A Non-Voter's Thoughts on Ron Paul

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare


DIGG THIS

As long
as it's just George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and John Ashcroft
who are evil — a “bad batch” — then you don't have to kick the
habit entirely. Just make sure you get a good batch next time
— elect "good" politicians — and you'll never have to
question the political system to which you have become attached.

~ Me, three years ago: "Kick
the Habit: Politics Is Not the Answer
"

I can't believe
the things that have been coming out of my mouth these past few
months. If anyone had told me a year ago that today I'd be sending
an e-mail to my friends urging them to vote — and to vote Republican
— I would have said that person was either nuts or just didn't know
me.

And yet here
I am, writing the e-mails, getting involved in the movement, and
trying to explain to my friends — long used to hearing me tell them
why voting is worse than a waste of time, how it helps perpetuate
a system that is destructive and wrong — why this time it's different,
this time it not only makes sense to vote, but they must
vote …and get all of their friends to do it too.

And all the
while, a little voice gnaws away at me, asking if I'm not just falling
into the same trap I warned against when I wrote about the 2004
elections "Kick
the Habit: Politics is Not the Answer
"; If I'm not just
putting my faith in a politician to solve problems that have no
political solution; If I'm not just trying to solve problems with
the very mechanism that created them; if I'm not granting legitimacy
to the state by participating in its elections. And the truth is,
I don't have a clean answer to any of those questions. I can't just
dismiss them or pretend I'm not in fact falling victim to the same
attachment to political solutions — the same addiction — that I
saw so clearly as being part of the problem four years ago, and
that I still believe is part of the problem.

But neither
can I answer the other voice that asks questions just as troubling.
Questions like: "so why haven't you, and the anti-war movement,
been able to end the war in Iraq?" and "what exactly is
it you're going to do to stop them from nuking Iran?" I don't
have answers to these questions either, and I am quite frankly tired
of feeling helpless in the face of this kind of evil. And I know:
that's how they suck you in. That's what politicians and drug pushers
alike look for in their potential customers: a sense of helplessness,
neediness… an emptiness needing to be filled. I know all that.

But I also
know that this time something is different. Ron Paul's entire political
career calls into question my beliefs about how political systems
work and how politicians survive within them. My understanding of
democratic politics may explain everyone else in Washington, but
it certainly doesn't explain Dr. Paul's success in being elected
and returned to office for ten terms. Or maybe he is the exception
that proves my rules. Whatever he is, he is not the same animal
as the others in Washington, he's not selling the same stuff. And
his candidacy for president forces me — and, I believe, anyone who
has taken a principled stand against voting — to re-examine my reasons
for not participating in the system.

The truth is,
I never was a "principled" non-voter. I've always said
— jokingly of course — that if a candidate came along who promised
to drastically reduce the scope of government, and I trusted them
to do so, and that person actually had a shot at winning, I would
have to consider voting for that person. Not surprisingly, I have
never been faced with this particular dilemma. I suspect that I
am not alone among lifetime non-voters who have never really had
to examine their stance. As long as there is clearly no point in
voting, we are never really forced to dig deeply into the reasons
why we don't vote. And, certainly in my lifetime, there has never
been any point in voting in a presidential election. Until now.

I first encountered
Ron Paul the last time he was running for president. He was running
as the Libertarian candidate, and nobody even pretended he had a
chance of winning. As an opportunity to spread ideas about liberty
and free markets though, my friends and I thought his candidacy
was a good thing. One of my friends wrote to him and asked him to
come speak at our school, the University of California at Santa
Cruz (think Cuba to UC Berkeley's Kremlin).

This was 1987,
when the "Internet" was little more than a handful of
geeks in computer labs engaging in vibrant discussions on a Unix
platform and sometimes making little pictures with X's and O's across
the screen. My friends and I spent one Saturday plastering the UC
campus with "Who is Ron Paul?" flyers and did whatever
else we could think of to spread the word in advance of his appearance.
When the evening came, maybe six or seven people showed up. (One
of my co-organizers says it may have been a dozen, but I think she's
being generous.)

The word "gracious"
does not describe Dr. Paul's response to the meager turnout. "Gracious"
would have been skillfully concealing his annoyance and soldiering
on through the evening. Dr. Paul was not gracious. He was genuine
and engaged and seemed to care only about presenting and defending
the ideas he cares about so deeply. He was, I imagine, the same
person he continues to be as he pursues the Republican nomination
today; a person committed to liberty, doing whatever he can to bring
it about in our society.

The contrast
between our pathetic gathering twenty years ago and the rock-star
receptions Dr. Paul receives wherever he goes today is heart-warming
and gratifying. It makes me happy that Dr. Paul's years of tirelessly
speaking the same words in defense of freedom are paying off, and
it makes me feel that there may yet be hope for this country.

Like many of
his supporters, I don't agree with Dr. Paul on all of his positions.
We part ways on abortion and immigration. But the issues where we
do agree are so important and there is so much at stake that our
differences are not an impediment to my support. More importantly
— and I believe this is one of the greatest keys to his success
— I know that his stance on each issue is the product of his genuinely
held beliefs. He does not choose his words based on opinion polls
or on the fundraising successes they have earned other candidates,
but on his own understanding of what is right and what is wrong.
Because of this I have unending respect for the man.

I don't think
I am alone in this. People are beyond fed up with empty political
promises. They are tired of meaningless "choices" at the
ballot box. They are rightly cynical about the entire process. Ron
Paul has spent over 30 years of his life demonstrating that his
promises are not empty and that he is utterly devoted to the pursuit
of liberty in this country. Even people who have just been introduced
to him see that he means what he says.

And this changes
things. People are accustomed to voting for the lesser of two evils.
What happens when someone who is not evil shows up? Integrity is
not generally an ingredient found in presidential elections and
its presence here now changes the entire nature of the game. Ron
Paul is not playing by the same rules as everyone else, and by playing
by his own rules — by committing the political cardinal sin of meaning
what he says — he changes the rules for everyone else. Candidates
are now no longer measured against other politicians whose words
mean nothing, but against a man of integrity, and in order to succeed
they must rise to his level. But they can't. A reputation earned
in over thirty years of dealing with people is not something that
can be bought. Nor can it be "spun" out of thin air. Quite
simply: Ron Paul has something none of the other candidates have
or can get in time for the elections. This fact alone could very
possibly win him the Republican nomination and even the presidency.

And that's
when my own words come back to haunt me. There's that voice, reminding
me that I don't even believe in the process. That I don't want anyone
to be my president, that decisions over how much freedom I have
shouldn't be up to the majority. That by participating in the system,
I'm agreeing that they should, that the majority has the right to
rule over my life. So, for the record: I don't want a president.
And I don't grant the majority the right to make decisions over
my life.

But what is
at stake is so great now that it is just no longer acceptable to
not try whatever means I can find to fight what is going on. It
is not acceptable to sit by and watch as "my" government
lays waste to entire nations of human beings who have never done
me any harm. It is not acceptable to sit by as the same government
lays waste to the (however imperfect) institutions that evolved
to protect citizens' rights and freedom from tyranny. Not if there's
anything I can do to stop it. So, if there's even a chance that
Dr. Paul can have an impact in these areas, I feel an obligation
to help him do that.

It's not like
I haven't tried other things. I've stood out in front of the New
York Public Library in sub-zero weather handing out anti-war pamphlets.
I've written articles. I've marched in anti-war demonstrations alongside
tens if not hundreds of thousands of other people — demonstrations
that, if you get your information from the mainstream media, never
happened. I've tried what I knew to try, and none of it has worked.
The evils committed by the state — in my name and with my money
— have only gotten worse and more widespread, and will continue
to do so.

The truth is:
I just don't know what else to do.

So, come February,
or whenever it is they hold the primaries in my state (I'm told
I can only do this in one state, which is disappointing), I'll be
marching myself down to the voting booths and I'll be pulling a
lever… or filling in a form… or tapping on a screen. Actually, I
don't exactly know how I'll be doing it, but I'll be doing what
I've never done before and what I never thought I'd ever do: Voting
in an election for a presidential candidate who I believe can make
things better.

I've long believed
that politicians cannot get ahead by delivering more freedom and
less government; that the game of politics can be won only by delivering
more favors and more of other people's money to one's constituents;
that the only real winner, ultimately, is the state, and that those
who play the game end up serving its expansion. I've always qualified
my condemnation of politics and politicians with the words "except
for Ron Paul." I'd then usually say something like "but
of course he doesn't actually accomplish anything." Well I
was wrong about that. Really really wrong. For all these years,
Dr. Paul has been building something no other politician has — something
that when just one person has it, suddenly becomes an incredibly
valuable asset: credibility.

The question
with regard to Ron Paul is not whether or not he will keep his campaign
promises — he will. The only question is whether he will be able
to accomplish what he has set out to. Will he be elected? And if
he is, how far will he be able to get on his wish list of dismantling
the leviathan state to which we have become so accustomed?

I don't have
answers to either of these questions. And anyone who says they do
doesn't understand what is happening here: The very nature of the
game is changing and all because one man has insisted all along
on playing it his way.

So
maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it is possible to effect positive change
toward a more free society through the political process. Ron Paul
has proven me wrong once already and he may just do it again.

I hope he does.

November
15, 2007


Bretigne Shaffer
[send
her mail
] is a writer and filmmaker living in the Bay Area.
She also directs the Free
World Media Center
, the media production center of the non-profit
Liberty and Privacy Network. The views she expresses here are her
own and do not reflect the views of the Free World Media Center
or the LPN.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare