I consider myself fairly astute politically. I have voted since the age of 18 and I have been a part of two political campaigns in my lifetime–but today, politics is just plain crazy. Before I was old enough to vote, back in high school, I considered myself a Democrat. By the time I registered to vote, at the age of 18, I had swung back to my family tradition as a Republican. I think I did that mostly because I consider myself patriotic, and Democrats seemed very unpatriotic to me. There were several years in high school, when I was the only student who was standing for the daily pledge of allegiance. I think it was my sense of patriotism, that caused me, at the age of 18, to join the Army. Only a month after graduation, I shipped off to Fort Sill, Oklahoma to learn how to become a soldier. Much of my sense of patriotism was inspired by Ronald Reagan — yup, I am a Reagan Youth.
It was barely a year after I joined the military, that I was headed to Saudi Arabia for the very beginning of Desert Storm– nine months later, and a firsthand participant in the horrors of war, I returned home a very different person, with some very different takes on politics and government. My time overseas caused me to hate bureaucracy, something I saw our government rife with. When I had finished my enlistment in 1992, I left the Army and returned to civilian life. By 1992, the country had seemingly swung liberal as Clinton had already begun what would become an eight year reign. After witnessing firsthand the impacts of bureaucracy in and on the U.S. military, I had a great deal of distaste for politics in general– but that was before I discovered Rush Limbaugh. Under the tutelage of Limbaugh’s three hour daily show, I began to understand the mechanics of politics and it suddenly became more interesting to me. Eager to understand politics more thoroughly, I became a Political Science major in college.
In the early to mid 90′s, I was coming on board to conservative politics at a very exciting time, the apex of Newt Gingrich’s ‘Contract With America’ which resulted in the sweeping of both houses of congress and becoming the majority party in the House of Representatives for the first time in over forty years. At the time, there was such hope for change. Finally, a conservative voice in America; certainly, I thought, there will now be sweeping change. What history ended up showing us, was that Republicans are no better at wielding power than were their colleagues on the other side of the aisle. In-party fighting, political corruption and abuse of power seemed to be everywhere. Eventually, Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, lost control of power and retired his seat in congress rather than be demoted and probably fired from leadership. What happened to the promise of change? The changes of the Contract with America seemed somehow a pale glow to
Since the revolution in 1994, the government has become more bloated, intrusive and ineffectual as ever before in our country’s history. After eight years of Clinton politics and nearly as many of Bush warmongering, I think people are tired of business-as-usual politics and really desire some change. I think, for many Americans, that change might be manifested in nominating the first female or black candidate. At this point, some people are so burnt out on government that they just want anything but more Bush and I am with them on that.
Some years back, probably sometime after 9/11 I reconsidered my political position. What do I really believe about the role of Government? What kind of person do I want representing our nation. While the names may have changed over the years, my philosophy hasn’t I want a principled person in the White House, someone who believes something, someone who has something governing them, someone with integrity. I am not an issue-based voter. I don’t care what someone believes about this-or-that so much as I want to know what motivates them. Are they Clintonesque, in that they put there finger in the air before issuing policy decisions or do they stand firmly on some foundational principles. If those principles are solid and reasonable, I might find a reason to support them. It is for these reasons that I have sometimes supported fringe candidates like Perot and Forbes for President. It is also why I campaigned for Dole and initially supported W.
One thing I have learned about my philosophy, is that the principles that someone stands on need to be looked at carefully. While W. is a very principled person, he seems to follow principle over reason. Our quagmire in Iraq is mostly due to his pig-headed principles. At some point you have to be able to look at something objectively and leave room to change your mind– not because it is politically expedient, but because it is the right thing to do. W. should have realized that invading Iraq was the wrong thing to do, and instead of “staying the course,” he should have been working on a plan to extricate America from Iraq. Yes, we would have to deal with the fall-out, but I think having a divided Iraq and causing civil wars will eventually play it self out, it would also force the rest of the world to be involved. But that doesn’t protect of energy interest in the region does it? Should have thought about that before invading shouldn’t you have?
Anyway, that is not my point. Sometime before the last election I began to realign myself politically. I found that I am rather a purist when it comes to government and that I believe in less government and greater personal freedom. Eventually, I found that my personal beliefs aligned much more closely with the Libertarian movement and not the neoconservative Republican one. While my card still says Republican, I am still a Libertarian at heart… and the last six years of voting history supports that. But, while I consider myself a Libertarian philosophically, I really have a problem with the party… mostly because it is filled with pot-heads and conspiracy theorists that serve to erode the credibility of the party. For this reason, I don’t think that the Party will ever field a reasonable presidential candidate.
So, I tell you all of that, so I can say this: the 2008 presidential race is a mess. I don’t think I have ever been so tossed about by candidates. I think that my mind is in the same place as most Americans when it comes to what I want in a presidential candidate and a government in general… CHANGE. I want someone who is going to change things, to work on righting the wrongs and making our government more fiscally responsible. I want someone who is going to keep our noses out of other countries businesses and halt our attempts at nation-building. I want someone who will work across the aisle to do what is best for our country and not what is politically expedient. I thought I had that candidate of John McCain.
Being a former Arizonan, I am aware of McCain’s cowboy mentality. He seems to be a man determined to do what is right, not what is political. He bucks the system and works bipartisanly to pass bills that help America. I think he understands the need for a strong and well-equipped military, but would not be the kind of leader that wields military power recklessly. As soon as McCain announced, I joined his campaign. What followed was a big disappointment. Instead of emails that detailed issues and solutions, I started receiving regular pep-rally emails that simply begged for money. I wanted substance and all I got was politics. I fear now that McCain is going the way of Bob Dole– over handled and way too “on message” to be to separate himself from the host of other Republicans doing the same thing.
Disconcerted with the direction of the McCain campaign, I sought out to search for someone who was really looking at radical changes to government. As I dove into the major candidates, I found very little in fresh new ideas for change and that bothered me. I then stumbled on Newt Gingrich’s blog and started reading about his ideas in Transformational Government. His ideas peeked my interest and I checked to see if he had any aspirations at a bid for 2008. It seems that he was carefully considering it, but was waiting until after Labor Day to decide. Ultimately, he said it would depend heavily on whether of not Fred Thomson threw his hat into the ring– which he has.
At some point in the middle of this, I was talking to my brother and he asked me if I had heard about this guy who really seemed to have some grassroots support. He couldn’t remember his name… Ron something or something Ron… a guy with two first names. A quick search on the Internet introduced me to Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas, doctor by trade and former Libertarian presidential candidate (1988). I read his profile on Wikipedia and said hmmm. Then I promptly forgot about him and went back to reading Newt’s book ‘The Art of Transformation’ and sending email questions to John McCain. Becoming quickly dissatisfied with McCain, I was also looking at Fred Thompson.
Everything changed for me two weeks ago when I stumbled on the documentary ‘America: Freedom to Fascism,’ which made me start thinking fundamentally about our government and it’s intrusion into our lives. I had never given the Federal Reserve or its control over our economy any thought. This thought caused me to dig a little deeper and do some more research. This research lead me directly into the Ron Paul camp. I spent quite a few hours watching Ron Paul coverage at FreeMe.tv and my mind is spinning, there are tons of reasons why I am ready to jump feet first into the Ron Paul campaign, but there are many reservations.
The first major issue, is that no one over the age of 25 seems to know who Ron Paul is. His movement is significantly Internet based and encompasses not only children below the voting age, but people from other countries. I watched a funny Ron Paul supporter video that ended with the declaration that they supported Ron Paul and they weren’t even American–how crazy is that? Sadly, it isn’t the candidate that I have problems with, it is his supporters. The majority of his public supporters are “issue-based voters”… something I really detest.
I am not an issue supporter. I will not vote for a candidate because of a position on any specific issue, something that I am afraid that Paul will get labeled with. People will frame him as an extremist candidate who wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade and eliminate the Federal Reserve, IRS, Board of Education and pull us out of the control of the UN. These are things that are part of his expressed desire, but there is a reason for it, that go far beyond the issues themselves. Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist, and all of his ideas stem from the overreach of government beyond their constitutional limits. I am definitely in line with his ideas, but I think that the grassroots nature of his campaign prevents his image from being managed. I think there is almost no way to prevent him from being portrayed as a cracked pot.
Ron Paul is for overturning Roe vs. Wade, something that can be twisted and turned to opponents favor, but while he advocates the overturn, he doesn’t stand for the elimination of abortion, he believes that is a State’s right to decide if it supports or not… what he is against is the Federal support of abortions. As a man who personally delivered over 4,000 babies, he is an advocate for the unborn. I am all for a federal repeal of Roe vs. Wade as long as people have the right to decide for themselves by influencing their state governments to reflect the will of the people or that of Sate law. Decoupling us from the federal teat and allowing us to govern ourselves more locally.
It is so easy for us to simply go for what is popular or trendy, I think that the democrats will probably choose their candidate based on what is trendy… probably going for Hillary of Barack because of their gender or skin color. What candidate is a candidate of change? Everyone is talking about change, but who actually has radical ideas that will move our country forward, improve our liberties and allow us the greatest opportunity for personal advancement. Many of the democratic candidates have ideas about reform that require more government. Health care and retirement… increasing the entitlements of our country and leading us into deeper and deeper debt.
If you have no idea who Ron Paul is, I encourage you to Google him and research his ideas for yourself. I think he is the most reasonable and practical candidate out there. Sure there are plenty of good men and women out there who are seeking to lead our country, but how deep are their fundamentals? How much new government would their policies create? How much do you know about these people really? It is way to easy to rest on celebrity, to go for a candidate that makes us feel good about ourselves, but will choices based on that rationality move us forward? I can’t say I have come to a conclusion yet, the good thing is that I have some time to research the issues more. My question to you is, is your candidate causing you to explore issues, or does their rhetoric simply lull you to sleep, convincing you that everything will be OK when they get to office. I personally lean toward the candidates that cause me to ask the most serious questions and lead me to understand the depth of my ignorance.
