Regardless of your political persuasion, you have to admit that the rhetoric and style of a Barack Obama speech is truly inspiring. There is indeed a hunger in America for a “message of hope." I’m trying to find a more current equivalent to the “We Are the World” concert for the benefit of younger readers, but that is the image I get from watching an Obama ad or rally. “Yes We Can” is a theme that just about everyone – especially the New York Giants’ secondary – can learn to appreciate. Since Obama really doesn’t have much of a record to help or hurt him, many idealists see him as an alternative to the establishment (Bush-Clinton-McCain co-conspirators of the War Party).
There is no doubt in my mind that an Obama administration would be significantly different than another Clinton regime (er… administration), but I won’t get into those differences because – I hate to inform you Obama supports out there – it will not happen. No conspiracy theories here, but I do believe there is an establishment class (an unholy trinity of government bureaucrats, corporations, and media elites) in this country who have picked their candidate and her first name is Hillary.
All three of the branches of the establishment party (made up of Democrats and Republicans) benefit from the bigger welfare-warfare state Hillary Clinton would bring to the table – universal Pre-K, “free” health care (i.e. poor service and more profits for a few “government-approved” corporations at the expense of taxpayers), more government-approved education, and yes Clinton supporters, essentially the same foreign policy and threat to civil liberties as George W. Bush. (See her votes on the Iraq war, Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, threats to Iran, domestic surveillance of citizens, etc.). John McCain is essentially the establishment’s “designated loser” along the way.
On matters of substance, in spite of the rhetoric and amazing speeches, Barack Obama is only slightly to the left of Hillary. While he did not vote to authorize the Iraq war (he wasn’t in the Senate at the time), he has repeatedly said no options are off the table for pre-emptive war with Iran or Pakistan. He also did not oppose the reauthorization of the Patriot Act which allows federal agents to write their own search warrants, search your home and make it look like a burglary, not tell you about it for 18 months, and forbids you, under threat of imprisonment, from telling anyone this has taken place. Hey, at least we’re “safe” from the “terrists” (sic), right?
Now the President is trying to grant legal immunity to telecom companies like AT&T who cooperated with the National Security Agency to listen to our cell phone conversations and read our email and Clintobama are doing nothing. Meanwhile, the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act” – recently approved by Congress – is before the Senate (H.R.1955/S.1959). This would create a new government thought police agency to regulate the internet under the guise of preventing potentially violent “ideologies." And with the help of the corporate, entertainment-driven media, these people are distracting us from the real threats of government tyranny by promising “free” this and that.
In the midst of this insanity, Ron Paul is the only candidate who does not speak in the platitudes of political-speak. I can’t even image a real “debate” where he and the phonies actually discuss intellectual and philosophical issues about the current economic crisis caused by our overreaching empire of destruction. Real ideas never fit into 30-second sound bites for 90-second “debate” responses. Watch this in-depth interview and ask yourself whether or not the feeble minds of a McCain or a Clinton wouldn’t literally spontaneously combust just from being in the same room.
Young people who do not remember much more than the Bush II regime should not have the false hope that a Democrat in the White House will be significantly different. The history of the past century has been one of perpetual war and loss of liberty.
Unless there is real “change” in this country, I am afraid the last vestiges of freedom we have left will be gone. The thinking that we are electing our “Commander-in-Chief” demonstrates the degree to which we have been conditioned into slavery to the state. The president is only commander-in-chief of the military, not each citizen, although candidates like Obama and McCain are calling for “national service” requirements. I suppose it would be ironic if the first African American president (Bill Clinton excluded) reinstituted slavery. (Any kind of government requirement to “serve," whether in the military or the Peace Corps is…uh…let’s see how I should put this … slavery.)
While I am on the subject of slavery, I also feel compelled to address the advocates of “peace” on the left. At least during Republican wars or aggression, those on the left seem to be the biggest “anti-war” activists. Yet they refuse to support a real anti-war (more appropriately “anti-aggression”) candidate like Ron Paul because he doesn’t conform to their domestic agenda of more taxes and government handouts. It is sad that I have to point this out, but the philosophical opposition to preemptively bombing a country that did not threaten us is the same moral principle that says we should not be pointing guns at people in our own country to tell them how to live or what “charity” to support.
For those of you who may not understand libertarianism, it is really quite simple:
- No individual has the moral authority to initiate aggression against another individual.
- No individual or group has the moral authority to initiate aggression against another individual or group by calling themselves “the government.”
With regard to the first point, just about everyone is a libertarian. The problem is that most people do not carry this logic any further than their personal relationships. They rightly understand that theft, murder, and rape are not good things for individuals to participate in, then somehow ignore the immorality of these evils on a mass scale by referring to them as taxes, war, and regulations. This is why statists get annoyed when we libertarians don’t use their euphemisms to describe their acts of aggression. Your belief in the role of government comes down to the question of voluntary versus coercive relationships.
Admittedly, Ron Paul certainly does not go far enough in promoting the “voluntary versus force” philosophy, but in my opinion he is by far the best choice for real “change” in the direction toward a society of voluntarism. Everyone else is arguing over which tactic of coercive force will benefit you the most at the expense of others. My grandmother recently lamented how she did not know who to vote for because her father had always studied “the issues” and would inform her of which candidate would do the most for farmers. This is the thinking that needs to be reversed. I tactfully propose that liberty is best for everyone.
Ron Paul will not promise you a better life, but he is promising to be the champion of liberty. With the Executive Branch of government now almost a de facto elected monarchy, I cannot legitimately endorse him or anyone else to take on this illegitimate power to run our lives. I can, however support Ron Paul as the only one we can trust to resist the power of the office as someone who will work to minimize its authoritarian rule and return that power to Congress and the people.
It is my thought that many if not most Obama supporters, deep down, really support liberty, too. Thus, my plea to them to reconsider their support for him. They certainly are on record as supporting "change." Well, Ron Paul offers real change.
This is why I have decided to support Ron Paul for President this year. If it requires a third-party bid to continue the revolution, I will be there.
February 5, 2008
