My article of a few days ago -- If You Love Peace, Become a "Blue Republican" (Just for a Year) -- seems to have caused a stir.
Many people of independent, liberal or Democratic sensibilities voted for Obama in 2008 in the hope of jolting America toward civil liberties and away from war, only to find themselves in 2011 disappointed that we are still starting wars and doing nothing to re-instate some of our most basic civil and economic freedoms.
My article suggested "Blue Republicans" as a moniker for those people who, still wanting peace and their basic Constitutional rights, will register Republican to help ensure that Ron Paul gets his party's nomination.
Within a few hours of the article's being published, a Blue Republican Facebook group was born, and faster than anyone could say "liberty," a designer had donated a rather wonderful logo. By the end of the weekend, the group had about 2000 members, and the original article had been shared more than 11,000 times on Facebook.
Why?
Simply, Americans are at the beginning of a gestalt switch, which allows them to see something Noam Chomsky pointed out some time ago:
The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum -- even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.
And what are "the presuppositions of the system" -- those political realities ushered in and maintained by both Left and Right over the last few years? Here are a few.
All of the above points concern basic civil rights, and the very identity of the nation.
In the light of these, many Americans are feeling that the country has gone too far down a slippery slope toward tyranny and have decided that urgent action must be taken.
Critically, they realize that our current two-party political paradigm is seriously bankrupt as it has brought us to this point. It's not that we got politically lazy; we did not: in fact, we've been as energetic as ever in opposing our political foes on our favorite political issues... Rather, we got too involved in the issues that defined our old political identities, and missed how the fundamentals were being changed around us.
As we were all having our "I'm right, you're wrong" Democratic and Republican arguments, the powers that be made themselves more powerful, and while we were arguing, we have lost most of the rights that we weren't arguing about because we took them for granted.
It is as if we have suddenly looked up from an argument at the kitchen table over which sofa we should buy for the living room, only to find out that the house has been foreclosed on and we're homeless. Sure, the issues we were arguing over were important -- but they were not the most important, nor are they now the most urgent.
As I have written elsewhere, America has been brought to its knees by a Left that has empowered the state and a Right that has subsidized big business. The nation has been disempowered by an axis between the apparatchiks of State that pass laws that concentrate wealth in the hands of the financial elite that funds them. Over the last century, the Left have tended to harp on about the corruption of corporate and financial interests, while the Right have tended to harp on about the corruption of State interests.
Meanwhile, corporate interests have made the State corrupt by financing it, and the State has made corporations corrupt through corporatist law-making. The net effect is that the State has concentrated power, and the corporations -- and in particular banks -- have concentrated wealth. The rest of us have paid for it in liberty and wealth, respectively.
In the face of what has already been lost, those Blue Republicans who are becoming Republicans to ensure a Ron Paul presidency are not abandoning their personal disagreements with Dr. Paul on particular issues, such as abortion (which is the one on which this writer most profoundly disagrees with him). Rather, they are trying to make sure that we still have a recognizable country in which you get to have an argument over abortion without having already given up your own personal liberty, property or knowledge that your country will only send your family members in uniform into battle out of necessity, and nothing but necessity.
Perhaps, then, the cause of the excitement about the "Blue Republican" idea is two-fold. First, the term has caught people's imaginations because it subverts the paradigm that brought us here. Second, the stakes are high. In fact, they are the very highest stakes of all.
Follow Robin Koerner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rkoerner
Robin Koerner: If You Love Peace, Become a "Blue Republican" (Just for a Year)
Become a “Blue Republican” (Just for a Year) | The Moderate Voice
Memo to Blue Republicans: Educate Anti-War Democrats! : The ...
Dems invent “Blue Republicans” to back Ron Paul (Peace Nominee ...
These wars are pushing our military to the breaking point. There are more deaths by suicide than by combat, insurance companies are stealing death benefits from survivors (Bloomberg), the number of homeless vets is skyrocketing. It's time we show the troops what our support really means, and it certainly doesnt mean supporting the executive's belligerent foreign policy. You've got a chance to vote for someone who cares about civil liberties and the rule of law. Someone who run his campaign with money from the grass roots, not wall street or the corporations. He's got a 40 year record of honesty and principles. He's predicted the booms and busts with stunning accuracy. How can you not vote for him?
Go Ron Paul..but if they block him...
I have a few concerns with Ron Paul, though I like several key points of his message. I do not believe his promises are something he can follow through with, not through any failing on his own but by the nature of the check and balance system of our government.
How would he dismantle the parts of government deemed unnecessary? The IRS, Federal Reserve, Industrial war machine... all of them will require backing by Congress to dismantle. Will executive orders prove enough to transform government to be as streamlined as Ron Paul or his adherents wish. It will require changing budgets and line item vetoes willnot be enough to curb spending.
I see no evidence suggesting trickle down economics works, in fact, by all appearance this was a large factor in our current crisis. Am I wrong in thinking the State's Rights view from Ron Paul is nothing more than that? This decentralized stance does nothing but break things up into smaller pieces that corporations can commandeer even more quickly. Minnesota is a prime example.
Climate change is becoming more accepted, it's not exact but denying it completely is not helping. Ron Paul has set himself firmly in the denial camp.
That said, I hope he can garner the backing of the party, it would be a wake-up call to the extremists and traditionalists of the Republican machine.
Things Ron Paul can do, to name a few:
1) Deliver executive orders baring previous executive orders
2) Control troop movement, including an immediate withdraw.
3) Determine how the law will be carried out at the federal level, if not specified by the law itself (during his tenture).
4) Set president
5) Diplomacy
6) Not do things, like have U.S citizens assassinated in other countries.
At the very least he is an improvement over the other nominees and obama for at least 4 years in regard to civil liberties. And at most, he can have a large and positive impact on the structure of government as it is today. I think of it more like a philosophical battle.
He can't balance the budget by himself, but he pressure his party and leaders to follow suit. He can save billions in over sea expenditures through troop withdrawal. He is probably the only one who will stand by his principles and use the veto on unbalanced budgets, which may not matter physically but as far as transforming the debate in this country it is very important that someone like ron paul acting as a president make a stance on unbalanced budgets.
Ron paul doesn't support trickle down economics, or at least does not revolve around that concept alone. He believes low taxes for everyone is good for the economy. He also believes that debt and deficits are bad, which is why we should have a small government with a balanced budget. Thats not so much trickle down economics which seem to imply giving tax cuts to the top 5% and calling it day. Ron paul would like to give everyone a tax cut, but also shrink government to the size that the taxes can afford.
I suppose the idea behind states rights is that the closer the state is to the individual the higher the accountability, and the more precise government powers become as opposed to broad power. States rights allow certain socio-political and geographic populations to have a say in how they are governed
Paul advocates "States Rights," but certain rights belong, not with states, but with the people. Its not up to the state government as to what a woman should do with her body, nor is it up to the state government to tell us who can and cannot be married. Things like this are personal maters and should not be controlled by the state nor federal government.
Additionally, Some things needs to be standardize across the US. Education is a perfect example. I want my diplomas and degrees from my state are just as valuable here as they are in another state. But with states like Texas trying to rewrite history, and take science out and replace it with religion, then there is no telling what kids will learn by the time they get out of school. The US is already lagging behind in Science and Math in the world, why do we need to exasperate the situation?
The Patriot Act took our liberties
And there’s no judge and no jury
Tapping our phones
Breaking down our doors
Waging on the people a civil war
From the DOI:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Ron Paul 2012
We have 100's of military bases throughout the world (Japan, Germany, S. Korea, Gitmo, etc.). We continue to support a war on drugs that is a failure. Obama's DEA is now clamping down on Medical MJ.
The bailouts funneled billions (trillions?) to multinational corps and their CEO's/ cronies. It's too late to blame Bush at this point.
Most Obama supporters came online to get rid of these things, and if they are rational, they are disappointed.
Forget parties, and have a look at Ron Paul. You may not agree with all of his views, but you cannot overlook his consistency and HONESTY. That is compromise I can believe in.
If Paul is not elected in 2012... honestly i don't know if the US makes 2016. We are making people who were in charge of the Soviet Union when it collapsed look like geniuses.
He is pro choice. He wants to allow states to make laws on abortion. He is letting states choose. He also believes that people should choose for themselves whether to have abortions. He wants no federal law made against abortion.
He personally believes that human life should be protected from conception but he does not believe on imposing his beliefs on you or me, who disagree with him on this issue..
If that was the only issue that was stopping you vote for Ron Paul, then welcome to the Re(EVOL)ution 2012 as a Blue Republican.