Ron Paul in 2008?
It's been a while since I've had a chance to post anything on my blog; my brother got married recently, and we've been really busy at the office working on the latest release of our software, so I haven't had a lot of free time in the last few weeks. That hasn't changed yet, unfortunately.
Remember the posting I wrote not too long ago, about the Republican U.S. presidential candidate, Ron Paul? I was wondering if I might be able to get behind his campaign for the 2008 US presidential election.
Well, it turns out, I'm pretty sure I can. I don't like everything the man says, but I still like so much of it that I routinely find myself cheering him on. He's modest, intelligent, and practical--and he seems to exude integrity, even though his voice is a little too squeaky sometimes. Also, he's got underdog appeal in spades.
If you regularly read reddit or digg or any of the other social networking news sites, you know that Ron Paul is huge phenomenon in the online world. He's raised an astonishing 5 million dollars from Internet campaign contributors, with plenty more still coming in, and in online polls it's no exaggeration to say that he routinely destroys his competition.
(In several recent TV debates, Fox "news anchors" like Sean Hannity have repeatedly dismissed post-debate polling results that show Paul winning by a landslide. They claim that Paul's "Internet groupies" are banding together and skewing the results by speed dialing the polling numbers and calling in over and over.)
For the first time in history, the online world may have grown large enough to have a significant impact on politics in the real world. In other words, this could be a watershed--this could be the year when a politician finally seizes upon the huge, underutilized power of the Internet as a tool for winning elections. And maybe that politician will be Ron Paul.
Here's one of the television ads he's been spending his newfound campaign wealth on.
I hope he does well; American could (and probably will) do much, much worse than Ron Paul as president.
The Republican
The US presidential election is finally starting to get interesting. Which is why I'm writing two blog postings in a row about it.
The current party in power (the Republicans) have been hurt badly by President Bush's extreme unpopularity. So the President has to distance himself from this election, knowing that if he offers his support for one of the Republican hopefuls (which is what the outgoing President normally does), he'll probably end up ruining that candidate's chances of winning.
The Republicans have two mainstream candidates, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani. One of them will almost certainly get the final nomination and go on to the actual election next year. On "the issues", these two are actually pretty much the same--the only real difference I can see between them is that Giuliani seems to be a genuine asshole. In fact, if I have to watch him snigger and roll his eyes one more time when one of the smarter candidates says something, I think I'm gonna smash my computer screen.
I know this is a strong statement to make--but I actually think Rudy Giuliani would be an even worse president than Bush was.
Generally speaking, I do not agree with any part of the typical Republican platform. What amazes me, though, is that there IS a Republican whose ideas I like. I like them a lot, in fact. His name is Ron Paul, and he claims that his platform is the "real" Republican platform--the one that hasn't been watered down and changed unrecognizably over the years.
And I think he'd make a great President.
So does that mean I might actually be a Republican? I find that a little hard to believe. I've always thought of myself as a staunch liberal, and until now I would never have considered supporting a Republican candidate. But if I was able to vote in the US next year, I have to say, I would honestly consider voting for this man.
Of course, the US media--especially Fox News--is terribly unfair to Ron Paul. He has genuinely good ideas, yet they treat him and his candidacy like it's a joke. This open letter does a great job of describing exactly what I'm talking about--and it also has some great videos of Ron Paul speaking around 30 IQ points higher than all of the other candidates.
Unfortunately, it's exactly this tendency to use honest, intelligent, direct arguments that will probably kill his chances of winning the Republican nomination.
Voting Hypothetically
Very few people who read my blog can actually vote in the US presidential elections. But perhaps you've started to ask yourself, who would I vote for if I had the chance?
Well, you can answer that question very easily by filling out this handy questionnaire.
In case you're curious, I matched up 100% with Mike Gravel.
Hate is a Strong Word
On the Internet, anyone can write any opinion that they want. And other people are free to really, really hate that opinion.
So believe me when I say, I hate this article. It was clearly written by someone with a weak understanding of history and an unbelievably poor grasp of how world politics works. The author also appears to have a massively inflated view of America's power in the world, and he's obviously never been anywhere near an actual war, let alone the kind of mass slaughter he so casually advocates.
Seriously, this is some of the worst foreign policy advice I have ever read. And the person who wrote it is worse than a lunatic, because he actually seems quite lucid and serious about what he's suggesting.
UPDATE
Ok, so according to this thread on the reddit discussion page, this awful article was quickly taken down by FamilySecurityMatters.org.
Here is the original text of the argument, which I got from Google's cache, here. The article is by Phillip Atkinson. May his credibility never recover, and his influence on society dwindle to nothing.
President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.
Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.
The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.
When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.
This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.
The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.
The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation's powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.
As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.
By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.
However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.
When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.
Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.
If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.
He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.
President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.
Bush’s Mess
I just finished reading a great analysis of the situation in the Middle East. It's by Gwynne Dyer, whom I've previously complimented as the most accurate, realistic, and well-informed international journalist in the world.
Dyer's previous books offered plenty of very prescient predictions about what was going to happen in Iraq (and why), and his latest book, The Mess They Made, is equally thoughtful. In it, Dyer cuts through all the conspiracy theories to explain the real reasons why the United States invaded Iraq. He breaks the current situation down in careful detail, and then spends much of the rest of the book describing what's likely to happen in the Middle East over the next decade or so.
I found the section about America eventually attacking Iran (which Mr. Dyer thinks is quite possible) and the probable Iranian response (bad for everyone, but a disaster for America) to be especially interesting.
The Middle East is basically the axis around which global politics revolves, so if you're interested in knowing what's really going on on the international stage these days, I couldn't recommend this book enough.
Frankly, I kind of wish the CIA could find a way to trick the Bush administration into reading it.
