Why Should We Trust Ron Paul?

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare


DIGG THIS

Ron Paul has
certainly received the attention of disaffected Americans in his
run for the presidency. Many young people and previously apathetic
citizens have been drawn to the Ron Paul revolution because of his
unique message as compared to the other candidates. But there are
still some non-voters out there that refuse to participate in politics.
They ask, "Why should I trust him?"

It is certainly
a legitimate question to ask why we should trust another politician.
What makes Ron Paul different from any other candidate today or
in the past? Candidates say one thing and then they do something
completely different once in office.

While we cannot
accurately say what every person will do, we can certainly make
good predictions based on the information we have. Anything is possible.
George W. Bush could turn libertarian tomorrow or Osama Bin Laden
could convert to Christianity, but we can reasonably predict that
these things won't happen.

There are two
primary reasons why we can reasonably predict that Ron Paul's policies
in office would be similar to what he preaches. The first reason
is his past record. He has been in Congress for ten terms and we
can see how he has voted. He has consistently voted to uphold the
principles that he advocates.

When there
is a vote in the House of Representatives that reads something like
420-1, we can take a good guess that he was the one "no"
vote. That is how he got the nickname Dr. No. He does not vote in
favor of any legislation that is not specifically authorized in
the Constitution. Since most bills passed in Congress are unconstitutional,
Ron Paul often has to vote no.

Ron Paul's
voting record alone makes him a unique politician. George W. Bush
campaigned in 2000 for no nation building and cutting taxes. Ronald
Reagan campaigned in 1980 and 1984 to get the government out of
our lives. Even under Reagan, the federal budget grew approximately
two-thirds bigger. Ronald Reagan continued to preach less government
throughout his presidency, but his policies rarely reflected his
rhetoric.

But we can
look at the records of Bush and Reagan when they were governors.
It should not be any great surprise that they embraced big government
once in office as president. They both expanded the budgets in their
respective states and failed to make significant cuts in government
programs. And this is aside from the fact that even some of their
rhetoric was far from libertarian, such as their enthusiasm for
the war on drugs.

The second
reason to trust Ron Paul to do what he says is because he offers
us specifics. It is easy for Mitt Romney or Rudy Giuliani to say
they will cut taxes, but does that just mean more deficits? Aside
from Ron Paul, none of the candidates have been able to point out
specific areas where they will cut spending.

Ron Paul says
we need to leave Iraq and stop policing the world. Dismantling the
U.S. empire would immediately cut hundreds of billions of dollars
out of the budget. He also says we can get rid of the Department
of Education and the Department of Energy, among others. We can
also stop farm subsidies and handing out foreign aid. These are
all specific measures to reduce spending which could actually produce
real tax cuts.

John McCain
will talk about stopping pork-barrel spending (which in his terms
makes up less than 1% of the total budget) and other candidates
will talk about stopping wasteful spending. But they are short on
specifics. This means they have no specific plans to cut the size
and scope of government. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
In order to cut taxes without increasing deficits or inflating,
you have to cut the budget. The only candidate who offers specific
programs and departments to cut is Ron Paul.

It could be
argued that Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress offered specific
proposals in 1994 with their Contract
with America
. But most of the items were modest proposals that
did little to shrink government. And again, many of the Republican
Congressmen (like Gingrich) that were part of this already had a
track record of big government.

Many Democrats
(hopefully former Democrats) have recognized that they can trust
Ron Paul. He speaks firmly and with conviction about ending the
war. From the Democratic candidates (possibly excepting Kucinich
and Gravel), you hear wishy-washy statements about the need to keep
a presence in Iraq with no promises to end the war immediately.

By looking
at Ron Paul's record and by hearing his specific proposals, you
can be reasonably sure that he will do what he says. His message
is consistent and unyielding and it just so happens that his message
of freedom is the correct one.

December
18, 2007

Geoffrey
Pike [send him mail]
currently resides in Florida. In his spare time, he enjoys sports,
music, investing, and studying libertarianism.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare