The world lost its goodwill toward the USA when Americans voted for George W. Bush the second time around.
I don't endorse the idea that American politics should be dictated by foreign opinions but a reading of the foreign press over the last six years reveals that the first election of President Bush Jr. was largely excused around the world since no one could have known what this new president was going to do.
Moreover, America arguably didn't vote for him anyway in 2000.
However, the second election President Bush was not excused, because by 2004, the modus operandi of the Bush administration was clear. He wanted to 1) conduct wars against countries that did not threaten us (e.g. Iraq), 2) oversee large financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were close (e.g. Halliburton), 3) establish a legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act), and 4) establish a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g. domestic wiretapping, TSA etc... )
The more-or-less global delight upon Obama's election in 2008 followed largely from the hope that Americans had realized what a mistake they had made with Bush's second term and were therefore voting against the egregious actions of the then Republican establishment.
When most Americans voted for "Hope" and "Change," the above four objectives were at the top of their list of what they "hoped" would be "changed."
After two years, however, we now see that Obama 1) conducts wars against countries that do not threaten us (e.g. Libya, Yemen etc.), 2) oversees large financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were close (e.g. Goldman Sachs), 3) supports the legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act), and 4) is growing a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g. domestic wiretapping, TSA etc.. )
Put another way, when it comes to such things as the killing of innocent people, taking from the common man to support cronies, and the elimination of the basic values that make our lives worth living, we had the hope, but we haven't had the change.
Just as in 2000, Bush hadn't shown his true colors, in 2008, Obama had not either. A vote for either in those years was fair enough. But in 2012, if you vote for the Democratic nominee for president, you better have a moral justification that is SO good that it is a) worth killing innocent people who don't threaten you, b) transferring wealth to the rich and well connected, and c) the complete suspension of your right to privacy and such basic rights as protecting your child from being touched by a government official with the full force of the law behind him as he just follows his orders.
Do I labor the point? Good.
I don't believe that such a justification exists. I'm having difficulty seeing how a Democrat who voted for Obama (whom I supported) for the right reasons in 2008 can in good conscience do so again given that there is another candidate who has been consistent in his opposition to all of these things -- not just in words but in deeds.
If you've read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if not, you should also know that Ron Paul has voted to let states make their own laws on abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals follow their own social conscience -- even when he disagrees with them (as I disagree with him on some of these issues). In other words, he is consistent in his beliefs in civil liberty.
If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again "because you've always been a Democrat" or because you think that some group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well. But don't you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by peace, civil rights or a government that treats people equally.
That Ron Paul, who has been standing up for these principles quietly for half a lifetime, happens to be a member of the Republican party is a lot less important than the principles that we should be voting on. The fact that he is not a party guy should be obvious from his extensive differences in policy from his party and the fact that many think, given his views, he should not run as a Republican at all.
As Dr. Paul often points out, however, we live in a country with a corrupt political party duopoly... and the system is stacked against anyone who would run outside the two party system. So he's doing what he has to do. And so should we as Americans who love peace and freedom. It really isn't complicated.
Follow Robin Koerner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rkoerner
Robin Koerner: "Blue Republicans": an Idea Whose Time Has Come
Only Ron Paul can make this interesting , and is unafraid to confront the elephants in the room.
Ron Paul is more in line with Democrats on social freedom and liberty than Obama ever will be. Obama has gone back on almost every campaign promise, he is an inexperienced nobody who should never have been elected. But when record numbers of blacks suddenly register to vote simply because he is black, and democrats of any color jump on his change rhetoric, when he gives no real detail plans, you get what you payed for.
Paul has a record of being consistent. Consistent with talking about how social policies and War on Drugs specifically target low end families and especially blacks, putting them behind bars for unrealistic amounts of time for non-violent drug crimes.
Nobody else has a track record of fighting for liberty and a foreign policy of NOT invading other countries simply from UN approval than Ron Paul.
To your other points Ron Paul is fine on certain social freedoms, but I don't know any democrat who'd allow or want heroin to be legal. I've never done H, but I know people who have. I wouldn't even wish it on a tea party person. Go to Switzerland to Zurich, and hang out by the Zurich Lake, and you will know what I'm talking about. You second point is nothing more than name calling, and you complete discredit yourself with that, but I'll still engage you 'cause you were not rude.
Your need to allude to race also discredits your argument as if black people aren't allowed to vote for a democrat. Could it be they wanted to make sure, after being disenfranchised in Florida in '00, that their vote got heard. Could it be that the organization machine of Obama was just simply superior to anything that had been seen before. I mean 95% of white southern males voted for mcCain and palin, does that make them just ignorant as your implying blacks were.
Thank you thank you thank you for writing this brilliant piece.
On top of all this, you didn't even mention his brilliant economics lectures that he schools half of congress with.
Thank you thank you thank you for writing this brilliant piece.
Think for a minute about what that convention looks like. The two clones gang up and form a ticket with 65% of the popular vote and 49.9 percent of the delegates. Chicago 1968 becomes a church festival compared to what will happen under such a scenario. It can happen if enough progressives see the light, not in terms of policy, but in terms of politics. If progressives get politically wise, there will be a third party in the general election and Obama will win a second term with a GOP in total disarray.
Let's just say you are not convinced that Ron Paul will do this compromise or that even if he did, the consequences would be economically disastrous. Do you then stay in the Democratic primary even when there are no truly competitive races down ticket involving progressive candidates? I think that would be a very unwise voting strategy.
Again, none of this plan is ideal. I think we need a lot more money used for government stimulus nationwide, but given the current political environment, it's a better deal than we are getting now or would get in Obama II. I think that moving money in any direction at this point in time is going to have a positive effect, especially as states, businesses and individuals do not know how long the funds will be available.
I know this is not ideal for progressives or libertarians. They want it all to go to deep tax cuts and there is no way in hell that we would trust Rick Perry not to hand oil billionaire's a blank check. However, we might be willing to let Texas continue on its pursuit of becoming the lone star banana and petro republic if California is allowed to use billions on building high speed rail, hemp textile and fuel factories, wind turbines and mandatory solar panels everywhere a business receives a penny of government funding. In other words, we could set up at least for 4 years a great contest to see which economic policies create the best paying, safest and longest lasting jobs for the most people.
He believes, perhaps rightly that the vast majority of young people just getting started in the work force would prefer to opt out of the system altogether so they can have more take home pay and more personal discretionary spending power. I cannot imagine any congress allowing this myopic fantasy to pass. The AARP would raise holy hell, and 60 Ron Paul clones would be needed in the Senate to ever get something like that done.
Given that inevitability as well, I think progressives can make a deal with Ron Paul. Our part would be to let him have a vote on his opt out proposal in both the House and the Senate. The risks of this backfiring on us are infinitesimal while the risks of it destroying the Paul Ryans of this world are highly likely. We want him to promise that after the votes are counted and President Paul takes an all too familiar legislative beating, to make a deal about where that 50% of savings from positive cuts goes.
He also realizes that a great number of Americans are dependent upon social security, medicare, medicaid and the like and that kicking them off these programs immediately or any time soon for that matter would be highly unethical and politically suicidal. My guess is he wants all the baby boomers and maybe even people now in their 30s to get the full benefits promised by our government. Ironically, he would probably be less inclined than many Democrats to decrease retirement benefits in any manner. His presidency might, in this matter, be a case of Nixon going to China.
All that said, he does want eventually to end all entitlements, and to do this, he has a two pronged approach: First, use half of the savings from cuts in programs we progressives detest as much as libertarians do to shore up entitlements. Second, allow young people to opt out of the system altogether and not have to pay into it anymore.
Certainly Ron Paul would fight progressive reform at the state and local levels as well as the federal level but not for constitutional reasons. He believes that each state has the right to make abortion laws and single payer health care laws as well, even though he would oppose the latter and support the former on philosophical grounds. He is not likely to appoint the judge who overturns Roe v. Wade since Anthony Kennedy will probably retire under Obama. Even if he could send abortion rights back to the states, enforcement of strict prohibitions would yield swift backlash.
While Paul is philosophically consistent and a man of his word, he is not inflexible. As evidenced by his transition plan (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul647.html), he is realistic about what is politically possible and what is ethically and political necessary to implement the libertarian agenda over the long run. He's not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good if elected president. He realizes that congress probably will block many of his proposals but he is not interested in a stalemate between filibuster and veto.
Racism was not cured by the civil rights act, it forced something that shouldn't be forced, by an entity that should have no force on the matter. Creating more issues and set backs.
People stopped racism. There hearts changed, whites, blacks, Hispanics and so on, came together and stood together. Not government.
If I hold a block party at my house, and I invite everyone around but not the blacks, do I have that right? I'll even go ahead and say that these black Americans are up standing citizens, and are not part of a wannabe-gang like mentality and attitude. So upstanding citizens who work daily, but I still don't want them. I can stop them from entering my home, no?
So, someones BUSINESS, is their property...no? They cannot decide? Are you for racial quotas in jobs instead of the best person for the job? The real racism is government lowering standards and forcing quotas, as if those groups they cater too aren't competent enough. That is true racism.
For profit businesses should not be allowed to discriminate against employees or customers based on race. Period.
The civil rights laws have been good for our country and are still necessary. All that said I do believe that Ron Paul's opposition to the civil rights act is based on racism but rather his narrow reading of the commerce clause and his libertarian economic views on regulation of business. IMO he is wrong on both counts and to believe that businesses would not discriminate based on race if there were no civil rights laws is naive. Needless to say, I am still supporting Ron Paul's candidacy. He ain't gonna be able to overturn the civil rights act.
Let's focus on the real issues of our day... ending the military industrial catastrophe so we can fund the peaceful green economy.