Why Ron Paul Supporters are so Annoying

Maybe you've seen them clogging your news feed with constant links, flooding discussion boards and online polls, proudly displaying the bumper sticker, or just anxious and eager to preach about their man, but wherever or however you know them, you probably know a Ron Paul person.

Certainly every politician has their contingent of passionate supporters, people willing to take a bullet for their candidate of choice, but Ron Paul people have got to be some of the most ubiquitous, vocal, and yes, annoying people ever.  Don't get me wrong, when I say "they" are that way, I really mean "we".  I'm not ashamed to declare my support for Dr. Paul, and I've been told by friends and family that I may be obsessed, or have an idol problem.  I don't see it that way.  I definitely value many things more than politics, and I don't woship the man, but I do respect him.

Why does he earn my respect?  And why are we "Ron Paul nuts" the way we are?  Perhaps you've concluded that he, Ron Paul, and his supporters are just plain crazy, and you haven't given it a second thought.  But if you look more closely, there's something so incongruous about this man of clarity and conciseness, that you may wonder.   Why does this 76 year old man receive so much support from the young, whether on college campuses or on the internet?  He is one of only two presidential aspirants to have actually served in the military, yet is an avowed non-interventionist, saying "we accomplish much more in peace than we do in war."  He proposes cuts to military spending and closing bases around the world, argues against the current wars, and is certifiably the most anti-war of all the candidates, yet receives the most money from active duty military.  How is it?  I would like to try to explain what makes his supporters tick, at least from my perspective. 

Ron Paul supporters are usually very vocal about him for one simple reason:  If they don't talk about him, no one else will.  You likely won't hear his name mentioned on the news or in major papers and magazines as a "top-tier" candidate.  If he is mentioned at all, it will be with the caveat that he is 'unelectable' or that 'he has a passionate, but small following'.  Ron Paul has polled consistently above others in the race who have received much more air time.  Tim Pawlenty, who has now ended his campaign, and former governor of Utah Jon Huntsman are two notable examples.  When Ron Paul took second, trailing by less than one percent, at the Iowa straw poll last weekend, one headline read, "Michele Bachmann wins Ames Straw Poll, Tim Pawlenty gets third."  Some may believe that a benevolent and wise media should do our vetting for us, picking the preferred candidates and leaving out the electoral dross.  I don't think that's how it should work.  Let the people decide who is 'electable' by voting for and electing that person.

Ron Paul asks supporters and detractors alike to bring some background knowledge to the equation.  When he talks about quantitative easing, he assumes you know what that means.  He expects you to follow along when using phrases like, "monetizing the debt" or  "liquidating malinvestment."  You should know what America did in Iran in 1953, or what happened in Beirut in 1983.  Ron Paul prefers substantive debate to monosyllabic slogans.  He challenges his supporters to dig a little deeper, read a little more, and I believe they appreciate the challenge.

Some of the fervency has to do with his near prophetic warnings about the bursting of the housing bubble and coming economic collapse as he ran in 2008.  It could be his humble and reserved nature.  Perhaps it is the fact he isn't very telegenic, and doesn't have the polished style of some of his competitors, but just seems to be telling the truth.  I don't know all the reasons for the feverish support he receives but maybe he says it best.  "I have my shortcomings, but the message has no shortcomings.  The message of liberty is powerful."

I encourage you to learn about Ron Paul and what he believes, and not just from what you hear.  If you don't come away always agreeing with him, you will at least have developed a measure of respect.

Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, and the Politics of Sameness

There's a statement I've heard recently that perplexes me, and gives me pause on a couple of levels.  The statement goes something like this:  "Barack Obama is destroying our nation's economy and working to dramatically change the nature of our government."  The first thing that bothers me is, assuming the above is true, is that we have allowed the Executive branch to become so powerful that we believe a single person can "destroy" or "ruin" a nation that has been around for two hundred plus years in a couple dozen months.  I've heard similar remarks about previous presidents.  Maybe, instead of looking for an all-knowing candidate with whom we always agree, we should reduce the power of the office so one person can only do so much damage, but I'd like to say more on that another time.

The second part about this statement that bothers me is usually what follows.  The remark about Obama is continued with "and that's why we need Mitt Romney (or someone like him) as President."  Why does that bother me?  Because saying Mitt Romney is the cure to the problems caused by Obama presupposes something I find hard to believe, namely, that they are actually different in any substantial way.

But they are completely different, you might protest.  Hear me out on this as we examine some of the similarities.

Let's start with the obvious, their respective views on health care.  Both the health care plan credited to Mitt Romney and the Affordable Care Act signed by President Obama contain an individual mandate.  Romney argues that what he did was at the state level so it's entirely different, but I think the principles are the same.  Both believe, that the government, at some level, state or federal, can require people to purchase services from a private organization.

When it comes to government involvement in the economy both supported the bailout of the banks, or TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program).  Romney now says while he supported the idea, he didn't like how the money was distributed.  The principle is that government money being given to poorly run businesses is okay, as long as it's done 'responsibly.'  (As an interesting quid pro quo side note, Wall street millionaires are big donors to Romney's campaign.)

Obama has been criticized recently as being in violation of the War Powers Resolution for failing to receive Congressional authority for continued action in Libya.  He contends that it does not apply, as the action is 'limited in scope.'  I guess that makes sense, if you change the meaning of words like 'war' and 'approval'.  When asked in 2008 if he would need Congressional authority to take the country to war, Mitt Romney responded, "You sit down with your attorneys, and [they] tell you what to do, but obviously the President of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States."  Although both the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution are explicitly clear on the matter, maybe Mitt could sit down and talk about it with an attorney, perhaps a Constitutional lawyer, like Barack Obama.

I could continue with how both the President and Mitt Romney have defended Ben Bernanke and upheld or ignored the policies of the Federal Reserve.  There are other similarities, but my point is this:  why don't we really have a choice?  With Obama as the incumbent and Mitt Romney as the media anointed front runner, what are they who believe government is headed in the wrong direction to do?  The size of government has grown.  The debt has grown.  American involvement oversees is constantly increasing.  'Mainstream' candidates have done nothing to slow or stop either.  Here's the problem, better than I can say it:

Fundamental questions...are off the table in our mainstream media, which focuses our attention on trivialities and phony debates as we march toward oblivion.  This is the deadening consensus that crosses party lines, that dominates our major media, and that is strangling the liberty and prosperity that were once the birthright of Americans. Dissenters who tell their fellow citizens what is really going on are subject to smear campaigns that, like clockwork, are aimed at the political heretic. Truth is treason in the empire of lies.¹

To conclude, I'm not saying don't vote for Obama or Romney.  Just don't vote for them expecting anything to change.  If you think America is fine, let's stay the course.  Or maybe, just maybe, it's high time to engage in some treasonous truth.




1- Paul, Ron.  The Revolution:  A Manifesto  Grand Central Publishing, 2008.

The Church, Immigration, and the Wrong Side of the Fence

I share the thoughts that follow only because I hope it might be helpful to someone else.

A little over a month ago, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed a group of immigration bills into law.  Definitely the most notable and controversial was HB 116, that includes a guest worker program for those not here legally.  I must admit that I wasn't thrilled.  My main issue with the whole thing was that even the Legislature's attorneys admitted there were some Constitutional problems with the new laws.  I felt completely satisfied in my disregard for the bills except for one small problem; one of the local members of the community there to support the signing was Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, David H. Burton.  When questioned by the media for the Church's position on the bills, he said, "We feel that the Legislature has done an incredible job on a very complex issue".

At this point, I had to do some mental gymnastics: well, I didn't hear him say the Church supports HB 116 specifically, I thought.  Another, more insidious thought (I'm ashamed to admit this one), came to my mind.  It was just Bishop Burton.  If it were really important to the Church, it probably would have been one of the Apostles, or even a member of the First Presidency, so I think I'm okay to disagree on this little issue.

Now, let me explain. I've always had an interest in politics and some strong opinions to go along with that interest.  I'd also like to think I've always at least tried to be in line with the teachings and doctrines of the Church.  I believe the fifteen men called to be Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, are indeed exactly that.  While I often fail to follow their guidance, I'm grateful for their words.  But now I had a problem.  What I believed politically did not agree what I seemed to be hearing from my spiritual leaders.  If you've ever had a similar experience, you may be familiar with the knot in your stomach that results when two of your strongly held beliefs do battle.  My mind was lagging behind my heart in readjusting my views to be in line with the Church position.  But as I said, I had somewhat justified my dissension so the issue drifted to the back of my mind.

Then this past week the LDS Church released a statement that reiterated their support for the "responsible approach" of the Utah Legislature, and mentions specifically their appreciation for HB 116.  The statement also lists the basic principles that guide the Church position.

Brought to my mind were some words from Neal A. Maxwell:

President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had “never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life”. This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ!

I remembered loving those words the first time I read them, partly because I felt their truth, and partly because I could never remember disagreeing with any official action taken by the Prophets until that point, so I was feeling pretty good.  But now that an intellectual conversion, at least on this point, was lacking, the words seemed more to condemn than to congratulate.  I also was led to reread President Benson's famous talk, Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet.  The fourth ("The Prophet will never lead the Church astray") and tenth (the Prophet may advise on civic matters), along with prayer, helped me make the necessary change in my thinking.

I say all of this not to try to change the mind of anyone else.  We all have our personal issues, and at some time or another may find ourselves on the wrong side of counsel from the Presiding Authorities of the Church.  These things can be very personal and individual.  Salvation itself can be a very individual experience.  That's something else I think I'm beginning to learn.  If some other man finds himself on the wrong side of a nation's political borders, that doesn't really affect my salvation.  That's between him and the laws of that country.  But when the Lord, through his servants, gives me posts and markers by which to guide my life, I better listen.  I don't want to be on the wrong side of that fence.

Clifford the Big Red Dog and a Government We Can Afford

If you're like me, you probably look back with fondness on the books and movies of your childhood.  One of my favorites is Clifford the Big Red Dog.  For those who haven't read any of the books, or just need a refresher, Clifford is indeed, a big (the T.V. series has him as 25 feet tall), red dog.  His size often gets him in trouble with his friends and neighbors, but in the end everyone is grateful for it.  He is always there to save the day:  he may suck up a lake and put out a forest fire, put a lighthouse on his back and bring a boat lost in dense fog back to shore, or ignore his canine tendencies and safely lower a cat stuck high in a tree, but he can only do these things thanks to his colossal frame.  Lately, however, a stark reality has started to bother me a little bit.  No, I don't mind so much that there is a dog the size of a house, we'll just pretend that could actually happen.  But who's going to pay for it?  Think of the costs of owning such a dog.  Emily Elizabeth's parents would not only have to feed his monstrous appetite, but provide shelter, specialized veterinary care, waste management (probably can't bury all of it), and liability payments when his size causes damage to property.  I'm sure Clifford's family had to wonder, at least once, 'is owning such a dog worth it?  Should we give him away', or a more grotesque thought, 'put him down?'

And so that brings me to our federal government, which, if present trends continue, we will not be able to afford.  Barring changes,  as early as 2040, our entire federal budget will be consumed by Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt.  Doing nothing is not an option.  But the problem with proposing cuts is nobody wants to see their program cut.  Truth is, the government does do some good things, and we have been conditioned to believe that without the government, those things could not be done at all.  So we keep Clifford around, because if there is a fire, we might need him.  If there are burglars at the door, he can scare them away.  When disaster strikes our "Clifford" will be there.  Unfortunately we learn from events like 9/11 and hurricane Katrina that Clifford can't protect us from everything and he is getting more expensive to take care of all the time.  So the choice is simple.  Not easy, but simple.  Much higher taxes and the government services we have become addicted to, or lower taxes, more liberty and the painful realization that there is not enough money, even in the entire United States, to solve all the world's problems.  We should choose carefully, because Clifford may not always be so benevolent, and he's not the type to just bark, he can bite.

A Tireless Minority and a New Incendiary Rhetoric

To begin, I should explain that this blog is not about me or my life's events.  I mostly want to write political things, because that's what interests me, with perhaps a detour here and there to other miscellaneous topics.  So for all you prurient busybodies gushing with curiosity I'll just say my life is pretty boring and leave it at that.

Now on to the meaning behind my title.  Samuel Adams, one of the Founding Fathers (my personal favorite), believed that "[it] does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."  So that is what I will try to do, hopefully with some 'incendiary' rhetoric  (Get it?  I find it rather clever myself).  Of course we must avoid the 'fiery' rhetoric that incites but doesn't inform, the kind that leads to targets, Nazi comparisons, and gunmen with more bullets than sense.  Any of that we must reject wholeheartedly in a civil society.  But if I can ask the right questions, (and have you ask them back when I'm mistaken), then we can set "brush fires in people's minds".  If those of us who believe in freedom and the rule of law, with the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, can only be tireless, then it may not even matter that we are the minority.