Ron Paul has just raised $4m today. I'll repeat that: Ron Paul has raised four million dollars today. That's four times what Mike Huckabee - the latest media darling - raised in the whole of the last quarter. Paul has now raked in more than $7m from bright-eyed patriots this quarter and now has the money to both make a run for New Hampshire and hang around for some time after that.
Sure, he's still not going to win the nomination, but this is going to be one hell of a ride. No-one's going to be able to kick Paul out of the debates now. And admit it, anything that throws a spanner into the works, upsetting all the careful plans laid out by the front-runners has got to be a good thing. Every underdog deserves his day.
Some of Paul's policies seem odd to me. His immigration and trade positions are more restrictionist* than I care for, while I'm puzzled by his enthusiasm for the gold standard. [*UPDATE: I should have been clearer: on trade Paul opposes NAFTA etc because these deals aren't as transparent or comprehensive as one would like. That's a principled position but in these cases I think 3/4 of a loaf is better than no loaf. Making the perfect the enemy of the good is not always wise, even if it is admirably consistent.]
But so what? Anyone who can give this speech and, crucially, mean what he says while saying it deserves serious consideration. No other candidate, after all, ever really talks about liberty. I don't agree with everything Paul said in this speech but recommend it to you without hesitation and make no apology for reproducing it in full:
Madam Speaker, for some, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. For others, it means dissent against a government's abuse of the people's rights.
I have never met a politician in Washington or any American, for that matter, who chose to be called unpatriotic. Nor have I met anyone who did not believe he wholeheartedly supported our troops, wherever they may be.
What I have heard all too frequently from various individuals are sharp accusations that, because their political opponents disagree with them on the need for foreign military entanglements, they were unpatriotic, un-American evildoers deserving contempt.
The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power.
The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.
Peaceful, nonviolent revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., achieved great political successes by practicing nonviolence, and yet they suffered physically at the hands of the state. But whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.
True patriotism today has gotten a bad name, at least from the government and the press. Those who now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing an income tax on us, or force us to use a monetary system designed to serve the rich at the expense of the poor are routinely condemned. These American patriots are sadly looked down upon by many. They are never praised as champions of liberty as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have been.
Liberals, who withhold their taxes as a protest against war, are vilified as well, especially by conservatives. Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war, once it is started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field. This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic, and all dissent must stop. Yet, it is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.
It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of dangerous undeclared no-win wars that are politically inspired. Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security and, for that matter, may even damage our security, is hardly a way to patriotically support the troops.
Who are the true patriots, those who conform or those who protest against wars without purpose? How can it be said that blind support for a war, no matter how misdirected the policy, is the duty of a patriot?
Randolph Bourne said that, "War is the health of the state.'' With war, he argued, the state thrives. Those who believe in the powerful state see war as an opportunity. Those who mistrust the people and the market for solving problems have no trouble promoting a "war psychology'' to justify the expansive role of the state. This includes the role the Federal Government plays in our lives, as well as in our economic transactions.
Certainly, the neoconservative belief that we have a moral obligation to spread American values worldwide through force justifies the conditions of war in order to rally support at home for the heavy hand of government. It is through this policy, it should surprise no one, that our liberties are undermined. The economy becomes overextended, and our involvement worldwide becomes prohibited. Out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic, most of the citizens become compliant and accept the argument that some loss of liberty is required to fight the war in order to remain safe.
This is a bad trade-off, in my estimation, especially when done in the name of patriotism. Loyalty to the state and to autocratic leaders is substituted for true patriotism; that is, a willingness to challenge the state and defend the country, the people and the culture. The more difficult the times, the stronger the admonition comes that the leaders be not criticized.
Because the crisis atmosphere of war supports the growth of the state, any problem invites an answer by declaring war, even on social and economic issues. This elicits patriotism in support of various government solutions, while enhancing the power of the state. Faith in government coercion and a lack of understanding of how free societies operate encourages big-government liberals and big-government conservatives to manufacture a war psychology to demand political loyalty for domestic policy just as is required in foreign affairs.
The long-term cost in dollars spent and liberties lost is neglected as immediate needs are emphasized. It is for this reason that we have multiple perpetual wars going on simultaneously. Thus, the war on drugs, the war against gun ownership, the war against poverty, the war against illiteracy, the war against terrorism, as well as our foreign military entanglements are endless.
All this effort promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty. A government designed for a free society should do the opposite, prevent the growth of statism and preserve liberty.
Once a war of any sort is declared, the message is sent out not to object or you will be declared unpatriotic. Yet, we must not forget that the true patriot is the one who protests in spite of the consequences. Condemnation or ostracism or even imprisonment may result.
Nonviolent protesters of the Tax Code are frequently imprisoned, whether they are protesting the code's unconstitutionality or the war that the tax revenues are funding. Resisters to the military draft or even to Selective Service registration are threatened and imprisoned for challenging this threat to liberty.
Statism depends on the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey. Confiscating the fruits of our labor through the income tax is crucial to the health of the state. The draft, or even the mere existence of the Selective Service, emphasizes that we will march off to war at the state's pleasure.
A free society rejects all notions of involuntary servitude, whether by draft or the confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax. A more sophisticated and less well-known technique for enhancing the state is the manipulation and transfer of wealth through the fiat monetary system operated by the secretive Federal Reserve.
Protesters against this unconstitutional system of paper money are considered unpatriotic criminals and at times are imprisoned for their beliefs. The fact that, according to the Constitution, only gold and silver are legal tender and paper money outlawed matters little. The principle of patriotism is turned on its head. Whether it's with regard to the defense of welfare spending at home, confiscatory income tax, or an immoral monetary system or support for a war fought under false pretense without a legal declaration, the defenders of liberty and the Constitution are portrayed as unpatriotic, while those who support these programs are seen as the patriots.
If there is a war going on, supporting the state's effort to win the war is expected at all costs, no dissent. The real problem is that those who love the state too often advocate policies that lead to military action. At home, they are quite willing to produce a crisis atmosphere and claim a war is needed to solve the problem. Under these conditions, the people are more willing to bear the burden of paying for the war and to carelessly sacrifice liberties, which they are told is necessary.
The last 6 years have been quite beneficial to the health of the state, which comes at the expense of personal liberty. Every enhanced unconstitutional power of the state can only be achieved at the expense of individual liberty. Even though in every war in which we have been engaged civil liberties have suffered, some have been restored after the war ended, but never completely. That has resulted in a steady erosion of our liberties over the past 200 years. Our government was originally designed to protect our liberties, but it has now, instead, become the usurper of those liberties.
We currently live in the most difficult of times for guarding against an expanding central government with a steady erosion of our freedoms. We are continually being reminded that 9/11 has changed everything.
Unfortunately, the policy that needed most to be changed, that is, our policy of foreign interventionism, has only been expanded. There is no pretense any longer that a policy of humility in foreign affairs, without being the world's policemen and engaging in nation building, is worthy of consideration.
We now live in a post-9/11 America where our government is going to make us safe no matter what it takes. We are expected to grin and bear it and adjust to every loss of our liberties in the name of patriotism and security.
Though the majority of Americans initially welcomed the declared effort to make us safe, and we are willing to sacrifice for the cause, more and more Americans are now becoming concerned about civil liberties being needlessly and dangerously sacrificed.
The problem is that the Iraq war continues to drag on, and a real danger of it spreading exists. There is no evidence that a truce will soon be signed in Iraq or in the war on terror or the war on drugs. Victory is not even definable. If Congress is incapable of declaring an official war, it is impossible to know when it will end. We have been fully forewarned that the world conflict in which we are now engaged will last a long, long time.
The war mentality and the pervasive fear of an unidentified enemy allows for a steady erosion of our liberties, and, with this, our respect for self-reliance and confidence is lost. Just think of the self-sacrifice and the humiliation we go through at the airport screening process on a routine basis. Though there is no scientific evidence of any likelihood of liquids and gels being mixed on an airplane to make a bomb, billions of dollars are wasted throwing away toothpaste and hair spray, and searching old women in wheelchairs.
Our enemies say boo, and we jump, we panic, and then we punish ourselves. We are worse than a child being afraid of the dark. But in a way, the fear of indefinable terrorism is based on our inability to admit the truth about why there is a desire by a small number of angry radical Islamists to kill Americans. It is certainly not because they are jealous of our wealth and freedoms.
We fail to realize that the extremists, willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill their enemies, do so out of a sense of weakness and desperation over real and perceived attacks on their way of life, their religion, their country, and their natural resources. Without the conventional diplomatic or military means to retaliate against these attacks, and an unwillingness of their own government to address the issue, they resort to the desperation tactic of suicide terrorism. Their anger toward their own governments, which they believe are coconspirators with the American Government, is equal to or greater than that directed toward us.
These errors in judgment in understanding the motive of the enemy and the constant fear that is generated have brought us to this crisis where our civil liberties and privacy are being steadily eroded in the name of preserving national security.
We may be the economic and the military giant of the world, but the effort to stop this war on our liberties here at home in the name of patriotism is being lost.
The erosion of our personal liberties started long before 9/11, but 9/11 accelerated the process. There are many things that motivate those who pursue this course, both well-intentioned and malevolent, but it would not happen if the people remained vigilant, understood the importance of individual rights, and were unpersuaded that a need for security justifies the sacrifice for liberty, even if it is just now and then.
The true patriot challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the expense of the individual. Without a better understanding and a greater determination to rein in the state, the rights of Americans that resulted from the revolutionary break from the British and the writing of the Constitution will disappear.
The record since September 11th is dismal. Respect for liberty has rapidly deteriorated. Many of the new laws passed after 9/11 had, in fact, been proposed long before that attack. The political atmosphere after that attack simply made it more possible to pass such legislation. The fear generated by 9/11 became an opportunity for those seeking to promote the power of the state domestically, just as it served to falsely justify the long-planned invasion of Iraq.
The war mentality was generated by the Iraq war in combination with the constant drumbeat of fear at home. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who is now likely residing in Pakistan, our supposed ally, are ignored, as our troops fight and die in Iraq and are made easier targets for the terrorists in their backyard. While our leaders constantly use the mess we created to further justify the erosion of our constitutional rights here at home, we forget about our own borders and support the inexorable move toward global government, hardly a good plan for America.
The accelerated attacks on liberty started quickly after 9/11. Within weeks, the PATRIOT Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Though the final version was unavailable up to a few hours before the vote, no Member had sufficient time to study it. Political fear of not doing something, even something harmful, drove the Members of Congress to not question the contents, and just voted for it. A little less freedom for a little more perceived safety was considered a fair trade-off, and the majority of Americans applauded.
The PATRIOT Act, though, severely eroded the system of checks and balances by giving the government the power to spy on law-abiding citizens without judicial supervision. The several provisions that undermine the liberties of all Americans include sneak-and-peek searches, a broadened and more vague definition of domestic terrorism, allowing the FBI access to library and bookstore records without search warrants or probable cause, easier FBI initiation of wiretaps and searches, as well as roving wiretaps, easier access to information on American citizens' use of the Internet, and easier access to e-mail and financial records of all American citizens.
The attack on privacy has not relented over the past 6 years. The Military Commissions Act is a particularly egregious piece of legislation and, if not repealed, will change America for the worse as the powers unconstitutionally granted to the executive branch are used and abused. This act grants excessive authority to use secretive military commissions outside of places where active hostilities are going on. The Military Commissions Act permits torture, arbitrary detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants at the full discretion of the President and without the right of habeas corpus, and warrantless searches by the NSA. It also gives to the President the power to imprison individuals based on secret testimony.
Since 9/11, Presidential signing statements designating portions of legislation that the President does not intend to follow, though not legal under the Constitution, have enormously multiplied. Unconstitutional Executive Orders are numerous and mischievous and need to be curtailed.
Extraordinary rendition to secret prisons around the world have been widely engaged in, though obviously extralegal.
A growing concern in the post-9/11 environment is the Federal Government's list of potential terrorists based on secret evidence. Mistakes are made, and sometimes it is virtually impossible to get one's name removed even though the accused is totally innocent of any wrongdoing.
A national ID card is now in the process of being implemented. It is called the REAL ID card, and it is tied to our Social Security numbers and our State driver's license. If REAL ID is not stopped, it will become a national driver's license ID for all Americans. We will be required to carry our papers.
Some of the least-noticed and least-discussed changes in the law were the changes made to the Insurrection Act of 1807 and to posse comitatus by the Defense Authorization Act of 2007. These changes pose a threat to the survival of our Republic by giving the President the power to declare martial law for as little reason as to restore public order. The 1807 act severely restricted the President in his use of the military within the United States borders, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 strengthened these restrictions with strict oversight by Congress. The new law allows the President to circumvent the restrictions of both laws. The Insurrection Act has now become the "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.'' This is hardly a title that suggests that the authors cared about or understood the nature of a constitutional Republic.
Now, martial law can be declared not just for insurrection, but also for natural disasters, public health reasons, terrorist attacks or incidents, or for the vague reason called "other conditions.'' The President can call up the National Guard without congressional approval or the Governors' approval, and even send these State Guard troops into other States.
The American Republic is in remnant status. The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into a military dictatorship, and few seem to care. These precedent-setting changes in the law are extremely dangerous and will change American jurisprudence forever if not revised. The beneficial results of our revolt against the King's abuses are about to be eliminated, and few Members of Congress and few Americans are aware of the seriousness of the situation. Complacency and fear drive our legislation without any serious objection by our elected leaders. Sadly, though, those few who do object to this self-evident trend away from personal liberty and empire-building overseas are portrayed as unpatriotic and uncaring.
Though welfare and socialism always fails, opponents of them are said to lack compassion. Though opposition to totally unnecessary war should be the only moral position, the rhetoric is twisted to claim that patriots who oppose the war are not supporting the troops. The cliché "Support the Troops'' is incessantly used as a substitute for the unacceptable notion of supporting the policy, no matter how flawed it may be.
Unsound policy can never help the troops. Keeping the troops out of harm's way and out of wars unrelated to our national security is the only real way of protecting the troops. With this understanding, just who can claim the title of "patriot''
Before the war in the Middle East spreads and becomes a world conflict for which we will be held responsible, or the liberties of all Americans become so suppressed we can no longer resist, much has to be done. Time is short, but our course of action should be clear. Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes.
But let it not be said that we did nothing. Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.
Ron Paul is just another fundamentalist right-wing crank. There's a reason he's in the Republican party. The tortured illogic that makes "liberty" mean state-ordered religious observance is something I want no part of.
Posted by: ben | November 06, 2007 at 08:42 AM
I don't understand why so many people think Ron Paul will force religious views on the American people... he's a libertarian, not a member of the religious right, even though he's running as a Republican.
Posted by: Neil | November 06, 2007 at 02:46 PM
"The tortured illogic that makes "liberty" mean state-ordered religious observance is something I want no part of."
It's my understanding that state law doesn't trump constitutionally protected rights.
Posted by: miche | November 06, 2007 at 03:22 PM
Thank you for posting that speech. Ron Paul is indeed a breath of fresh air in stale corporate politics.
Posted by: Doug Bayless | November 06, 2007 at 04:33 PM
"Sure he's not going to win the nomination...."
Are you claiming to predict the future? Do you have a crystal ball? Wow Massie, will you come with me to the racetrack?
Posted by: Dallas Hansen | November 06, 2007 at 04:55 PM
Restrictionist trade positions? You are seriously misinformed. Ron Paul is the MOST ardently pro Free Trade advocate in the race. He has voted against managed trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA because he feels they're too limiting of honest to goodness real Free Trade.
Posted by: Kristen M | November 06, 2007 at 05:05 PM
"It's my understanding that state law doesn't trump constitutionally protected rights."
And it's my understanding that Ron Paul has nothing but contempt for constitutionally protected rights and fantasizes about a Dominionist theocracy, like all of the rest of the anti-freedom ayatollahs in the Republican party. But I just go by what he actually says, instead of the stupid febrile fanboy wanking on the internet. This is a case in point: someone on a blog said something about Ron Paul, watch the rapid response team of basement-dwelling mouthbreathers mobilize!
Ron Paul's "war on Christmas" wingnutter is straight out of the Michelle Malkin / Ann Coulter / Bill O'Reilly playbook, for just one example. His dalliance with the 9/11 conspiracy nutballs is another. He's just another fundamentalist loon and we've had enough of them. The Republican party is the party of clericalism, it is the party of hatred of individual freedoms, it is the party of corporate welfare, deficit and reckless spending, and everyone who wants its nomination wants it because those are the policies they espouse. Ron Paul is no different and anyone who believes otherwise is gullible to the point of self delusion.
Posted by: ben | November 06, 2007 at 06:38 PM
Libertarianism is a bumpersticker philosophy for people with short intellectual attention spans.
99.99999% of the time its a rationalization for people who are completely self-interested and need a handy cover story so they can dress up their selfishness in the guise of principle.
Posted by: Junius Brutus | November 06, 2007 at 07:11 PM
Wow "ben", even a cursory glance at Ron Paul's voting record exposes your empty vitriol as, well... the ravings of a stark-raving-mad dogmatist. Who's the loon now?
Posted by: Jay | November 06, 2007 at 07:31 PM
Ron Paul means well, has courage and some good principles, such as avoiding military force and state control. But some of his policies would be disasterous. Shouting "freedom" does not build a functional society. Abolishing the Federal Reserve would functionally impoverish millions of Americans, because doing so would abolish regulations on the ratio of reserves kept to loans made. Bank collapses would once again become common.
And then there's the abolition of the FDA and the Department of Education.
Some government institutions serve America well: we need them, and libertarians would kill them.
Posted by: glasnost | November 06, 2007 at 08:47 PM
How can facts get so out of alignment. Speed reading? Ben has apparently never read any thing Ron Paul has stated and it is obvious he has never looked at Ron Paul's voting record. There has NEVER been a candidate who was more for preserving the Constitution then Ron Paul. His voting record shows, NO, proves he is for preserving the constitution. His constituents even KNOW how he will vote due to his consistent voting record, which is based on the freedoms and laws outlined in the Constitution and in the bill of rights. He always votes Based on preserving the constitution. Brutus, Libertarian is a nomiclature for people who believe in citizens rights and Citizens freedoms; not government or big brother or mama and daddy like controls. People who want to preserve The USA to a point the founding fathers would take pride in and would want to be apart of. Not like it is today. Liberty means free to choose religion or the right to have no religion at all. Some one please tell me about Rons "war On Christmas" I have not read about that either.:/ How can facts get so out of alignment. With todays internet it is easier than ever to find facts if you do a little research and use quality trusted sources. I know this was a lot for Ben, Neil and Junius to read, and there fore they probably just skimmed threw it, but I would suggest you folks slow your reading down. You seem to be missing or adding things as you read. If it ain't written, it does not mean it is between the lines. Put your imagination on hold while you are trying to absorb information. Also consider why you would want to vote for the corporation, oh I mean candidate that is able to raise the most money. Is that what defines a good president. Bush, raised the most money in the last election, and Clinton Raised the most money when he was elected. Did that make them the best Candidates. Was one of them the Best President Ever? Lets make this an election like no other. Read the facts (not necessarily what a reporter writes) put your emotions aside (If they tell you "this is for the children", look for the hidden agenda)and vote, based on real virtues and truths. I don't care what party Ron Paul Affiliates with, I just hope he becomes President. We are supposed to take care of the Government, "We the people" The Government is not supposed to take care of us. Please, can we get off this Socialist track we are so rapidly sliding down.
Posted by: David | November 07, 2007 at 05:50 AM
The Federal Reserve's inflationary policies are already having deleterious effects on the most vulnerable Americans. Ron Paul wants sound money, which would benefit the people lowest on the income ladder the most and the richest the least. The quality of education has fallen since the DOE was created. You think we can't live without "No child left behind"? Schools should be accountable to parents and teachers, not Washington D.C. politicians. By the way more people are killed every year by FDA approved drugs than the ones banned under the War on Drugs.
Posted by: Ben O | November 07, 2007 at 06:38 AM
Supporting the troops would have to mean supporting victory.
What you want to do? Say we support you, but your mission to help the emergence of self government in Iraq is wrong?
Posted by: M. Simon | November 07, 2007 at 07:44 AM
"What you want to do? Say we support you, but your mission to help the emergence of self government in Iraq is wrong?"
Considering Ron Paul gets more donations from members of the military than any other candidate... I think you may be on to something.
Posted by: Ben O | November 07, 2007 at 05:32 PM
"Libertarianism is a bumpersticker philosophy for people with short intellectual attention spans."
Actually, no, libertarianism is a philosophy consistent with the founding fathers' principles of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and individual property rights, which has taken this country from being a poor British colony to the greatest country in the world. Why we would want to move back towards more government control is beyond me. I heard another candidate ask once, would you rather live in North Korea or South Korea? East Germany or West Germany? The USSR or the USA? Liberty and freedom work. Sorry, I can't fit all that on a bumper sticker.
Posted by: Steve | November 08, 2007 at 08:58 PM