First off, I'm not a libertarian; I'm best described as a centrist, a mix of classical liberal (partially libertarian) and progressive. Nonetheless, I still attended Ron Paul's political rally on Friday night at the University of Houston. While I agree on more or less half of what he says, I found out three things by attending last night: why he appeals to the point where his supporters are rabid and would damn near defend him to the death, how he is actually similar to Barack Obama despite being on the opposite end of the political spectrum, and why I would most likely not vote for him in the general election.
Roughly 3,000 people showed up from my observational count at the Hoffeinz Pavillion. While there were some news stories on the event, the University of Houston did not promote it at all, which was surprising, considering that UH school itself made note of when former President Bill Clinton and current First Lady Michelle Obama came to UH to campaign for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, respectively. For both events, the turn out was far larger -- if you're told otherwise, its an exaggeration. Nonetheless, the 3,000 that did show up were excited, pumped, and quite vocal. They undoubtedly sounded like a crowd that was twice the size.
I also want note the diversity of the crowd as well. The University of Houston is a diverse school and despite the fact that I only expect that maybe 1500 to 2000 of those in attendance were actually current University of Houston students like myself, it wasn't an all white Tea Party event like most of Paul's detractors would think it be.
The festivities opened up with Ron Paul's oldest son, Ronnie, introducing the family to the audience, which included his mother (Ron Paul's wife), his wife, and two of his children. He then introduced a family friend from Lake Jackson, who is a tenor. He sang a beautiful rendition of America the Beautiful that got a well deserved thunderous ovation from the crowd.
Ron Paul took to the podium a little bit after 7PM after being introduced by the CEO of Youth for Ron Paul at the University of Houston. He did not really say anything new as compared to what you've already heard about him -- he discussed the path that government has taken in the past century to infringe on civil liberties and liberty in general, he railed against an aggressive and interventionist foreign policy, he attacked the welfare state and entitlement spending, and he espoused the virtues of a strict interpretation of the Constitution. On economics, it was more of the same -- criticizing the neoclassical synthesis (mainstream economics in general), the liberty promise of the free markets, the dangers of loose credit, and advocacy of the gold standard. He wrapped up a little bit before 8PM.
I finally got the grasp on Ron Paul's appeal, and while it may be complex to some, it really is not. It's one part rooted in pragmatism and another part that's rooted in a general philosophical shift: the pragmatism comes from the idea that the most practical approach to bring the United States government back to fiscal health is to "return" government to its original intended function as spelled out in the Constitution; the philosophical shift that is taking place is that the United States government does not function as the Founding Fathers envisioned instead of the United States government just not functioning properly at all. Both of those factors combined together lead towards support for a government that permits a truly free society and protects the rights, liberties, and privacy of the individual through less intrusive government and a smaller government in size -- it's what's many are yearning for and that's what they look to Ron Paul to deliver.
His speeches are similar to collegiate lectures and he has an "every man" presence. Paul wore a simple polo and blue jeans at the rally, and while every presidential candidate dresses down, the lack of a significant media presence gives credence to the fact that he's not the grandstanding, photo-op type. In other words, he is the politician that actually bucks the politician archetype; and not only people are riveted and drawn to it, it gives people comfort. If you ask anybody that is a die hard Ron Paul supporter, they may tell you that he feels like a college professor, teacher, grandfather, or uncle to them -- he brings that much comfort to his supporters.
Paul is extremely similar to Barack Obama and not because they both appeal to younger voters. Both of them unfortunately foster an unrealistic expectation amongst their supporters to be bigger than the divisive national political climate that causes paralysis and dysfunction in Washington. The high, unrealistic expectations and the subsequent let down torched Obama's popularity politically and it would undoubtedly do the same to Paul, as he would have to either make the Faustian deal to become the strong-armed President with an executive branch on steroids he that so staunchly derides or basically leave Congress to run the United States, who he would probably not work well with. The reality is this: Paul would never unilaterally be able to produce a surplus in 3 years. That's abhorrently delusional as he would never have the cooperation of what will most likely be a Democratic-controlled Congress towards the middle of his first term if he wins the general election. If the United States operated on a European parliament-style legislative structure, then I'd probably buy that.
Paul discussed how he would use Executive Orders to reverse other "bad" Executive Orders (which, for the record, actually comes from a loose interpretation of a vague grant of this power in Article I, Section 1, Clause 1 and Article II, Section 3, Clause 4) -- moves, that if proven unpopular -- would ultimately severely damage, if not destroy, the purported Libertarian Revolution. It goes back to the real underlying economic problem that economists are generally screaming about at the top of their lungs and most politicians, including Paul and Obama are ignoring -- it's not necessarily the size of government, it's not necessarily the government regulation, it's not necessarily taxes, and it's not necessarily government economic policy (even though they all play a role); it's more than anything the lack of stability and coherent direction in government. Paul and his supporters would argue then that concern would be relatively resolved by moving government out of the economic arena; this conclusion is false. This was the same conclusion reached by the supply-side economists of the 1980s and by the 1990s and 2000s outsourcing caused labor competition to increase and stymied wages -- which was actually something that Adam Smith, the king of lassiez-faire economics, actually argued in his magnum opus The Wealth of Nations. Similar to Obama, the "taking-matters-into-your-own-hands" approach may invigorate supporters, however, it may alienate independent voters who would see that as adding to Washington's unstable aura.
While I agree on Paul on quite a few things, yet not necessarily his conclusions, I came to realize I could not vote for him in the general election. While, in truth, Obama is not really that much better of a candidate (he had the chance to become the first real progressive President since Theodore Roosevelt, however, poorly played his political cards and often times proved too willing to restrict civil liberties and infringe on privacy), I learned from Obama's first term that no matter how much a candidate says that they will be bigger than the Washington political climate and get results, if that candidate gets elected and he or she cannot aptly put together an offensive against an opposing party's caricature, the candidate's support will suffer and legislative success will be stymied. Obama's issues, more than anything, result from his inability to deliver on the extremely high expectations that were set upon him in 2008.
The expectations would be the same, if not higher for Paul; if he is elected, he would be seen someone that is "America's savior". Unfortunately, Paul would exacerbate the dysfunctional Washington climate; that may excite some, but overall it is not good for business.
Intellectual differences within his own party, not to mention the differences against the Democratic Party, would undoubtedly torch a lot of the things he would aim for in terms of doing. Paul would very similar to Calvin Coolidge in his approach in governing (granted Coolidge was quieter), and while it would have been acceptable in the Jazz Age, wouldn't be vastly accepted in today's world, if at all. Democrats would support his anti-war stance and defense of civil liberties and civil rights, but would rail against his insistence on the erosion of the welfare state, the elimination some government departments, and, especially amongst black and Latino Democrats, restraint against aggressive government intervention to protect civil rights; Republicans would support his anti-tax stance and free-market stance, yet when it comes to social conservatism, strong military neoconservative nationalism, and completely dismantling government involvement in the economy, he will undoubtedly find resistance and would have a difficult time uniting a fairly fractured Republican Party.
So I'm going to sit back and just wait until a centrist -- someone that believes that government should put civil liberties and civil rights first; someone that believes in smart, proactive economic investment policy; someone that believes in justified war and not wars to extend outdated American unilateralism; and someone that believes that the welfare state does has some merit. I like Paul because he makes people think; however, Paul is not the best candidate for me, at least in terms of my personal political alignment; Huntsman was probably the closest to it of all the candidates that entered in for 2012. I don't really have a candidate that I will have unwavering support for this election, however, I wish good luck to all those involved.
Showing posts with label conservatism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservatism. Show all posts
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Emotional Politics and the Real Political Enemy of Everyday Americans
Once upon a time, when the United States was in its most nascent form, it was largely reason, not emotion, that dominated American politics. The greatest illustration of this political exercise was indeed the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which established the current U.S. Constitution, where delegates and leaders convened from across the country for one predominant reason, amongst others: the Articles of Confederation was simply not working and a grossly ineffective form of government for the United States.
I want to note something before I go any further -- when I say governing by reason, I mean this as governing with critical thinking and making decisions due a conclusion brought on by critical thought, as opposed to a pure emotional reactionary form of governing. "Emotional governing", as what I call it (though someone may have already beat me to the punch with that terminology) is needless to say, dangerous. More on this shortly.
It's actually galvanizing what governance based on reason, not emotion could actually accomplish. Another example -- which this time I am going to go outside of the United States -- would be Canada's debt crisis of the early 1990s, which was the ultimate result of government expenditure was disproportionate to not only what the Canadian government could afford, but what the national tax base and what the provinces could truly flip the bill for. Chretien's Liberal Party adopted what was then a revolutionary concept of Canada's stalwart left-leaning party: fiscal conservatism. This approach was based on reason, not emotion -- the ruling party was willing to put aside ideology for the greater good for an entire country. If the Democratic Party and the Republican Party did the exact same thing (oh, you know "compromise"), then I think there would be widespread wagers across the country on mutually assured, doomsday destruction.
Fine, fine, maybe that was a little bit too much of hyperbole. Yet, one thing that concerns me, and I'm seeing this on both sides of the ideological divide, that emotional gratification, with using political ideology as a front, has been the driving force of American politics for the past century plus.
Now, some good has come out of emotional governance. Declared wars -- such as the First and Second World Wars (especially the latter with Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941) -- were emotional statements. Government moves during the Civil Rights Era was a product of an emotional crusade (amongst other things, notoriously), because the more antagonistic state governments were making their own emotional stand. Conversely, however, there are scores of other examples where bad has emerged from emotional governance -- Jim Crow laws, gay marriage bans, undeclared wars -- just to name a few.
However, don't get me wrong, this is not intended to be a history lesson. This is intended to be a contemporary lesson. Here we are, with another election being tagged "the most important election of our generation", with just about every single political faction in this country looking to make an emotional statement on things such as economic inequality, social inequality, nationalism, "American values", and other issues, real and purported. So here we are, with tenured politicians from the left and right expressing themselves to voters as "saviors", "rescuers", and "enlightened individuals". This is disgusting and disturbing politics. Sure, there may be some good of it, such as pushing us to critically think about some issues, however, we're steered into an emotional response, instead of a response derived from reason. Let's look at it:
However, the biggest political enemy that everyday Americans have is not the politicians...it's everyday Americans. How, you ask?
By playing right along with emotional driven politics too many times of the time.
I want to note something before I go any further -- when I say governing by reason, I mean this as governing with critical thinking and making decisions due a conclusion brought on by critical thought, as opposed to a pure emotional reactionary form of governing. "Emotional governing", as what I call it (though someone may have already beat me to the punch with that terminology) is needless to say, dangerous. More on this shortly.
It's actually galvanizing what governance based on reason, not emotion could actually accomplish. Another example -- which this time I am going to go outside of the United States -- would be Canada's debt crisis of the early 1990s, which was the ultimate result of government expenditure was disproportionate to not only what the Canadian government could afford, but what the national tax base and what the provinces could truly flip the bill for. Chretien's Liberal Party adopted what was then a revolutionary concept of Canada's stalwart left-leaning party: fiscal conservatism. This approach was based on reason, not emotion -- the ruling party was willing to put aside ideology for the greater good for an entire country. If the Democratic Party and the Republican Party did the exact same thing (oh, you know "compromise"), then I think there would be widespread wagers across the country on mutually assured, doomsday destruction.
Fine, fine, maybe that was a little bit too much of hyperbole. Yet, one thing that concerns me, and I'm seeing this on both sides of the ideological divide, that emotional gratification, with using political ideology as a front, has been the driving force of American politics for the past century plus.
Now, some good has come out of emotional governance. Declared wars -- such as the First and Second World Wars (especially the latter with Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941) -- were emotional statements. Government moves during the Civil Rights Era was a product of an emotional crusade (amongst other things, notoriously), because the more antagonistic state governments were making their own emotional stand. Conversely, however, there are scores of other examples where bad has emerged from emotional governance -- Jim Crow laws, gay marriage bans, undeclared wars -- just to name a few.
However, don't get me wrong, this is not intended to be a history lesson. This is intended to be a contemporary lesson. Here we are, with another election being tagged "the most important election of our generation", with just about every single political faction in this country looking to make an emotional statement on things such as economic inequality, social inequality, nationalism, "American values", and other issues, real and purported. So here we are, with tenured politicians from the left and right expressing themselves to voters as "saviors", "rescuers", and "enlightened individuals". This is disgusting and disturbing politics. Sure, there may be some good of it, such as pushing us to critically think about some issues, however, we're steered into an emotional response, instead of a response derived from reason. Let's look at it:
- There's the end of American unilateralism. We don't critically address it, but we panic over it -- all the while at the same time cry that other countries must strive for greater self-sufficiency and follow "America's example". Uh...
- There's the fact that financial system collapsed in 2008, and yet while I am in favor of Keynesian principles, it's fairly clear that both the Bush administration and the Obama administration acted on emotion and emotion alone.
- The health care bill might just be the biggest emotional statement of the past 25 years politically -- on both sides of the aisle.
- Leaders be damned if they would even critically look at the fact that the deficit is more of an issue with revenue than it is with spending, brought to us in part by clusterfuck tax code.
- There's no legitimate, secular reason from banning gay marriage. Gay marriage bans, and legalization, may be the greatest social emotional statements of the 21st century.
- The Republican presidential nomination race has degraded into a caricature of post-truth politics (Romney), outright demagoguery (Santorum), elitism (Paul), and hypocrisy (Gingrich).
- The Democratic Party, for the past four decades the alleged defenders of individual rights, stood by idly with NDAA.
- The Republican Party and Democratic Party do more to obstruct each other than to find solutions to alleged problems.
However, the biggest political enemy that everyday Americans have is not the politicians...it's everyday Americans. How, you ask?
By playing right along with emotional driven politics too many times of the time.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
How Antipathy Has Fueled - and Will Doom - the Republican Party
I attended a political lecture given by William Galston tonight here at the University of Houston. Dr. Galston is a former public policy advisor to former President Bill Clinton and a noted progressive.
In one of his responses in the question-and-answering session after the lecture, he mentioned about the feelings of public antipathy, especially amongst the blue collar sector, that now harbor a resentment towards government and social programs. Moreover, he also noted that in the past half century, Americans have went from "trusting government too much" to "not trusting government at all". He later answered another question after the question-and-answering session about the Tea Party, noting that the Tea Party movement was largely fueled by antipathy and antipathy can go a long way in carrying a political message.
Throughout history it has been proven that antipathy fueled movements may last as long as desired but don't really yield the results desired. The two most recent antipathy movements -- the Tea Party Movement and Occupy Wall Street -- are largely still ongoing in spirit, yet neither movement had a concrete agenda that could lead to significant, implemented change. Considering this post is about the Republican Party, I'll make a comment on the Tea Party: yes, I'm well aware that they talked about being anti-tax, anti-social programs, robust fiscal restraint, and anti-government -- but the Tea Party has yet to accomplish anything relatively significant, except to become the most vocal sect of a political party since the Dixiecrats of the mid 20th century.
Three antipathy movements are fueling Republican discourse at the moment: the relationship between government and the economy, which runs Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich's engines; the relationship between government and society, which powers Rick Santorum's campaign; and an overall disgust with the government, which pushes Ron Paul along. What these movements are causing is deep rifts within the GOP. Granted, I'm well aware that all four candidates have somewhat put out plans to "get America back on track". The only issue is that while all four candidates have plans that undoubtedly address what is pissing people off at the moment, none of them are adequately sustainable.
Because of these antipathy movements, all four candidates are guilty of fostering unrealistic viewpoints of how the current issues facing the United States can be and should be resolved. In addition, all four candidates are dangerously guilty of promoting what they can and their policies can actually do about it.
Here's the reality: technological advancement, coupled with globalization, has increased competition for labor. Wages have stagnated because there's more people competing for jobs -- this time on a global scale. Wealth, increasingly, is transitioning from property to financial capital. Health care is expensive because of how medicine is practiced. The fiscal woes facing various states and governments is less about spending and more about inadequate revenue. The tax system has issues not because people are paying too much in taxes but because the current tax code keeps getting structured to shrink the paying tax base. American values are not on the decline; Americans are becoming more aware that if someone's personal choice does not affect them directly, then their rights shouldn't be infringed on. There's no such thing as a war against religion, but a realization that government is to be religiously neutral.
However, all four candidates are playing on antipathy felt by their constituencies. That should be expected and that is indeed part of -- for a lack of a better word -- "good" campaigning. As a consequence, especially with Ron Paul appealing to younger voters and voters that generally lean to the center-left, the Republican Party has diversified and within that diversification, each bloc of voters is pissed about something different and the aims of every bloc of voters are not universal.
Of course, the idea is that the unifying goal should be to vote President Obama out of office -- the underbelly of that is whatever candidate that wins the nomination will be clueless as to how to properly address and properly accept this new Republican diversity. If you need evidence: there's a reason why the Republican Party didn't accept Romney's moderate position and forced the former Massachusetts governor to project himself as a conservative; there's a reason why the Republican Party rejected the Internet-based and youth movement fueled by Paul's candidacy; and there's a reason why the GOP is still desperate to find the next Reagan, even entertaining candidates that have had ethics issues (Gingrich) and was embarrassed in their last election (Santorum in 2006). As much as the Republican Party and their supporters do not want to admit it -- there's actually more to getting the incumbent out of office. You should have seen that lesson learned with George Bush in 2004 for the Democrats.
So of course, the antipathy streak will continue on in the Republican Party, considering that the schism is inevitable and that schism will end up giving Obama a second term. It will eventually doom the Republican Party. In truth, it dooms any aspiration that the political party has -- either sooner or later.
In one of his responses in the question-and-answering session after the lecture, he mentioned about the feelings of public antipathy, especially amongst the blue collar sector, that now harbor a resentment towards government and social programs. Moreover, he also noted that in the past half century, Americans have went from "trusting government too much" to "not trusting government at all". He later answered another question after the question-and-answering session about the Tea Party, noting that the Tea Party movement was largely fueled by antipathy and antipathy can go a long way in carrying a political message.
Throughout history it has been proven that antipathy fueled movements may last as long as desired but don't really yield the results desired. The two most recent antipathy movements -- the Tea Party Movement and Occupy Wall Street -- are largely still ongoing in spirit, yet neither movement had a concrete agenda that could lead to significant, implemented change. Considering this post is about the Republican Party, I'll make a comment on the Tea Party: yes, I'm well aware that they talked about being anti-tax, anti-social programs, robust fiscal restraint, and anti-government -- but the Tea Party has yet to accomplish anything relatively significant, except to become the most vocal sect of a political party since the Dixiecrats of the mid 20th century.
Three antipathy movements are fueling Republican discourse at the moment: the relationship between government and the economy, which runs Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich's engines; the relationship between government and society, which powers Rick Santorum's campaign; and an overall disgust with the government, which pushes Ron Paul along. What these movements are causing is deep rifts within the GOP. Granted, I'm well aware that all four candidates have somewhat put out plans to "get America back on track". The only issue is that while all four candidates have plans that undoubtedly address what is pissing people off at the moment, none of them are adequately sustainable.
Because of these antipathy movements, all four candidates are guilty of fostering unrealistic viewpoints of how the current issues facing the United States can be and should be resolved. In addition, all four candidates are dangerously guilty of promoting what they can and their policies can actually do about it.
Here's the reality: technological advancement, coupled with globalization, has increased competition for labor. Wages have stagnated because there's more people competing for jobs -- this time on a global scale. Wealth, increasingly, is transitioning from property to financial capital. Health care is expensive because of how medicine is practiced. The fiscal woes facing various states and governments is less about spending and more about inadequate revenue. The tax system has issues not because people are paying too much in taxes but because the current tax code keeps getting structured to shrink the paying tax base. American values are not on the decline; Americans are becoming more aware that if someone's personal choice does not affect them directly, then their rights shouldn't be infringed on. There's no such thing as a war against religion, but a realization that government is to be religiously neutral.
However, all four candidates are playing on antipathy felt by their constituencies. That should be expected and that is indeed part of -- for a lack of a better word -- "good" campaigning. As a consequence, especially with Ron Paul appealing to younger voters and voters that generally lean to the center-left, the Republican Party has diversified and within that diversification, each bloc of voters is pissed about something different and the aims of every bloc of voters are not universal.
Of course, the idea is that the unifying goal should be to vote President Obama out of office -- the underbelly of that is whatever candidate that wins the nomination will be clueless as to how to properly address and properly accept this new Republican diversity. If you need evidence: there's a reason why the Republican Party didn't accept Romney's moderate position and forced the former Massachusetts governor to project himself as a conservative; there's a reason why the Republican Party rejected the Internet-based and youth movement fueled by Paul's candidacy; and there's a reason why the GOP is still desperate to find the next Reagan, even entertaining candidates that have had ethics issues (Gingrich) and was embarrassed in their last election (Santorum in 2006). As much as the Republican Party and their supporters do not want to admit it -- there's actually more to getting the incumbent out of office. You should have seen that lesson learned with George Bush in 2004 for the Democrats.
So of course, the antipathy streak will continue on in the Republican Party, considering that the schism is inevitable and that schism will end up giving Obama a second term. It will eventually doom the Republican Party. In truth, it dooms any aspiration that the political party has -- either sooner or later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)