Fo’ Shizzle

Came across this while reading about the Torch froofralah (look at what the cops have on their feet):

(From LA Times)

Just got back from seeing Ron Paul speak at USM. I’ve never before been motivated enough to actually go and see a presidential candidate in person before.

As usual, Dr. Paul gave an impassioned and well-reasoned series of arguments for limited government, sane fiscal policy, and a return to the Constitutional principles upon which our republic was founded. I can’t say that I learned anything new from this speech, but it was inspiring to observe the logic-based convictions of Paul’s platform.

I do not agree with many of Ron Paul’s personal beliefs (he is a Christian; believes in a divine Creator; has stated that he does not accept that the theory of evolution is valid — check youtube). The wonderful thing about his platform, though, is that it doesn’t matter! Whereas Mike Schmuckabee scares the crap out of me (A Southern pastor as President? Fuck no, we’ve had enough of presidents who make policy based on what the voices in their heads say!), Ron Paul has stated again and again that the 1st Amendment (and the rest of the Constitution, for that matter) applies to all citizens, not just those who believe in invisible sky gods.

I entered the lecture hall with a healthy dose of skepticism. I have known for most of a year that Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate that I care about, but I wanted to avoid being sucked into a cult of personality. My Pentacostal brainwashing as a child has resulted in a deep mistrust of charisma, among other things. By maintaining an objective state of mind, I hoped to be able to accurately hear his message, without the subjective coloring that permeates the political processes of this country. I’m unsure as to whether or not I was successful, because I found myself liking the guy. He is the anti-politician. More importantly, though, I got the impression that he really believes what he’s saying, regardless of how it polls.

One objection some have raised about Paul is that his expressed rejection of the theory of evolution exposes him as a danger to Reason, and that someone who blindly believes in the existence of a divine Creator is not fit to serve as President. I have to admit that I have my reservations, too. I am nearly finished with Dawkins’ The God Delusion, and my mistrust of those who cling to superstitious fantasies has been solidly bolstered by Dawkins’ arguments. On the other hand, as I stated previously, I tend to believe that Paul’s religious proclivities would have no bearing on his decisions as President. We may disagree violently with regard to how things came to be, but Paul’s position is that it doesn’t matter! A true separation of church and state means that government has nothing to do with religion, and religion has nothing to do with goverment. This is what the Constitutional framers intended, no matter how fundies attempt to distort what “One nation under God” meant (hint: Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, and Madison were Deists at best — Dawkins makes an interesting case that several were likely atheist).

Another idea that gives me pause is the concept of limited federal government. At first glance, it seems wonderful (kill the IRS, stop occupying the rest of the world, etc.). I wonder, though, how many of Ron Paul’s supporters have really thought it all through. Following the idea of limited government to its logical conclusion does not arrive at anarchy (as I have seen asserted elsewhere), but it does get into some uncomfortable territory.

Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He opposes it because his view is that it violates the individual rights of private property owners, business owners, and impinges upon the ability of individual states to create and enforce their own legislation. This is a particularly uncomfortable position for most folks (at least those of us who lean toward the “bleeding-heart liberal” part of the political spectrum), because the logical conclusion is that people should have the freedom to be bigoted. For example, a restaurant owner should have the freedom to deny service to whomever he doesn’t like. Another distressing conclusion that falls out of the limited government concept is that individual states should have the right to make abortions illegal, if that is what the majority of residents in those states want.

This idea (that people should have the freedom to be small-minded, bigoted assholes) sets up quite a bit of cognitive dissonance in my mind. I have been brought up with the current system, and the justification seems to be that we cannot trust people to do the right thing. Therefore, morality is codified into the laws of the land. This is appealing on some levels, but it is a very slippery slope. We can see many examples of problems with legislated morality (e.g. the war on drugs, the FCC’s jihad on televised nipples, etc.), and the inescapable (if breathtakingly scary) conclusion is that if we want to bring the Federal government back in line with the Constitution, we need to accept that we’ll be own our own as states, counties, municipalities, and individuals.

Whew. That’s a big idea. Frankly, I’m not sure that I have enough faith in the human race to believe that it would work, but the alternative sucks even more.

The quote in the subject, by the way, is not mine. One of the introductory speakers presented it, and I think it is representative of how a lot of people feel.