Ron Paul was re-elected to his congressional seat in Texas' 14th District on Tuesday, ensuring (at least) another two years of principled, consistent voting in Congress. Although it is nearly impossible for Paul to achieve his goal of becoming our next president, to label his presidential campaign as a failure would be foolish.
I'm lucky enough to be among a group of friends who I consider to be well above average when it comes to being informed on political issues. Two of them work for the media, and are very well connected. Another will run for State Delegate in Maryland within a couple of years, and is assembling a who's who in Maryland cast of staffers to help run his campaign. The balance of the group, myself included, cling to any scrap of political news as though it contains the golden ticket. In short, like every other group of friends, we're fairly certain we could solve all the world's problems, if only people started listening to us.
As with any random sampling of people, there are fundamental differences in opinion in our group. The majority of the group leans Democrat, and I try to represent the libertarian perspective. Because of this divide, I have had to come to the defense of my preferred candidate, Ron Paul, on more than one occasion.
So today, once the reports started to trickle in regarding Paul's rumored departure from the Presidential race, I sprung to the defense of Paul once more. Paul has repeatedly stated that he will remain in the race as long as the money continues to come in and there's an audience for his message. For me, success for the Paul campaign for 2008 would be to see him give a speech at the GOP convention in June. I doubt this will happen, however, unless Paul decides to endorse John "boots on the ground" McCain...and there's a better chance of McCain understanding basic economics than Paul endorsing the McCain campaign.
What surprises me most about the Paul campaign is why his message is not resonating more with voters, especially considering our current economic woes. Basically, America, based on present voting trends, supports either a fascist, socialist, or some bizarre hybrid solution to our economic problems, if they are acknowledged at all. When faced with finding solutions to our economic dilemma via the ballot box, America is essentially giving the "John McCain face," shrugging their collective shoulders (or holding their noses, if you prefer), and endorsing some brand of totalitarian government that will only compound our problems.
That's what is so refreshing about Ron Paul. His de-pantsing of establishment candidates during the GOP debates provided a much needed (and long overdue) wake-up call to the voting public. Suddenly individuals who had never voted before, or who were (gasp!) registered democrats, were joining meetup groups and carrying Ron Paul signs in every state. The message was getting out, and Paul, although far from a polished speaker, was quickly dubbed the head of a revolution. Although Paul's followers still represent only a relatively small fraction of the overall voting public, his fervent supporters carry the message long after the election of 2008. Whereas Paul's followers are like the Kinsella family in "Field of Dreams," the non-Paul voters resemble those who make fun of Ray for plowing under his major crop to build a baseball field. As for me, I'm holding out hope that America has more James Earl Jones' among us than book burning PTA members.
But the purpose of this post is not to cause you to wonder whether or not I compare Paul's message to that of some higher entity. Obama has already cornered that market. Paul's message is more closely related to a lecture a drug addict might receive in rehab: in order to heal, you must first admit you have a problem. Failure to admit you have a problem will only result in prolonged agony. Your choice. America's economic problems will soon affect more and more people, and failure to admit there's a problem and to actively seek treatment of that problem will only make the inevitable crisis worse.
The rest of our discussion was centered around the media's censorship of Paul. To be fair, EVERY candidate claims there is some form of media bias against him or her, and Paul is no different in that regard. Where I'm skeptical about media censorship when it comes to Paul is the virtual silence regarding his message. One of my friends suggested that the lack of media coverage of Paul is directly related to the number of delegates won (i.e. win some votes, we'll give you some coverage). That argument is a chicken-and-egg argument, but I'm going to try to de-bunk it.
If, in order to receive coverage by the media, the requirement was to receive votes, then why does the media cover the run-up to the primary season? That's easy, Eddie...because we have nation-wide polls that determine viable candidates. Ok, understood, even if you don't put much faith in polls it is something tangible to work from when determining viable candidates (although a very strong argument can be made against the role the media has in determining viable candidates for us...but that's another topic). Consider then, the case of Rudy Giuliani, the early GOP favorite and media-anointed frontrunner. It's safe to say media coverage of Giuliani wasn't sparse, especially on FOX news, where Mr. 911 could say nothing wrong. The frontrunner Giuliani success line, after leading all polls throughout the summer? $59 million spent, one delegate.
So why the media bias against Paul, who has raised $32 million and (so far) received only 14 delegates? Why continue to ignore someone even though McCain has sown up the GOP nomination? The answer is, because the Paul message is still a threat. Those who stand to lose the most under a Ron Paul administration are the same ones fighting so hard to keep the lid on his platform. It's simple, really. The media (and other organizations) are doing what anyone else would do when their livelihood is threatened: protecting their bottom line. By freely reporting on the Paul campaign (somewhere I remember reading/hearing the media was supposed to be unbiased) the media would effectively be engaging in their own suicide. In short, I'm not holding my breath for any "fair and balanced" reporting on the Paul campaign.
I confess that the "media censorship/prove your viability" argument is a chicken-and-egg situation but, given the above information, one has no choice but to remain skeptical. As for me, I don't own a TV and probably never will again. The beauty of the Internet is that you can expose yourself to literally thousands of opinions in a matter of a few clicks. Given the choice between staring at a box in the corner for hours on end, listening to two people argue about the cosmetic differences between Obama, Clinton, and McCain (I'll save you the time, they're all the same) and researching the information on my own, the choice is a no-brainer (no pun intended). Choose your propaganda; refuse to let your questions go answered.
I'm enthusiastic about (at least) another two years of Ron Paul's voice in congress. He serves as the only bulwark against a continued expansion of government at the taxpayer's expense. I know, I know, Paul can't literally prevent government expansion as merely one member of Congress...but please do not deprive me of fantasy. For me, imagining Paul wielding the veto pen and slashing unconstitutional government programs is my way of fainting at the sight of Obama blowing his nose.
No comments:
Post a Comment