An Open Letter to Mike Gravel in Behalf of Ron Paul

by Max Raskin
by Max Raskin

DIGG THIS

I take Walter Block’s "requests" very seriously. When he asks us to write the only question is: how long?

To this end, I am writing recent LRC-columnist (and presidential candidate) Mike Gravel, urging him to endorse Ron Paul. Gravel, presumably a Gravel supporter, should call upon his supporters to throw their weight behind Dr. Paul. Gravel’s eccentric, but principled opposition to war and tyranny has captivated the country. An endorsement from him would go a long way. His fans are Leftists, but as we have seen, this in no way prevents them from backing Paul. All they need is a push in the right direction; what would be a better impetus than Gravel himself making the switch?

Dear Senator Gravel,

It’s getting to the time where I think you are going to need to make a decision. Do you want your courageous opposition to the Bush Administration to silently pass into obscurity? Or do you want to send a resounding statement to the country that will ensure that you’ve done all you can to effect some lasting change?

Though the media has tried to marginalize your candidacy, you have not been deterred from asserting your principles. You have garnered fame through the debates and now hold some sway that can be used in a variety of ways. You can continue your campaign, but we know what is going to happen. The media is going to force you out of the race – you will be excluded from all future debates and completely ignored in the press. Right now you have a chance to capture the attention of the country with one great statement that will put you in the spotlight.

I think we have to recognize reality. The way things have shaped up, the antiwar movement cannot be fractured at this critical juncture, and must stand behind the candidate who has the best chance of winning. As things have unfolded, this man is Ron Paul.

I am a senior in high school and this election will radically shape my future. Am I going to face a draft? A financial crisis? World War III (or IV)? This is a critical election, and people know it. The country has begun to rally around a single candidate to reverse the trend toward tyranny and militarism. Supporting Paul only strengthens this ever-growing revolution.

But I am not asking you to compromise your values. I understand you and the Congressman disagree on many issues, but at this time, it would be unwise to hold these positions above all else. The stances you hold in common with Paul are the critical issues of this election; they ought to take a great deal of precedence in your mind as they stand at the heart of what is wrong with our country. Let's not focus on the leaky faucet while the house is on fire.

From your own website, I have compiled a list of the areas where you and Paul agree:

• Foreign Policy – like you, Dr. Paul opposed the Iraq War from the beginning and called for an immediate withdrawal of troops from the region. Just as you looked on in absolute incredulity when your fellow Democrats refused to take nuclear weapons "off the table," so did Paul. Both of you oppose preemptive war with Iran, Syria, and whoever else is up on the list. But I think Dr. Paul takes it further. He wants to bring all our troops home. Bring them home from, among other countries, Japan, Germany, and South Korea. His philosophy of noninterventionism is a consistent one, palatable to the American public, as it is founded on a coherent philosophy of liberty. Paul has built his entire political career on the rigorous intellectual system of libertarianism and articulating its message. The philosophy is predicated on the belief that murder, theft, and aggression are wrong, no matter who commits the acts. If the American public accepted this proposition, as only Paul has consistently delivered, we would live in an infinitely more just society.
• IRS – both you and Paul would like to eliminate the Internal Revenue Service. You want to replace it with a national sales tax. Paul wants to replace it with...nothing. You are taking a step in the right direction, but Paul is going all the way. The less money that the government steals from us, the better.
• Civil Liberties – Paul voted against the PATRIOT Act. To Paul, we should always be wary of our government and learn the lessons of our Founding Fathers. Like you, he knows that our right to free speech, assembly, and privacy are sacred; no bureaucrat or tyrant has the right to legislate them away.
• Drugs – like the "War on Terror" the "War on Drugs" was an ill-conceived plan, doomed to fail. You cannot wage wars against ideas or habits. As you have aptly noted, we ought to stop treating drug-users as criminals, but Paul, once again, goes a step further. Where you claim that we should, "...start treating addiction as a public health problem," Paul is completely against any sort of government involvement in the lives of private citizens. To say that addiction is a public health problem is to imply that the State somehow has the right to force us to be healthy. Men should be allowed to be free, provided they do no harm to others. If you allow for the government to regulate public "health" it is not long before you have massive intrusions and violations of privacy, all in the name of creating virtuous citizens. What you eat, drink, or smoke in the privacy of your own home is no business of the federal government.
• Internet – you both are for a free exchange of ideas on the Internet and understand that any attempt to tax or regulate this incredible medium will only impinge on the liberty of American citizens.
• Education – both you and Dr. Paul opposed No Child Left Behind. The idea that some bureaucrat in Washington knows how to educate a child better than a local district is patently absolutely absurd.

You and Paul disagree over how to solve the problems of our empire. He believes that we ought to decentralize and give power back to the states. You advocate a top-down approach, where a fourth branch of government is able to increase the power of the federal government to carry out the will of the people. But this debate is irrelevant to the question of how you should continue. At this point, how we end the war is less important than that we end the war.

And for whatever reason, the people have chosen to coalesce behind Paul. No one can deny that he has proven himself. His campaign is raising millions this quarter, he is surging in the polls, and is becoming a genuine force on the political scene. This money and fame has given him the avenue to truly expound the antiwar, noninterventionist position. The media cannot ignore this. And I’m not sure if they want to; it’s a great story.

But more than these black-and-white measures of the campaign, Ron Paul stands behind a powerful political philosophy that is making a resurgence in America. At heart, you must believe in this philosophy – that people should be free to live as they choose, provided they respect the rights of others. That government is best when it stays out of the private lives of its citizens.

By bringing your followers into this coalition, a more powerful movement can be formed. Many on the Left have supported Paul, unwilling to play into the two-party sham. Your support will make noise because at heart, both you and Paul are radicals – unwilling to accept the evils perpetrated by our intrusive federal government. You want to solve this through national referendums, he through states’ rights and decentralization.

But these are issues of strategy. I implore you, continue to fight your fight, but do so through means other than a political campaign. This moment is too important for us to be divided. As someone who strongly disagrees with many of Paul’s policies, I can tell you that all of our causes are furthered by uniting behind him. His followers are receptive to new ideas. If you really aim to educate people, a more free society allows for a true market place of ideas.

The stronger the Paul Coalition, the more likely we are to see a restoration of American values. By supporting Paul, you are supporting real change. Besides, LRC-contributor is a much more honorable title than presidential candidate.

December 5, 2007

Max Raskin [send him mail] goes to high school in New Jersey. He was a summer fellow at the Mises Institute in 2007.

Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

Max Raskin Archives