So, why not Ron Paul for the Republicans? I’ll fully admit that I have not followed the GOP nomination process because I’m not all that interested. My vote for President is almost certainly going to a Democrat in 2008 – for the simple reason that the Bush administration has made such a colossal mess that it’s going to take someone from a different party to clean out the stables, even a little bit.
That disclosure notwithstanding, why isn’t Ron Paul regarded as a top tier candidate? It’s purely anecdotal, but I’ve seen more Ron Paul sites in my neck of the woods than any other Presidential candidates. (Which means, maybe 5 – just not a lot of them up at this point.) From what I’ve read, he’s pretty much a paleo-conservative. He’s a small government kind of guy except when it comes to abortion. He’s anti-immigration, anti-war, and apparently pretty popular on the Internet.
Maybe he’s akin to a Howard Dean of the right – speaking truths that are inconvenient to the Republican establishment. I don’t really see what the Republican front-runners have to offer that Paul doesn’t. Giuliani seems a bit on the fascist side for my tastes (and presumably for anyone who favors limited government) and has all of those inconvenient personal difficulties for someone who wants to take up the mantle of the Family Values Party. Fred Thompson is coming out of the gates looking like he’s asleep at the switch. Mitt Romney has his finger firmly planted in the wind to see which way it’s blowing, and for the Religious Right, I have to think the Mormon thing doesn’t sit especially well.
I don’t know, maybe those who are better informed on the Republican Presidency can provide better information about the dynamics at play here.
Ron Paul is the biggest reason I mourn the current primary process.
I doubt anyone in Indiana will have the chance to vote for him.
There are a lot of Christians that do not support the war or many other Republican issues, but will also not vote for abortion. Ron Paul is their answer, but they won’t have the chance to vote for him. I hope I’m wrong.
Ron Paul might allow too many of the wrong people get equal rights.He just doesnt pass the Republican litmus test.But he certainly is refeshing to listen to.Nothing can compare to a well-educated person with interesting ideas combined with good syntax. We’ve had a vacuum. Whether we agree or not with his ideas isn’t even the issue.
Take a deeper look at Ron Paul and his stances. He’s the good kind of Republican and probably the best available to clean out the stables as you would like to see. He is hated by the entrenched Republican establishment. I don’t join parties, I go for the individual, but many of my Democratic friends are crossing the aisle on this vote. Ron Paul is more appealing to them on the social issues than the Dem candidates. He’s the type to just let you be you without government interference, just be responsible about it. On his abortion views, take into account that he’s a baby doctor. His pro-life stance is very informed and reading some of his writing about the issue made me think about some things in a way that I hadn’t before.
I’m glad to have run across this site. I’ve been a lifelong Hoosier fan but since I don’t live in the state I’ve never paid attention to Indiana politics. You have a lot of good links. I’m right near Iowa City so all I ever hear about is the Hawkeyes and local politicians bickering about bar ordinances and smoke bans. Thanks for the opportunity to run my trap here and by all means give Ron Paul a shot. He is not your average politician.
I’m always shocked that every time we mention Ron Paul on bilerico.com, his supporters come out of the woodwork to comment. Seriously, the only other candidate that inspires that many comments and discussions from supporters is Hillary Clinton.
See also:
Ron Paul web traffic explodes off the charts following campaign raising over $5 million in latest quarter
http://ronpaulnewsblg.blogspot.com/2007/10/ron-paul-website-traffic-explodes.html
Ron Paul Community Website (Ron Paul Video, News, Friends, Blogs, Wiki, RSS Feeds, etc.)
http://ronpaulcommunitywebsite.ning.com/
My biggest problem right now is with the MSM pushing Hillary at us like she is the only possible choice.
Doug, thanks for bringing more attention to his campaign. As the only anti-war candidate on the GOP side and the most credible and legitimate anti-war candidate on either side, I think he will continue to surprise.
A few clarifications:
-It seems more appropriate to label Paul a Libertarian rather than a Paleo-Conservative.
-I’m pretty sure he’s anti-illegal immigration but pro-immigration.
-I’m not sure why one would call him big govt on abortion. If abortion is the taking of a life, then govt action against abortion is akin to a govt role for police or national defense– not exactly “big govt” issues. Beyond that, compared to most Republicans, I think he imagines govt as only a secondary piece of the solution– next to knowledge of basic science and working through cultural change.
“If abortion is the taking of a life”
–Gotta qualify that a little more. The mere fact of life isn’t a protection. (Swat a fly, nothing bad happens to you — perhaps there are some uber-environmentalists out there who would sanctify life to that extent). It has to be a human life. I disagree that a blastocyst is a fully human life — I wouldn’t, for example, want a woman to be subject to a reckless homicide if she did something inattentive during early pregnancy that caused a miscarriage.
The question of whether conception is the moment when sperm and egg turn into a human life entitled to full legal protections is a fundamental difference, and one we’re not likely to resolve any time soon. I’m convinced conception is not that moment and, therefore, from my perspective anti-abortion laws tend to look like bigger government.
In any case, has Ron Paul indicated any preferences with respect to availability of contraception and education about contraception? So many of the anti-abortion types end up looking like they’re anti-sex because, even though they don’t want abortions, they don’t seem that excited about preventing conceptions (except through abstinence).
Of course not, Doug; they are all in favor of as much conception as possible in order to grow cannon-fodder for future foreign wars.
Doug, sure we can be more precise…But the larger point is that depending on one’s understanding of the issue, embracing govt (or not) is a reasonable leap…and doesn’t make one “big govt” any more than a libertarian embracing an appropriate provision of national defense.
I don’t know about his views on contraception and education, but since he’s a libertarian ob-gyn, I’d be shocked if he wasn’t in favor of both.
Manfred, that’s clever…But why have most pro-choice Democrats been into the war until recently– and still lack the ___ to end it?
Anti-abortion as a core belief destroys the Republican party on principle.Until they come to terms with science and prevailing theories on what life is, let them discuss it among themsleves intramurally.Leave the Biblical view for personal meditation.Roe vs Wade is the law of the land and it’s an honest constitutional compromise between individual rights and religious belief.All any candidate needs to say is that he supports Roe vs Wade and that in itself is an abortion regulation law.I’ll be waiting for Ron Paul’s view on this if he is asked. He explains things very well,and is very thoughtful and has come across as sincere and well-meaning.Someone saying he has a ‘pro-life stance’ sends up warning smoke as ‘Pro-life’ is part of the Republican party platform.He will need to clarify his views if becomes a more mainstream candidate.
I’m not totally sure what you are saying Lou. By your juxtaposition of comments about the usual Republican position on abortion and the degree to which Republicans have (or have not) “come to terms with science and revailing theories on what life is”, are you suggesting that there is a final scientific answer to when a fetus becomes human? The answer to that question strikes me as likely to always be rooted in culture. You also seem to suggest that “individual rights” and “religious belief” are inherently in conflict. But a non-state religion can remind us that there things in life which claim a higher loyalty than does the State. Asking a Ron Paul to simply echo to the Supreme Court’s judgment in order to become “mainstream” is a degree of deference to authority I can’t share, particularly when referring to a body which has handed down such “gems” on individual liberty as Korematsu v. United States or Dred Scott.
Paul Thank you for your very good questions.
Science (or Biology) has to be our measuring stick for what is the nature of life,if we are going to pass laws for everyone.There is no process built into religion for modification of views.. Of course both religion and science have cultural biais,but to resolve conflict we need to use the same measuring stick and at least can have discussions and negotiating.Our government and Constitution have a secular origin,and thats the level we should discuss and compromise.. Knowledge is a process,not an absolute value,and values change with time and culture,and they change according to whomever is elected in the case of law making. Science is what we know up to now by observation and theory.That’s not to say that elected people won’t have religious-cultural values,but we surely aren’t going to quote the Bible in our discussions.It’s meaningless even to other Christians who also have a religious background. The relativity of religion comes through which Bible verse we choose as support for which law we want to make.
Cultural values and religious belief depend on the scope of the person.Some people contend that religious values in their particular church are the only true values.If I judge by scientic findings I am forced to accept the scientific process as my evaluator and examine all possibilities,and I may be forced to accept discoveries on the nature of life I didn’t accept before.A true believer is not ecumenical in outlook,and there is no process to make him open to modification of his views.That’s fine if we live that way and teach in our families that way,but doesnt lawmaking require a broader perspective?
Also , there is no conflcit between religion and science.They are two different levels of thinking: religion has a mystical basis and is very personal and science is for the public domain,secular and progressive with the changing times and takes us all through the same process and requires objectivity through an accepted process of evaluated steps.
What Roe vs Wade did was make an arbitary but reasoned determination of viability of the fetus( as I understand the rationale) based on science. Maybe that has changed and maybe there are other interpretations,but the decision is a drawn line between moral values of some and civil rights for others. Scientic method can be a measuring stick for modification not church doctrine.Every person is biased culturally,that’s why an accepted process is necessary,but it is true we can never escape cultural biais. The caveat is that when some people quote Scripture they contend they can’t be biased because God is actually speaking.
What Ron Paul should be asked is what legislation he would propose,if any. But if he says he supports Roe vs Wade we probably can assume he will propose none,and we can go on to other issues.
Paul ,
I obviously have no law background and can’t cite a single case, but I have lived in France for periods of time separated from American culture and English and that does give one a perspective to what logic and cultural biais are .The French contend that only they can be logical because they have all studied Descartes.
Yeah, I don’t understand how, in today’s culture, it seems like many in the pro-life movement also push for abstinence as the only way to prevent pregnancy. Granted, my personal moral belief is that abstinence should be taught. I mean it is the only 100% foolproff way of preventing a pregnancy. But parents (see, this should be taught at home) also need to let their kids know that there are ways of preventing pregnancy from happening (and STD’s). They also need to tell their kids who the resource people are in their community that they can talk to; if they are embarrassed to talk to their parents. My problem with abortion today is that many see it as an alternative form of birth control. The majority of unwanted pregnancies could be prevented if parents were willing to teach both abstinence AND birth control. In other words, parents, tell your kids your values…but remember hormones can overpower all you teach!
Of course…this all assumes that parents are taking an active role in their kids lives….
Bigger government on either side (pro-life or pro-choice) will not solve this problem in America.
I would love to see the day when abortion clinics become a thing of the past, not because of government regulation; but because of better pregnancy prevention.
Lou,
You can’t be serious when you assert that “Science (or Biology) has to be our measuring stick for what is the nature of life, if we are going to pass laws for everyone.” I am totally unaware that the Constitution requires Congress,or the States, to consult science, or economics, or any system of disciplined thought, when it embarks on passing laws.
In our individualistic and capitalistic society pregnancy simply puts many women at a huge competitive disadvantage to men economically. Where prestige attends the accumulation of wealth, many women are placed in an inferior station unless they can control pregnancy, and can gain status through marriage. Add to this the fact that children seem to be a bad investment for parents, and more people are seen as just more competition for scarce resources, and you have a community in which permitting abortion up to the limits of “good taste” will seem principled. While Roe v. Wade may have been cloaked as a “scientific” by its reference to trimesters, its underpinnings were ideological. My take on the holding in Roe v. Wade is in essence, “Get it done ladies before it gets ugly.” (Which probably explains exactly why so much anti-abortion propaganda focuses on making abortion look cruel (i.e. in bad taste).
That said, were the community threatened with extinction I think you would see justifications (rationalizations?) for limiting abortion, or abolishing it altogether, roar back with a vengence.
Either way, both sides will grab at science to rationalize their position because science carries prestige. But neither side is taking its position for scientific reasons.
Doug,
By the way, I think there is a difference between when life begins and when viable life begins. I believe that life begins at conception, but viable life obviously begins much later than that. I came to this belief not out of my religious background, but from biology class at IU. It was only reinforced as I saw the heartbeat of my first son at one month into the pregnancy-well before he could have lived on his own.
Paul,
You hit the nail on the head. Both sides will continue to battle one another out of emotion, and not out of science or reason.
It all goes back to where morality is being taught. Too many people are letting the politicians (and the schools) dictate morality. We need to teach our children our values at home; whatever those values may be for you and your family. This is not an all-or-nothing situation. There is no easy fix to changing the “unwanted” pregnancy rate in our state. I hope and pray that one day abortions will be rarely performed, not because they are made illegal; but because the “need” is no longer there.
Paul,
If not biology and science to determine fetal viability, then, what? Roe vs Wade can be characterized many ways,but taken at face value it’s simply a process to build laws to regulate abortion.I agree that any legislation has an underpining of idealogy. That’s to be assumed.
Yes, making abortion look cruel is a tactic and that motivates people.Making it look easy is also a tactic.Sure, some people may choose abortion as an alternative to birth control.But how can we ‘poll’ that to see to what extent it is true?I think it’s one of those emotional red herrings thrown in. People are free agents,but are laws made only for a minority who would think that way? There are different levels of intrigue always going on in all law making.
I also agree that both sides, pro-abortion and anti-abortion, use science because science carries prestige.(But using Scripture would eventually burn everyone.) That’s probably how the law making system works best,choosing prestigious evidence.I think you point out well how law making is such an involved below-the-surface process,including those who see morality as the motive for action,and why we all get so cyncial with our democratic process.We look for purity of thought and can’t find it.But it probably wouldn’t work ‘pure’,would it?
Interesting conversation. To add a few facts to the mix, in 2005 and 2007 Ron Paul has introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which was never passed. To summarize, the bill:
Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term “person” shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each State has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
Amends the Federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.
Makes this Act applicable to any case pending on the date of enactment.
The above is from the Congressional Record. So that makes it pretty clear what his stance is on abortion, doesn’t it? He would and has introduced legislation that would negate Roe v. Wade. That’s assuming that someone somewhere did not find a way to get it challenged in federal court, despite the ban in the legislation itself (and for a Constitutionalist, how does he get off banning a federal court from hearing a case??? This seems out of character). He supposedly has also introduced Constitutional amendments that would have the same result. To me, this stance points to an inconsistency – number one, that he does not respect the balance of powers provided in the Constitution by the federal courts. Number two, that he would uphold right to privacy except as the courts decided that it applied to women and their private medical concerns. Why is it that he would introduct legislation to protect your banking records from being accessed without your express consent, but would leave such protections to my medical privacy up to the state? He says that the federal courts had no constitutional basis, but there was indeed one – a woman’s right to privacy in her medical decision and records, which are the only things that could provide evidence against a woman who has decided to have an abortion in a state where it is banned. I would love to be able to vote for Ron Paul, but as a woman of child-bearing age, this is a huge problem for me. You men are talking about it, but would not be directly affected by it. I could be if such a bill or Constitutional amendment passed. Other than this (huge) issue, I am a Democrat who would love to vote for this candidate. I just can’t get behind him on this issue.
Regarding contraception, Ron Paul introduced HR 1905, which is summarized by Congressional records as:
Taxpayers’ Freedom of Conscience Act of 2007 – Prohibits a federal official from expending federal funds for any foreign or domestic population control or population planning program or family planning activity (including any abortion procedure).
I would say that he is anti-abortion and anti-contraception.
well, he is against the federal government subsidizing ANY programs with tax payers money