Straw Poll

June 4th, 2007 | by Craig |

Boy, it’s early, but here’s a straw poll worth visiting. I had to call the Helena IR to get them to add Ron Paul to the list.

  1. 6 Responses to “Straw Poll”

  2. By Shane C. Mason on Jun 4, 2007 | Reply

    They had Mike Gravel but not Ron Paul?

  3. By Gman on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply

    Indeed. I told the IR that I was surprised given all the media attention Paul has been getting.

  4. By Shane C. Mason on Jun 6, 2007 | Reply

    I watched Ron Paul on the Daily Show last night, and I’ll be honest with you, I was somewhat impressed. IF I were a republican, he would be the only choice out the Republican presidential field.

    I’ll be honest here, and put partisanship aside for a second because this is an issue that effects all of us. I feel bad for you guys. Not a lot of good choices in the field. Or, am I wrong?

  5. By Gman on Jun 6, 2007 | Reply

    Shane, I think the choices completely suck except for Ron Paul. He represents my thoughts almost exactly. If you don’t know Raul’s political history, he ran for President in 1988 as a Libertarian! So, it’s no wonder that Paul is my choice. His poll numbers are low, but he’s getting a lot of press because he’s telling it like it is and he’s not duplicitous like his opponents. (I haven’t seen the debate from last night, so I don’t know how he did. I’m going to try to catch it on YouTube.)

    Keep in mind, Shane, that I’m not a Republican. I have voted Republican in the past because I felt I didn’t have a choice. It’s like Paul said on The Daily Show, we have an entrenched two-party system that is running roughshod over the US Constitution and the liberties of the American people. Paul is the ONLY candidate who has a track record of abiding his oath to uphold the US Constitution. I think I’m not the only one who thinks it’s refreshing to have a candidate in the field who doesn’t equivocate on every issue.

    I think Paul may resonate (or another candidate like him in the future) with both traditional Rs and Ds that feel that the two-party system is only about POWER, not LIBERTY. As we all know, power doesn’t lead to less government and more freedom. As Lord Acton warned, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Thankfully, neither party has absolute power because we have a remnant of the Constitution left — checks and balances. Paul’s comment about the entrenchment of the two parties may not win the day in 2008, but I believe it’s going to become a more acute issue on the American political landscape in the decades to come.

    So, I believe that there is a possibility that someday Americans (not Rs and Ds per se) will begin to realize that in order to preserve liberty for ourselves and future generations, we have got to get back to the original intent of the US Constitution. It’s about self-governance, personal responsibility, and private-initiated social cooperation. That is the essence of what Paul stands for. When Jon Stewart asked Paul why he was running, Paul simply responded, “Liberty.” It’s such a mundane answer. But, given the various and sundry ways that the federal gov’t is chipping (sometimes hacking) away at our natural rights, Paul’s response gets to the essence of the battle before us as Americans.

  6. By Shane C. Mason on Jun 6, 2007 | Reply

    Gman, thanks for the explanation and insight into your views on this. I can agree with you on many points, particularly the points about the two party system. It is very bad for democracy.

    I do agree with this:

    …the US Constitution. It’s about self-governance, personal responsibility, and private-initiated social cooperation.

    Where we might diverge is this point:

    …given the various and sundry ways that the federal gov’t is chipping (sometimes hacking) away at our natural rights…

    You see, I see this as often being driven by corporate interests. The over regulation that we often see is generally a backlash to corporate power.

  7. By Gman on Jun 6, 2007 | Reply

    Thanks, Shane. It’s interesting, I’m beginning to see a clear bridge b/n progressives and libertarians emerging. One issue of commonality is ending corporate welfare. (Trust me, Ron Paul is without a doubt the ONLY candidate who would even consider cutting the umbilical cord b/n the gov’t and corporate interests.)

    The incredible flow of gov’t largesse to big business is unbelievable (100s of billions of dollars annually, which doesn’t count tax breaks, protectionism, etc.). I stand with you and others to oppose corporate privilege in the tax code, subsidies, and protectionism. The only hangup in this emerging coalition is the solution. Progressives want to cut off the largesse flowing to corporations AND regulate the heck out of them at the same time. It seems that progressives overlook the root cause of corporate power in American politics — if the gov’t didn’t intervene in the economy as much as it does, corporations wouldn’t seek to influence policymaking. You may respond, “Well, we can’t get rid of regulation.” Why not? Let the consumer be the regulator. Heck, the gov’t even protects businesses from the sovereignty of the consumer by subsidizing them out of failure. It protects American businesses from foreign competition and Americans pay more for good and services. So on, so forth…

    So, progressives see the problem as a power struggle. Hence, progressives look to the gov’t to limit the power of corporations via regulation. (Apparently, the gov’t is the only “power” strong enough to face the power of corporations.) Such policy prescriptions only serve to exacerbate the problem. The more you regulate the more you invite corporations to build up their power to influence the process. Libertarians see the problem as systemic. Hence, libertarians endeavor to reform the system by calling for an end to the gov’t corporatism. Ironically, this would solve (or at least ameliorate) the problem by eliminating the incentive (gov’t regulation) that leads corporations to build up power to influence the process. You take away the power, which is what the progressives want to do.

    What we’re talking about ending is fascism (it’s economic variation) or what is known as corporatism. It’s an economy planned and propagated by a centralized authority. Here’s an article on the commonality b/n Italian and German economic fascism and U.S. policy over the last half a century. Here’s another article worth reading along the same lines.

    I think progressives really have to ask themselves if they want to empower the consumer or empower the gov’t? The free market makes the consumer sovereign and powerful. Allowing the gov’t to decide which businesses fail and which succeed trumps the power of the individual consumer to reward producers of goods and services that offer quality at a market price. Although I see an emerging consensus on this issue of corporate welfare, the progressives’ addiction to gov’t solutions to problems is a major deterent to moving forward with practial reform.

    Moreover, if progressives were as willing to buck the two-party system to elect policymakers that promise to eliminate corporatism, then we’d get somewhere. Of course, the major weakness of any public policy proposal is the ability of policymakers to make it law.

Post a Comment