We're not sure all the young people who are supporting Ron Paul for president fully comprehend what they're advocating.
If they do, then good for them!
Is he just this election's cool candidate -- anti-establishment, an underdog as well as a watchdog? Is it just anti-war stuff?
Or do these kids really see that Paul is the presidential candidate who seems to understand the Constitution the best, and the one advocating the least amount of government in our lives?
Paul was even the 1988 presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party, which espouses small-government views that might seem radical to many on the left.
This election, as a Republican candidate, Paul is getting a lot of attention for his Internet fund-raising and the excitement he's generating among young voters. But not enough attention: It's too bad his views on government haven't become the central debate of the election.
So far, this campaign has been about personalities and candidate squabbles and media horse-race watching and "strategery." What it should be about is the role of government in our lives.
Some of the notions of government espoused by the candidates are, frankly, frightening to those of us inclined toward Ron Paul's view of constitutionally limited government. It's socialism, pure and simple, to be advocating -- as Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton does -- not only universal health care and government 401-k accounts for newborns, but also universal preschool.
The federal government. In preschool. Does Russia even do that anymore?
Another sensible, small-government presidential candidate, Fred Thompson, in a visit to Aiken this week, gave what a amounted to a lesson in civics and government to a very receptive crowd. Here's just part of what he said:
"I feel like it's every generation's obligation to leave this place a little better than when they found it. We are blessed with living in the greatest country in the world by any measure. And it's every generation's obligation to make sure it stays that way.
"To make sure that it stays that way, we have to understand how it got that way. And I think it got that way because of adherence to sound constitutional, conservative principles that were laid out in the very beginning of our country when our Founding Fathers set up our system -- and reminded us in the Declaration (of Independence) that our basic rights come from God and not from any government ..."
The spirit of the Constitution, as Thompson put it, is "based on the notion that a government that's big enough and powerful enough to give anything to you is big enough and powerful enough to take anything away from you. And we didn't want that kind of government." And we still shouldn't.
How refreshing. And what a contrast from the role of government some other candidates are espousing this election.
It's also enlightening to hear a YouTube questioner ask the Republican candidates what they're going to do about black-on-black crime. Yes, it's a terrible problem, but is that really a president's bailiwick?
We don't just need a president. We need a civics lesson. We need a return to the Constitution and the preamble's goal of securing "the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." In short, we need a declaration of independence from our own oversized, overreaching and overbearing federal government.
That's what this election should be about.
Ron Paul won't win the nomination. Fred Thompson has a better shot, especially if South Carolinians hear his message.
But if either man merely gets Americans, young and old, excited about getting back to the Constitution, that would be a monumental contribution.
Comments
Tell us something we don't know, Chronicle. By and large, though, it IS Paul's views that are garnering him support; the internet fund raising and underdog status initially get him attention, but he has the widespread support that he does because of his views. That being said, I predict a maximum of five posts on this thread before the message board turns into a mudslinging gripe-fest about Paul's platform, and not the article itself.
Tell us something we don't know jlruthven84. This article has it right. The presidential election is a popularity contest and always has been. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" would get JFK thrown out of his party today. (see how Zell Miller was treated)
PT...good Lord. No one is disputing that the mainstream election is all about image and popularity; I'm saying that Ron Paul is just about the only candidate whose actual policies have something to do with his popularity. From what I can tell, the policies of the frontrunners, particularly the Dems, only come up when someone is trying to discredit them. Paul isn't going to win the election this year, and he probably won't ever. I do take this election, however, as a sign that voters, particularly younger voters, are starting to wise up.
I like the 5 or 6 paragraphs on my candidate Fred Thompson. He has the same view on the constitution and has a more global view of our world in general. Hopefully S.C. will realize what Fred stands for before Saturday.
jlruthvent84, don't call me lord. Paul has a good message on most points. I like his libertarian p.o.v. except for national defense. Thompson is more of a constitutionalist in my view. I certainly like his ideas better. I wish he were more popular.
He was very popular in Law & Order.
Good point Buick, but no Dems will vote for him and that's not the type of popularity Repubs vote for.
Fred Thompson makes a cliche' comment that we've heard a thousand times from Republican, Democrat, Libertarian and Green party candidates, and the AC jumps on this like it's a major policy breakthrough. It's like saying I support quality education. The issue is everyone wants minimal govt., but the disagreement comes into what that means. Everyone wants our govt. to provide a certain level of service, but who gets' to pick what those services are? That's why we have elections, and let the people deicde based upon what the candidates say. Hillary has stated what she will do, and if you don't like it then don't vote for her. Go ahead and call her a socialist, but in the end it will be the American people that decide.
Thompson has my vote.
Fred Thompson doesn't speak in cliche's. He spells it all out. Put's it out there!
Very nice Dani, he gives it 100%, everthing he's got, gives it up for the team, when the going gets tough he gets tougher.....
The devil from within is the rampant drug use in America.
johnson,But what do you do about it. People are so sensitive about it-- they think you are making a slur against them. The drug scum is defended at every turn by their peers.
shivas, every politician has to speak in terms the voters will react to. Some call nanny socialism "certain services" and "smaller government" while others call it "redistribution of wealth" and "pandering to the non-productive". What ever the approach, the candidate that reduces federal taxes and encourages growth through opportunity to succeed (as opposed to gifts) has my vote. Quit reinterpreting the constitution and stop multiple taxes and confusing tax codes. Let people succeed or fail as they choose. I want a government that doesn't try to "save" me, or confiscate my money to "save" someone else.
Legalize and tax. Clears out the prisons and eliminates most of the drug related crime
Fred Thompson is about the only candidate running out of all the candidates, Republican or Democrat, that makes rational sense. If he makes the final ballot, I will vote for Fred Thompson. He appears to have the consistant track record, stability, and conviction that this country needs in a President. That is why he will never be elected. He does not pander to special interest groups.
I think this is an excellent editorial. What's wrong with a newspaper reminding readers of something they already profess to know? We need reminding that our Constitution is one of the greatest creations of man, and that instead of tinkering with it, we should respect and follow it. If we did so already, half the "issues" of the 2008 Presidential campaign would not even exist (but of course we know this already). Another thing we already know is that poverty is the mother of most crime and contemporary social problems. Dead-end hopelessness leads to drugs leads to stealing money to buy drugs, ad infinitum, circle, cycle, circle. So many of us with homes and jobs and cars tend to confuse being cheap with being poor. This often makes us petty and self-righteous and smug--at least that's how others see us. Please forgive me if I sound condescending. (That means to look down on.) As our economy tanks, let us hope that we don't have to learn too abruptly what so many of our people already know: Food gets you through times of no gold much better than gold gets you through times of no food.
Preparation for the economic downturn is the key to surviving it. People will still smoke, drink and cuss. Consider the VICEX fund. Just an opinion
i watched a special on max security prisons the other night and in it the gaurds were preparing for trouble because the aryans and the blacks were going to war over who was going to control the drug trade within the prison. hehehehheheeee war on drugs.
what a pile. you have a federal max security prison with a drug war going on. puuhhhlleeeaseeee........ if they cannot control that well uuhhhhhhhh
The war on drugs is a terrible program expressly set up to raid the coffers while pretending to mollify the masses. What a scam. By far the worst program of those claiming to be conservative.
The Augusta Chronicle ©2012. All Rights Reserved.
