Friday, May 6, 2011

Dumb or Orwellian?

Isn't it funny how Ron Paul has to so carefully explain the idea of freedom and limited government to an audience of rabidly self-styled "pro-freedom" and "anti-government" Republican conservatives in South Carolina?



Isn't it funny? No. It's not funny that the American conservative movement, as a strong rule, either doesn't understand its own rhetoric, or is actively subverting the meaning of its rhetoric. They're either incredibly badly informed or Orwellian.

On this small point we agree: on the whole, Ron Paul would not make a good president.

5 comments:

solarjinx said...

In my politically naive mind, I figured Ron Paul to be an okay vote (with his strong stance against the military industrial complex). Ugh, there is absolutely no one to vote for, is there. What do we do?

Dale said...

SJ, I think Ron Paul would be a positive in some ways -- he'd be better than many, possibly most, Republicans. I basically agree with him strongly about 50% of the way. It's that other 50% that bothers me, where he places way, way too much faith in the workings of the marketplace. Letting people and corporations do whatever they can afford to do without restrictions, so long as they can point to a contract that a lawyer witnessed, makes roughly as much sense as giving teenagers swords, guns, and grenades and setting them free to do as they please so long as they receive the blessing of a priest.

I mean, sure, some groups of people would live through that society for years and years and make it to something approximating old age, but a decade or two out, are those going to be the kinds of people in the kind of society that we want to see? (I grant that there are people who long for precisely that world. I am not among them.)

If you haven't already, you should watch The Corporation (documentary). It will clarify my equation of profit-seeking corporations with psychopathic individuals.

I have no idea who to vote for. As usual, the lesser of two evils? By the time the ballot arrives, too many choices have already been foreclosed. I have no idea how to work around that.

Sheldon said...

I only give Paul a 25% positive to negative ratio. And that portion is due to being anti-war and foreign intervention, and some civil liberties.

Yes on legalizing MJ, but not on meth. and heroin, because we still need to try to curb the use of dangerous drugs. With that said though, users should be dealt from the perspective of helping them medically, not through prisons. And this would still require public health funding, which Paul would not be for.

I have recently entertained the idea of registering as a Republican and working for Paul just as a monkey wrenching effort. Probably won't though.

solarjinx said...

I have The Corporation sitting on my DVD shelf along with many other favorite documentaries, so I know exactly what you mean. When it discusses the fact that corporations have actually managed to own the rights to human DNA (roughly speaking), I became very attentive.

When I first moved to Oregon I heard Thom Hartmann on the radio and really liked what he was saying, so I grabbed a few of his books and gave them a read. Holy shit! The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight, Unequal Protection, and Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class were the three I read, and that was pretty much my introduction into politics.

I work with a group of staunch neo-conservative Republicans, so reading those books didn't exactly bring about fun lunch-time conversations for me, lol. Ugh, some days I just shake my head and wonder what the hell is going on. I think I miss my pre-political mind.

The Dissonance said...

Sometimes all you can do is vote for the best of the worst. Baby steps sez me.