Thursday, January 19, 2012

Ron Paul vs Mitt Romney 1 on 1: Liberty vs Tyranny

Mike Shaner
January 14,2011

In the spring of 2010 President Obama signed the affordable care act into law. For the first time the Federal Government would actually force Americans to buy a service. U.S. citizens were so outraged that spontaneous protest erupted around the country. People like Glenn Beck were able to achieve their apocryphal 15 minutes by pandering to an enraged mass about the importance of Constitutional obedience. There was a semblance of hope. The country seemed young again. Revolution was in the air. People who had never been politically active before were organizing protest rallies.  I even wrote at the time that we should thank the 111th congress for providing the motivation to reclaim our republic. Those on the left blamed the new found devotion to our founding philosophy as blatant racism manifested in destroying the crowning achievement of our nations first black President. At the time I felt this was a copout argument. Obviously, people were enraged at the gall of a Federal Government that would piss on the constitution and tell it’s citizens what they must purchase. I wonder now if there wasn’t some naivety in my dismissal of their claims.
Here we are two years later and the same people who were carrying pocket Constitutions to tea party rallies have actually made Mitt Romney the front runner to be the Republican nominee for President. That’s right Mitt Romney! The same guy who invented Obama-care. So these noble champions of liberty whose only purpose was to fight government overreach were so disgusted with Obama-care that they now support the guy who invented it? On what basis? The familiar cry is that Romney stands the best chance of defeating Obama. We  are told that we must unite behind an imperfect candidate or suffer four more years of the Obama regime. Obviously this argument is unfounded, as i’ve noted before Ron Paul is probably the only candidate who actually could defeat President Obama, but let’s say Romney does have the best chance to win; so what? On almost every issue Romney and Obama take the same issues. 
Mitt Romney is a man who proudly claimed not to be a Reagan Republican (because Reagan was too conservative). He is someone noted as being left of Ted Kennedy. He supported TARP and the bailouts. He believes in the so called Patriot act and aggressive militarism. Most importantly, he believes that some government has the right to tell an individual he must purchase a good or service. I have yet to find one major difference between him and Obama other than skin color and party label. 
Looking back now I’m inclined to believe that collectivist mentality did play a role in the uprising against obama-care, and the new found acceptance of Mitt Romney. I don’t believe it is as steeped in racism as it is party loyalty, but the collectivist mindset is there all the same. It’s as if some people are ok with the tyranny as long as it is a Republican who prescribes it. Tyranny is tyranny. It’s destruction is the same no matter who is delivering it. What most boggles the mind is that we do have a choice in this election. 
Ron Paul is everything the Tea Party crowd seemed to be aching for. He is a champion of the Constitution. He has never voted for a tax increase or to raise the debt ceiling. He is the only candidate who understands that the Federal government doesn’t exist to run the economy or provide welfare. He is the only candidate who uses the constitution as his guide for casting a policy vote. The arguments against him are hypocritical when coming from those who claim to care about the Constitution:
“Ron Paul wants to end the Federal war on drugs.”
Ok...and? That’s because the Constitution doesn’t give the federal government the authority to regulate such a thing. It is a state issue and that’s Ron Paul’s position. If you are a constitutionalist that HAS to be your position as well.
“Ok well Ron Paul is an isolationist and wants to end the wars.” 
In the first place, he is not an isolationist he is a non-interventionist. An isolationist uses protectionist measures to isolate themselves from the rest of the world. Ron Paul wants free trade and prosperity with all nations. It’s the opposite of isolationism. As for war, yes he believes we should be very cautious before jumping into a war. Anyone who disagrees with him should read Washington’s farewell address. He also understands it is the job of Congress (not the President) to declare war. If we must go to war, it should be declared by Congress, we should go in, win it, and come home. If you think the Federal Government should be chained by the Constitution you must agree with him. 
“Well, he’s so old and he doesn’t speak very Presidential. Romney is young, good looking, and well spoken. He just seems like a President.” 
That’s just one more thing he and Obama have in common. If you want someone who is well spoken why not just vote for Obama? If the criteria is based on Constitutionalism and liberty Ron Paul is the only choice. 

In summation I will say that I don’t think racism sparked the Tea Party movement but I do believe it is collectivism and fear that will destroy it. If the choice is between Obama and Romney...what choice is there at all? How would your life be different today if we had a President Romney instead of Obama?