
2) Ron is also a member of what I'll call the "enforce the damn law" caucus on immigration. This group (of whom I'm a member) thinks that until we demonstrate a willingness to enforce existing immigration laws we'll have no credibility regarding new ones. Putting it more forcefully, he (and I) argues that we should deport illegal immigrants period.
3) Ron also feels that there is no Constitutional right to abortion, and is strongly pro-life. Although I am pro-choice, I agree that abortion is simply not addressed in the Constitution. I think Ron's solution, kicking it back to the states, will not produce the result he desires (banning abortion) but it could be good for the country. One of the big problems with current politics is that the pro-life crowd can get applause lines without having to produce real results. If the state legislatures can decide, the pro-lifers need to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.
Don't get me wrong - this is not an endorsement. Ron has a set of solutions in search of problems, and has the usual libertarian blind spots, like his gold standard idea. (Although watching the dollar as it free-falls does make one nervous.) Also, at 72, he's old for the job. However, he is forcing a discussion of ideas that the current crop of candidates don't seem to want to discuss.
1) Ron is dead-set against the War in Iraq. It's not that he's a pacifist, rather he's following the old-school conservative / isolationist line. One of Bush's stated reasons for Iraq, to create democracy, is a variant on the old "make the world safe for democracy" line. This was official Democratic party policy from 1918 to 1968. The conservative line during that period was "vital national interests," something that many of that mind still believe in. At any rate, his stance on Iraq puts him and Kuchinich as the only "out now" alternatives, and certainly the more palatable to the conservatives.
2) Ron is also a member of what I'll call the "enforce the damn law" caucus on immigration. This group (of whom I'm a member) thinks that until we demonstrate a willingness to enforce existing immigration laws we'll have no credibility regarding new ones. Putting it more forcefully, he (and I) argues that we should deport illegal immigrants period.
3) Ron also feels that there is no Constitutional right to abortion, and is strongly pro-life. Although I am pro-choice, I agree that abortion is simply not addressed in the Constitution. I think Ron's solution, kicking it back to the states, will not produce the result he desires (banning abortion) but it could be good for the country. One of the big problems with current politics is that the pro-life crowd can get applause lines without having to produce real results. If the state legislatures can decide, the pro-lifers need to walk the walk, not just talk the talk.
Don't get me wrong - this is not an endorsement. Ron has a set of solutions in search of problems, and has the usual libertarian blind spots, like his gold standard idea. (Although watching the dollar as it free-falls does make one nervous.) Also, at 72, he's old for the job. However, he is forcing a discussion of ideas that the current crop of candidates don't seem to want to discuss.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-11-08 02:14 am (UTC)That's nearly 12 million people that will be actively trying to avoid deportation, that authorities will have to find, arrest (many will resist) and then deport at very great expense. While I can't really offer a solution to the problem (I doubt a comprehensive one will be found), mass deportation is really not a feasible option regardless of its popularity.
no subject
Date: 2007-11-08 03:22 am (UTC)I know from personal experience that many illegals in the US are seasonal workers. When the lawncare jobs end, they go south. Making it harder to work in the US means more of them won't come back.
The bottom line is simple - we must make it more uncomfortable to be an illegal in the US, otherwise any law we pass will be ignored.