 |
Why I Voted for Ron Paul in the Michigan Primary |
 |
John McCain on “liberal Democrats” participating in the Michigan primary:
But today on his Straight Talk Express bus (powder blue interior with a musty smell), McCain dismissed the idea by imagining what a “liberal Democrat” in Michigan might be thinking. “Oh, gee. IÃÂll go find out where the polling place is, drive down, take my lunch hour or whatever it is, so I can vote for one of these jerk Republicans.”
Uhhh, not exactly. My vote for Ron Paul in the primary was motivated by three beliefs:
1. The Democratic primary is meaningless. On the other hand, voting in the Republican primary actually has an impact on the race.
2. Voting in the Republican primary effectively penalizes the MDP and the MRP for their power grab.
3. The rise of Ron Paul is harmful to the well-being of the Republican party as it exists today.
The Democratic primary is meaningless
Last time I checked, elections are supposed to tell us who the public thinks is most qualified for a particular office. The Democratic primary fails this basic “gut check.”
There are a lot of people who are going to be confused when they see that their favorite candidate isn’t on the ballot. Some will vote “Uncommitted,” some will vote for another candidate, and some will write-in their favorite candidate anyway. Simply because voters will be doing all three, the outcome isn’t representative of true public sentiment.
So what’s so bad about voting Uncommitted? Voting “Uncommitted” is like saying, “Hey, someone else, decide my vote for me.” It’s fundamentally undemocratic, and irrelevant to the nomination process. For me, voting in the Democratic primary only legitimizes an inherently illegitimate process. The Republican primary, on the other hand, actually has relevance to their nomination contest.
Voting in the Republican primary effectively penalizes the MDP and the MRP for their power grab.
Every political actor who arranged for the January 15 primary was motivated by self-interest, or a desire to see Michigan play a more important role in the nomination process.
I agree that the current Presidential nominating process is completely flawed. Iowa and NH voters aren’t any more deserving, informed, or representative of America than voters from any other state. I personally advocate a rotating regional system that is skewed toward smaller states going first.
But Michigan agreed to the DNC rules, and understood the consequences of violating them. Knowing fully well that the candidates pledged to ignore any state that pushed its primary up, they did it anyway. And in attempting to increase our relevancy, the Governor, legislature, and state parties actually made us irrelevant.
Even more alarming, at least $10 million of public money is going to spent on this farce. Even though the primary is publicly funded, only the state parties control the voter lists, a valuable resource. In what world is that morally justifiable? Are party loyalists so devoted to the Democratic leadership in Michigan that they lose sight of that?
There’s no doubt that the individual turnout data from the primary is critically important. Partisan primary vote history is usually a strong predictor of an individual’s self-reported party ID and candidate support — both of which are of immense value to anyone running a political campaign.
So, the best way to penalize both parties is to give them shit data. The more “crossovers” there are, the less meaningful the information about this particular election becomes.
The rise of Ron Paul is harmful to the well-being of the Republican party as it exists today.
Kos believes that a Romney win in Michigan hurts the Republicans the most. I disagree — the rise of Ron Paul is incredibly harmful to the well-being of the Republican coalition.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m an economic populist and Ron Paul’s core views are antithetical to everything I believe in. His libertarian vision of drowning government in a bathtub is nothing short of repulsive. A vote for Ron Paul isn’t a gesture of support, but a strategic decision to maximize impact.
Ron Paul’s presence in the race fractures the Republican coalition. The more he rises, the more the Republican establishment tries to shut him down. Every time this happens, his supporters become increasingly alienated from the Republican party. Remember when Saul Anuzis wanted to exclude Ron Paul from the debates, and his supporters went nuts?
If Ron Paul ends up running as a libertarian or independent, he’ll take a lot of otherwise Republican voters with him. We might be in trouble with voters who are attracted to his antiwar stance, but it could actually force the Democratic presidential nominee to move to the left on Iraq. There is a clear benefit to encouraging him to stay in the race.
Democrats are not going to win Ron Paul’s libertarian-leaning supporters on economic issues. If we can’t have these people on our side, and if the Republicans aren’t really representing their viewpoint, we might as well do everything we can to relegate them to a third party. Looking at the New Hampshire exits, there appear to be cross-pressures between Ron Paul supporters and the rest of the Republicans on the Iraq war and feelings about the Bush administration. After being alienated from a Republican party that doesn’t want them, we can use these issues to pick up Ron Paul supporters that will vote for our candidates.
Nirmal is an activist from Michigan who has worked with a variety of progressive organizations and campaigns. His writing can be found at nirmalm.com
“Don%u2019t get me wrong. I%u2019m an economic populist and Ron Paul%u2019s core views are antithetical to everything I believe in. His libertarian vision of drowning government in a bathtub is nothing short of repulsive.”
Translation: economic populist = your wealth is MY economy. Ron Paul’s idea that you should be able to spend the wealth you create is repulsive to me because I have plans to spend it which are better than yours. Government is how I get my hands on what belongs to you, so I don’t like Ron Paul’s nasty desire to reduce the size of government. Returning to the constitution would be like drowning the big vast powerful corrupt government that I depend on to get me what I didn’t earn. I’m a progressive and like all progressives, I am progressing toward your wealth.
While I agree with your assessment, Democrats don’t see it this way. They see it as a moral obligation to steal from the rich and give to the poor, and look no further than that. Morally, most Democrats are pretty sound really. It is on moral grounds that I generally agree with most Democrats. It is in the execution of their moral beliefs that they go wrong, in my opinion.
By nature, they are naive. They put trust where it doesn’t belong, into the government. They want government to pay for everything for everybody, but fail to acknowledge that most of what the government gives us is crap. Look at the Department of Education…every year our public school rankings FALL, while our private schools thrive and remain high on those rankings. They want to subsidize the poor, which sounds noble, but in practice actually keeps them poor, AND creates more poor. Tax the rich, huh? They just pass the additional cost on to the employees…the people you are trying to help. That’s right…MARKET SHARE is what is important to them. Raise taxes on Corporation X, and they will lay off 500 of the people you are trying to help in order to offset that cost. Then when they try to find another job, they will realize that every other corporation just had massive layoffs as well, and nobody is hiring. Some of them will find work again, but many will end up on welfare…
The cycle will repeat endlessly, each time reducing the size of the middle class and pushing us further into a society of rich and poor.
The other question I always have for libertarians:
What’s the alternative?
Don’t like the DOE? What’s the alternative? Honestly, I’ve yet to hear a great answer…
It’s called the free market, and when left mostly unregulated it works because it responds to human need, and feeds on capitalist greed. With no DOE, there becomes a market need for education. Greedy capitalists with money see a demand, and their material greed drives them to offer a supply for that demand. All of this is able to operate without the bureaucracy that is currently our DOE.
I mean come on! The idiots can’t even decide whether they should teach creationism or evolution. Some of our schools are still using text books that are 50 years or more old. Because of things like NCLB we have people graduating high school who can’t even read or right. Business is efficient because if it is not, it fails. Any business that operated at the efficiency of our government would be no more. Businesses cannot steal money from your paycheck and mandate that you support them financially, and THAT is why they are more efficient.
Every industry in this country that we run into major problems with are the industries that government has subsidized or taken over completely.
LoL…I know I’m not helping my case, but I have “right”, when it should have been “write”
See, the free market idea breaks down with respect to education.
See, ok, let’s look at a free market version of education. A private school opens up. If it provides bad education, people stop going to it, right? I mean, that’s the basic idea.
So, what happens to those kids stuck in the middle? The kids that enroll in the new school, with the slick marketing brochures, and get a crappy education for 1, 2, 5, or 10 years before the school gets shut down. The market might work in aggregate, but it doesn’t work at the individual level. Time is still wasted, and kids still don’t learn.
Plus, I’ve never seen one statistic that says charter or private schools provide a better education than their public counterparts. There are just as many crappy private schools as public ones.
Yes, because private schools at the college level produce so many failures, as opposed to your DOE. It is the same thing at a different level. Ok, sarcasm aside, if the education sucks, then they go to another private school, and state-run schools fill in the gaps. Getting rid of the DOE doesn’t get rid of public schools, it gets rid of FEDERALLY FUNDED public schools, and allows the private market to play a larger role. When one business fails, others take their place. We had a Jack in the Box go out of business in my hometown recently…a BK bought the building up fairly quick. People can still get fat on fast food, everyone is happy. Every demand will be met by a supply.
I think you’re missing the issue. What happens to those kids caught in the transition. Things may be replaced fairly quick, but a child suffers from any amount of time spent in a poor institution, not to mention the stress of moving schools, losing social connections, etc…
I’m not saying our current system is perfect. It needs a lot of work. But removing government control I don’t see as the answer, and as I said, I’ve never seen any data that can back up the assertion that it is quantitatively better.
Which brings me back to the original point, what’s the alternative? If you’re asking me to replace what we have with something new, I’ll need some good data that says this new system will be better.
Your system has failed for years, and is becoming worse and worse, while taking up more and more taxpayer dollars. More and more of the people I know are sending their kids to private schools as I plan to, and not one of them has ever went back or expressed regret over the decision. Yet they are still forced by the federal government to pay into a failing system.
If you want data and statistics, use the internet, you obviously already have it. If you want examples, there are plenty of them. We already have private schools, and they are growing every year, if you ask those people they are happy about their decisions and feel that their children are learning better than they were before. They are growing as a direct reaction to your DOE’s failure.
Well, by your own admission, the elimination of the DOE would do little. The main failure of our schools is in the funding, curriculum, and resources invested in teachers and facilities, not to mention all the issues kids have at home that they bring with them to school. I fail to see how a free market system would address any of these. Trust me, I’ve written about education before and I’ve researched it, and I’ve never found a study claiming that private schools are somehow better at solving the core issues we face WRT education than public schools.
Honestly, the whole public vs. private debate seems like a red herring. That’s not why our schools are failing.
Yeah, your right. We’ve voted for increased funding time and time again, and it has never made any difference whatsoever…I certainly have faith that we will get lucky this time however. We should certainly vote to throw more money at the problem - again, while hoping for different results.
-Democrat #103818492
Money, I’m fairly convinced, is a small part of the issue. Like I said, the problems are way deeper. Investment in teachers, curriculum, standards and testing, plus a whole host of societal issues that kids pick up at home and get blamed on schools.
The alternative is to leave the federal taxes that go to the DOE in the states, and let the states run their own schools. This would eliminate the bureaucratic overhead of the DOE -and- eliminate things like “No Child Left Behind”.
I think taking Libertarianism to its extremes leaves one with problems, like just about any other set of principals - but I think leaving things not explicitly assigned to the federal government in the Constitution to the states is a better plan for two reasons. First, it lets local decisions about ideological arguments be implemented, which prevents nation-wide tyranny-of-the-majority situations (who do you want deciding if your state can legalize gay marriage? Considering both possible results.) Second, it prevents an accumulation of power in D.C., and the associated corruption of corporate influence. Sure, the same could happen at the state level, but it would take a great deal more time and money. Imagine if Halliburton could only get its level of influence by successfully lobbying as much as it does in D.C. in all 50 states!
An added bonus to this situation, the law of the land (the Constitution) gets obeyed. Think a centralized DOE is a better idea? Amend to allow it, don’t just ignore laws! Just ignoring laws gets us to warrantless wiretapping, and Guantanamo.
I gotta say, I like this idea a lot better than voting for Romney, which Kos is pushing pretty hard these days. Paul really changes the conversation and he looks absolutely great going at it with the neocons during the debates. Him and Mitt going back and forth on how all Arabs are not terrorists…priceless!
Like you say, a Ron Paul win, or even a good showing, will cause a sea change in the very core of the GOP, and one that is for the better. As I’ve said before, I’d rather argue against libertarians than neocons.
Well, as a Ron Paul supporter we’re happy to have your support whatever the reason, but I have to say that your view of government is a little bit frightening. The constitution was certainly a radical document in it’s time against “the machine”, England, but it is the outline that our country was founded on. To hear people nowadays claim that our founding principles are “repulsive” sickens me. The founding fathers are undoubtedly rolling over in their graves.
Large government is nothing but the redistribution of money. Redistributing money from our pockets into private companies that will operate in Iraq. Redistributing our money to arm the Middle East while we pay lip service to Israel. Redistributing our hard earned money to pay for those who don’t work. Redistributing our money to any cause that does not serve the public interest. It is a self feeding entity that cares nothing about anything but it’s own interests and the interests of those who hold power - THAT is why government must be limited. It is inherently evil, and inherently against the interests of the people. The cost of Democracy is eternal vigilance. Small government is easy to keep an eye on, large government is nothing but smoke and mirrors.
Either way, being against the core Republicans we can agree on. The thing that they don’t realize is that if they don’t get behind Ron Paul, they have ALREADY lost. Fact: Ron Paul votes are NON-TRANSFERABLE to ANY other Republican candidate. If he doesn’t get their nomination, we will vote however we can to hurt the GOP the most.
Ha! Let it not be said that “progessives” aren’t every bit as conniving as those on the other side of the aisle. Kudos!… I think?
It’s unfortunate that the idea of smaller government “repulses” you, because I believe it’s the only thing that can save us all from eventual catastrophe. You believe in the power of government, so that means these things:
1) you think Katrina was handled beautifully.
2) You think the Iraq war, and the war on terror is being handled with utmost perfection.
3)You think U.S. military intervention all around the world, in hundreds of countries is a positive thing.
4) You think dissappearing tax dollars is not a bad thing.
5)The national debt is being handled well.
6)Federal government intervention into public education via programs like “No Child Left Behind,” are a success even though the U.S. is falling miserably behind the rest of the developed world in areas of math, science, foreign lang., geography, etc.
7)The monied, centralized power that exists in D.C. that allows major corporations to dodge environmental laws, expand into monopolies, and usurp property rights is a good thing.
I could go on and on. But, by your own claim - you support big government - you then intrinsically support all of the above, even though I presume you think you do not. Government is force. And, by nature it is bureaucratic, inefficient, and wasteful. The bigger it gets, the more these problems become apparent. Why is it that government authority can fail again and again and again, yet so called “progressives” want MORE government?? It is a logical disconnect that I simply cannot put my mind around.
Big government is what allows environmental degradation to continue. Big government allows corporate corruption. Big government allows endless war and intervention.
When you centralize power, ie: centralize power in the federal government in Washington D.C., the more power it gets, the more the wrong people, both left and right, will seek to use it to their advantage. The more power that exists to be corrupted, the more the corrupt will seek to use it. This is a fundamental fact of human nature. It is not about “the right person getting the job,” it’s about not having all that power and authority in D.C. in the first place, but instead spread out among all 50 states - as was originally intended by the U.S. constitution and the founding fathers.
Socialism and fascism have failed, over and over and over. Big government fails over and over and over. Yet, this is what you still seek?
Yes, you should vote Ron Paul, because he is the right man for the job. If you think most people who support Ron Paul for president can later be swayed by socialistic “progressive” politics, you are sorely mistaken.
Better luck next time!
This happens all the time…people conflate bad government actions with all government actions.
I’ll be the first to admit it. The government acts badly. In particular, the Bush government has acted badly. But that doesn’t mean government is necessarily bad.
Now, certainly, moderation is key. Either extreme (no government/omnipresent government) isn’t acceptable. The question is how much and how far.
For me, it comes down to the floor. The government’s job is to provide a minimum level of support, a floor through which nobody can fall. After that, it’s up to individuals to create their own success.
The problem is that you guys argue against your own points…
“In particular, the Bush government has acted badly.” - Incorrect. Any amount of research will allow most people to conclude that government has acted badly for a number of years now. While most people hold Bill Clinton in the highest regards (and I used to before looking into it more), he is as corrupt as they come. Just as Hillary will be, and just as Obama will be…why? They are all members of the CFR, meaning they all have the same plans for us in the end.
“Now, certainly, moderation is key.” - That has been our point all along. The problem with your argument however is that when government becomes as large as it currently is, there is no public oversight, and thus none of this moderation that you are calling for.
“The government%u2019s job is to provide a minimum level of support, a floor through which nobody can fall.” - Sound great. Of course this floor that nobody can fall through is mandated public education that is amongst the worst in industrialized nations, a huge amount of illegal immigrants that we can’t afford that we want to welcome with open arms, a run away fiscal/monetary policy that will drive us into the ground because of the massive spending, and permanent welfare for most of the lower class that does not make any attempt to place them into jobs that will actually improve their situation.
How exactly are you guys planning to address the problems with our economy such as fiscal/monetary policy and the falling dollar? Oh yeah…spend more money, just like a kid with a credit card. SOCIAL SECURITY is this minimum level of support you are talking about…and due to current policy you can kiss it goodbye. IT WILL NOT BE THERE FOR YOU!
Well, you’re going to have to prove with statistics that government is more good than bad. The way I see it, I’m against bad governance, not government in general.
As for the floor, my argument is we need to raise that floor, not eliminate it entirely.
And as for the monetary argument, I don’t buy it. While I don’t argue that our economy has a lot of problems, the central banking as this great evil idea has so far failed to convince me…
Don’t vote for him. Ron Paul is for the people not for bigger government! We need bigger government and make the poor more dependent.
Hahaha…don’t count on our votes socialists…we may despise the fascist neocons, but don’t have a big liking for vampiric, parasitic, socialism either. We either save the Republican party from the fascist dogs that have hijacked it or we are on our own to fight both of you
That’s my point. Rather than being with the Republican party, you’re on your own to fight both of us. Which is a best-case scenario for me.
I don’t support “big government.” I don’t think that government spending should be stopped, just used wisely.
I also don’t agree with your logic. You’re saying that government does bad things, therefore government itself is bad. Government has the capacity to do good or bad things for society, it is up to the people to direct it appropriately.
And when is the last time our over sized government has taken direction from the people.
Fact: 70% of this country’s people have wanted out of Iraq for some time now. Every soldier I have known says that while good things have been done over there, on the whole we have caused more harm than good and should never have went. The PEOPLE don’t want to be there, government does. Large government trumps the small people, and thus we are still there indefinitely. How many of your Democratic candidates are proposing reducing government size to a level that can be directed by the people? None, they don’t want your input. They want to decide everything for you.
They want to decide that you can’t watch violent movies or play violent video games.
They want to decide that you cannot defend yourself from criminal action.
They want to decide that you cannot say anything that offends anybody in public.
They want to decide that your hard earned money is better off being spent on welfare queens who pop out baby after baby.
1984, here we come!
So please list for me the things that Fed. gov’t does/has done well. (It’s role is national security and interstate commerce. Not much else.)
I believe you’re an intelligent human being. Don’t you believe you can make the best decisions for yourself and those you care about? Gov’ts role is very limited, as by design. You and I at a more local level can make better decisions based on our local conditions. That shouldn’t scare you should it?
Ron Paul supporters will never vote for any of the puppets the media insist are winners. We like him because Ron Paul can’t be bought—his followers either.
If we get rid of the Department of Education, that would simply return responsibility for education to states and local communities. Public schools wouldn’t disappear.
I started teaching in 1975, the year before the Department of Education was created. The impact of the DOE has been almost entirely negative. Standards have declined and classroom instruction has been diverted from teaching kids how to think to getting the students who do nothing in class to somehow pass the end of course test. Topics that aren’t on the test get dropped and are replaced by review, review, and more review. No wonder kids get bored.
The DOE provides less than 10% of educational funding at the local level, and most of it is soaked up in useless bureaucracy. The assistance that actually makes it to the classroom comes with strings attached that largely negate the additional dollars.
Get rid of the DOE (with an appropriate transition period) and student learning will go up, not down.
Coming from New York, I’ve seen how poorly state governments can run. Not that I think they are bad necessarily, but the idea that government at the state level is by definition better or more efficient than government at the federal level is a fallacy.
So, at the state level, some educational standards might get better, and Kansas might start teaching creationism as fact. It works both ways.
Not necessarily better or more efficient everywhere. However, if a local school district gets off track, only those students are affected (instead of the entire country), it quickly becomes obvious that other schools are performing better, you can look to those other schools to improve, and it’s easier to change course locally (or even at the state level) than it is nationally.
Utopia isn’t an option. Decentralized decision-making tends to produce better results overall (though not everywhere) and makes it easier to make necessary changes. You can have a lot more impact on your local school board than you can the US Congress.
While I agree there can be advantages, this seems like a stretch:
Again, coming from a state where corruption at the state and local level is rampant and largely resistant to change, I don’t believe it. This isn’t to say it is completely wrong, it might just be my experience. But I can’t take it as fact without some numbers or studies to back it up.
You can’t support big government and then claim that you are against corruption. Big government feeds corruption. They are BFFs.
And there’s no good reason that you should believe it. More local control makes equivalent levels of corruption more expensive, and gives the people directly affected a larger share in the decision making process (i.e. your vote counts more). This in no way guarantees better results or easier change - that depends on the full local constituency.
In fact, this may make things like teaching creationism in Kansas more likely, but it also makes it less likely that intelligent design will be on the curriculum in Massachusetts as part of a nationwide decision. Since this would appear to please the people in each respective state, and not leave them feeling persecuted because of the beliefs of those -who don’t even use the impacted resources-, it seems like a good trade off.
Thank you for the vote for Paul, as a conservative those other republican candidates, scare me more than any of the democrats running.
You’ve got to be realistic on this one. Changing economic and social policies takes time. Even if he gets elected it won’t be so anti-Democrat in the short term (even one mandate). But getting out of the war can be done very fast and RP did say that money would be better spent at home.
It is the local school board. The concentration of power allows small interest groups to manipulate policies for the benefit of large corporations.
The public schools are not failing as a result of funding. The amount of money that a public school sends per student in California is almost same as the annual fee to a good private school. The only reason public schools are failing is because of accountability issues. Incompetent people are running the schools without any fear of reprisals. There’s absolutely no accountability in the public schools.