Just the Constitution, Ma’am
After 7 years of bigger government, astronomical offense spending, Haliburton/Blackwater/Exxon profiteering, and just general outlandishly illegal behavior, I find it easy to understand the appeal of Ron Paul. I kind of like him. In debates, anyway.
His big platform position, that he will only support things in the constitution, is pretty absurd. I was reading Imagining a Ron Paul Presidency and was again stuck by Paul’s vision of the role of government. No Department of Health and Human Services, no Department of Commerce, etc. Paul lays out a compelling argument for disposing of most of the government and I can understand it’s appeal.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the role of government vis-Ã -vis a nanny state versus Paul’s minimalist government. It’s pretty obvious that the federal government is ridiculously untrustworthy and largely inept, but I can’t image that reducing the government to Paul’s core functions will improve the quality of life in the US. Just as important, I can’t imagine Paul having much success trying to slash agencies that, as he points out, seem to exist solely to enrich corporations (DoE, for one). I expect the government would grind to a screeching halt if Paul won the presidency. Perhaps some Paul supporters think that is an acceptable situation. What do I know? Maybe it is. Luckily, I’ll never have to decide since there is only the tiniest, most remote chance he’ll make it to the general election. Instead, I’ll get to choose between a bible quoting, right wing, corporate shill and some equally appalling republican candidate.
Comments (RSS)
December 17th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
“His big platform position, that he will only support things in the constitution, is pretty absurd.”
The Constitution is the law of the land until it is replaced or amended. Our current government is positioned well outside of the constraints of the Constitution. Either we reign the government in, or start the process of replacing or amending the Constitution. But the status quo is IMHO far more absurd than anything Dr. Paul has said.
Really the federal government should have little to do with improving your quality of life. It should improve your opportunities to pursue a high quality of life by defending your fundamental rights and giving you the maximum possible liberty without infringing on the same rights of others.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
I disagree. The US Constitution is not The Law of the Land. It is a law of the land. The United States is a Common Law institution. I take it that your position is that this should not be the case. Perhaps that’s so. Perhaps we should force a showdown on Constitutional amendments on every single issue that is currently decided by judges in the present system. That doesn’t sound very reasonable to me.
I also disagree about the role of government. In my archaeology experience, I’ve often heard this ‘maximum possible liberty’ argument. Usually, it’s come from farmers in Illinois who want to bulldoze Indian burial mounds, scoop up the relics, and sell them at auction. Of course, they also don’t like to be told not to farm steep grades over waterways. Infringement of individual rights for the common good sounds like a fine use of governmental power to me. Libertarian rhetoric has always struck me pretty self-centered. I suppose it depends on where you draw the ‘infringing on the same rights of others’ line.