Tired of being nannied
Tuesday, 27 November 2007 | 64 readers so far
The Washington Post weighs in on Ron Paul:
When a fierce Republican foe of the wars on drugs and terrorism is able, without really trying, to pull in a record haul of campaign cash on a day dedicated to an attempted regicide, it’s clear that a new and potentially transformative force is growing in American politics.
That force is less about Paul than about the movement that has erupted around him — and the much larger subset of Americans who are increasingly disillusioned with the two major political parties’ soft consensus on making government ever more intrusive at all levels, whether it’s listening to phone calls without a warrant, imposing fines of half a million dollars for broadcast “obscenities” or jailing grandmothers for buying prescribed marijuana from legal dispensaries.
I am paying attention to how the guy is doing, and my wife and I have donated money. We’ll give some more before this election cycle is over.
Meanwhile, I try to keep a good sense of humor when I hear the Fox News bimbette of the day mocking my choice. After all, I am just as merciless in mocking all the “mainstream” candidates. And my guy has more money in the bank. You might have noticed his campaign commercials lately on Fox or one of the other talking head channels.
Why does he appeal? Ron Paul is the only guy who is promising less nannying, not more. Some of us want to feel as if we still make the important choices in life. Some of us want to be free of the banality of bureaucrats, or at least to be pestered less often and less harshly by the do-gooders who want to make us safe, dumb, fat and happy from cradle to crave all at someone else’s expense.
1 November 28th, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Oliver says:
I’m discovering your blog today. I’m a Libertarian and a Ron Paul fan. I actually met him. He took the time to talk to me, is very genuine, knowledgeable and no B/S. He’s not in the race for power but to truly defend his ideals. This is really refreshing.
2 November 28th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Trevor says:
Thanks for your thoughtful comment Oliver. Let’s see where this goes!
3 December 2nd, 2007 at 2:34 am
Kitanis says:
I have found the Ron Paul debate to be interesting..
Over at Free Republic.com, he is absolutely hated because of his Libertarian roots and anyone who mentions him in discussion is bashed for it.. Which I absolutely love. It proves to me that he is making a effect on conservative ranks and maybe getting people to think on their own for once instead of listening to the mainstream opinion fest on the news feeds.
There might be hope in these elections.. at least a glimmer
4 December 6th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Dwana says:
Ron Paul? No way! As I’ve said before he’s a card carrying Blame America Firster. He not only doesn’t believe in fighting our enemies, he denies we have enemies, explaining Islamic terrorism as a result of our foreign policy, not the terrorists’ beliefs. On this issue Paul is no better than the “anti-war”, hate America Left. If we’d just retreat behind our oceans, sell out the Jews, and let our Muslims practice Sharia Law in their mosques and communities all would be right with the world. I’m FOR less government intrusion, less nannying, and more freedom and personal responsibility but not from a candidate who believes that America is the cause of all the evil in the world.
5 December 9th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Oliver says:
I don’t think Ron Paul doesn’t believe we have enemies but his point is valuable. The more you tell people what to do, the more enemies you will create. Ask the French and the British with their colonies. It’s rocket science: it’s human behavior proven by history. Even now, they’re paying the price with muslim immigrants who despise their culture.
It doesn’t mean Ron Paul wouldn’t defend the country if it’s attacked.
6 December 15th, 2007 at 3:18 am
Dwana says:
Ron Paul will defend America if she’s attacked? C’mon, Oliver! America WAS attacked on September 11, 2001, remember that? And the only “defense” I’ve heard from Paul is to blame the attack on America’s foreign policy. What’s not rocket science is that refusing to confront one’s enemies only emboldens them.
Oliver, if we’re creating enemies by “tell[ing] people what to do” then please explain why the Muslims were trying to conquer Europe in the 17th century, getting as far as Vienna where they were finally stopped by Polish king Jan Sobieski on that OTHER September 11, in 1683? There was no Iraq War, no state of Israel and no United States to support either, back then. So what was the Muslims’ excuse? And don’t say revenge for the Crusades.
The Crusades, which the West lost, had been over for approximately 400 years when the Muslim Turks tried to conquer the Austrian capital. Besides, the Muslims also attacked Europe BEFORE the Crusades, conquering Spain in the 7th century and attempting to conquer France, and the rest of Christendom, in the 8th century before being smashed by Charles Martel, the grandfather of Charlemagne, at the Battle of Tours in 732. Again, there was no America around to upset the Muslims. And here’s some more food for thought, Oliver.
If America’s foreign policy is the problem, why is there Islamic terrorism in Thailand, Indonesia, and the Phillipines? Do those countries support Israel? Did they invade Iraq?
Blaming America for the resurgence of violent jihad is just a way for Ron Paul and those like him to avoid dealing with reality. By telling themselves and others that it’s all America’s fault they absolve themselves of any responsibility to defend their values and their freedom, thereby preserving “peace”. Can you say Neville Chamberlain? I knew you could. And the path being trod by Paul and his ilk will have the same result as the one Chamberlain shamelessly walked more than 60 years ago. That old quotation is right: those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
7 December 16th, 2007 at 7:17 pm
RevJim says:
I am a Libertarian, and I think it’s good that Ron Paul is creating a dialog against the Nanny State, but I can neirther support a politician who advocates placating tyrants, nor could I call anyone who would support tyranny a Libertarian, And that is exactly what Ron Paul would do by waiting until the Sears Tower was toppled.
I’m not saying we need a war to influence regime change, but Paul’s isolationist policies would give credibility to tyrants who are sworn enemies of their own people and sworn enemies of the United States.
8 December 17th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Trevor says:
I don’t think Paul is an isolationist. Rather, he is a non-interventionist. What we have to weigh here is which will get us first, problems at home or problems away from home. I believe problems at home will destroy us faster the external threats and that is why I support Ron Paul. The rest of them are just business as usual and will grow government one direction or another.
I have had enough of the Feds.
9 December 18th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
the will to exist - a deist transhumanist libertarian minarchist citizen soldier’s blog says:
Trevor on Tired of being nannied I don’t think Paul is an isolationist. Rather, he is a non-interv …RevJim on Tired of being nannied I am a Libertarian, and I think it’s good that Ron Paul is creati …Dwanaon Tired of being nannied Ron Paul will defend America if she’s attacked? C’mon, Oliver! …Oliver on Tired of being nannied I don’t think Ron Paul doesn’t believe we have enemies but his po …suprdav
10 January 13th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Seane-Anna says:
Trevor, “problems at home” didn’t knock down the Twin Towers.