The increasing popularity and continued fund-raising success of presidential candidate Ron Paul has a lot more people considering the previously unthinkable: voting for the best candidate, rather than the "lesser of evils".
At the same time, though, this rising maverick is raising others on his coattails. More people are looking at other political outsiders and long shots, like Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel, and wondering if their outside-the-box ideas might be worth a look as well.
"Ron Paul is great," I’ve heard. "He doesn’t compromise his principles by pandering to special interests and voters." This is certainly true. "But I also like Dennis Kucinich," some of the same people will say, "He stands up for what he believes in and doesn’t compromise either."
I can agree that Kucinich deserves some respect. Any politician that can weather Washington politics and not lose his focus is truly a unique individual. And his opposition to the Drug War, Patriot Act and the Iraq War are certainly admirable – but there my love for him ends. It’s like basketball: I can hate the sport but still think Michael Jordan is a respectable athlete.
So called "top tier" candidates like Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards give one the impression that they will say just about anything to get elected. That this is the norm in American politics means both good and bad when, from time to time, we have the opportunity to choose a candidate that speaks his mind and stands on principle.
The good side is that a principled candidate will stand out like a sore thumb.
The bad side is that we can mistake having principles for having the right principles. My fear is that not compromising is becoming an end in itself. Is it too much to ask that we look at what it is these men refuse to compromise about, as an indication of their qualification to serve in the White House?
Dennis Kucinich might very well bring the troops home from the Middle East, but then again, he’d probably re-deploy them to Darfur or some other Third World hot spot, embroiling us in yet another civil conflict, putting our troops in harm’s way, and further draining our treasury. ("Why not," I can hear his supporters say. "Isn’t foreign intervention a good thing – when it’s for a worthy cause?" No doubt they’ll also tell me how it would likewise help our "standing" in the "world community.")
Dennis Kucinich wants to keep the United States in the UN (albeit a "reformed" UN); he wants to "work with the world community" by forcing the ridiculous Kyoto Treaty on the American people; he’ll "launch a ‘Global Green Deal’"; he’ll boost foreign aid, further plundering US taxpayers to pay for other countries’ mistakes; he boasts of his "Yes" vote on the Cuba travel ban, restricting the freedom of Americans to travel and do business where they wish; wants to impose socialized medicine, restricting if not ending Americans’ ability to provide healthcare for themselves; he’ll "fight poverty worldwide" – which will be as effective as the domestic War on Poverty; he supports "stricter sentencing" for Thought Crimes, er, "Hate Crimes"; because government-run "education" has been such a success, he wants to expand it – he even opposes moderate attempts at reform like vouchers; he supports more federal gun control, boasting of his "F" rating by the NRA; and finally, he wants to establish a Department of Peace – what could more guaranty war than making peace a government program?
The list of his ambitions goes on and on.
It may be considered in poor taste to say so, but Dennis Kucinich is a Socialist. A principled, consistent Socialist, granted. But a Socialist nonetheless. There seems to be very little he feels government can’t accomplish – given enough power and other peoples’ money. Which makes his consistency a "foolish consistency," what Emerson called the "hobgoblin of little minds."
Now compare him to Ron Paul, who consistently stands up for the Constitution, a document designed to maintain peaceful existence through the rule of law and by limiting the power of government to reign over peoples’ lives. The Framers of that document understood the importance of upholding individual rights – at the expense of government power. Dennis Kucinich consistently wants to expand government power – at the expense of individual rights.
One man wants you to be free; the other wants to re-define freedom as subservience. Is the difference between what these two men stand for just a matter of opinion?
Joseph Stalin stood up for what he believed in. Adolph Hitler stood up for what he believed in. Benito Mussolini stood up for what he believed in. Pol Pot stood up for what he believed in. Franklin Roosevelt stood up for what he believed in. George W. Bush stands up for what he believes in. Just because someone consistently says what they mean, and means what they say, doesn’t mean they’re worthy of our vote. (Note to the hyper-sensitive: I am not comparing Dennis Kucinich to any murderous dictator.)
Principles are best described as general truths, reached via rational, logical thought, upheld with conviction and employed to reach and maintain long-term goals. If we have learned anything from the last one hundred years, it is that there is nothing rational or logical about granting more power to government, and anyone who hopes to retain the ability to make and realize long-term goals by expanding the power of some to rule over others is demonstrating a dangerous ignorance of history and human nature. Chanting "No Compromise" while marching us to oblivion is no substitute for having something worth fighting for.
November 12, 2007
