Wolf D. Fuhrig |
10-21-07 |
|
A Libertarian For President? |
||
| Would you want a President who pledges to abolish the individual income tax, never to approve an unbalanced budget, never to sign legislation not expressly authorized by the Constitution, and never to undertake an unprovoked intervention in the affairs of another country? If you can agree to these basic positions, 10-term Congressman Ron Paul from Texas’ Corpus Christi area might be your choice to succeed President Bush. Formerly a Libertarian Party candidate for President, the 72-year old physician switched to the Republican Party but did not change his principles. More often than not, he has opposed the party line when it favored big government over limited government and reformist judges over strict constructionists of the Constitution. A defender of states’ rights, Paul said he would gradually eliminate the Federal Reserve Bank because economic volatility would decrease if the free market determined money supply and interest rates. He would abolish such federal bureaucracies as the Departments of Education and Energy whose functions he believes could better be fulfilled by state government. He also would oppose socialized health care and enable individual Americans to opt out of the Social Security system. As an outspoken advocate of civil liberties, Paul opposes domestic spying by government agencies, as permitted by the Patriot Act, and any government regulation or taxation of the Internet. He has demanded habeas corpus for political detainees, voted against gun control, and rejected calls for a national identification card. Opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants, Paul consequenly has asked to deny them welfare benefits. To achieve tighter border security, this Texan voted for the Security Fence Act of 2006. An obstetrician and gynecologist by specialization and a Baptist by faith, he described himself as "an unshakable foe of abortion”--in contrast to most libertarians who stand for freedom of choice. He believes regulations of medical decisions about maternal or fetal health are "best handled at the state level." He rejects federal regulations of marriage and voted against federal funding of adoptions by unmarried or same-sex couples. Paul opposes the federal war on drugs, the draft, and the death penalty, but, differing from other libertarians, he would consider a Constitutional amendment to allow voluntary prayer in public schools. He wants the military to maintain a “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on the issue of sexual choice. He stands for free trade but rejects “managed trade,” as practised by the Wold Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Association. He also has spoken out against foreign aid. Paul is presently the only Republican candidate for the presidency who in 2002 voted against the Iraq War Resolution. In response to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, he favored the Authorization for Use of Military Force but advocated the use of letters of marque and reprisal to target specific terrorists. To end the nation’s ever-increasing diplomatic and military entanglement abroad, he wants the U.S. to get out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and out of the United Nations. In Congress, Ron Paul has always voted his conscience and refused to make expedient compromises. U.S. News reported about Paul’s increasing popularity online:"His supporters have flocked to the Internet with such enthusiasm that Paul is now showing up among the much richer candidates in various measures of Internet traffic.” Neverthless, as a candidate for the Presidency, Paul remains a long-shot, with roughly 5 percent support for him in recent polls. Most of his views remain far removed from what mainstream Americans expect to receive in benefits from the Federal government. As the world’s superpower, moreover, the U.S. can hardly withdraw from the United Nations without losing crucial influence. The media tend to discount Paul as unrealistic and lacking in charisma. Yet, if he were ideologically less rigid and radical, he could rapidly turn into an opportunistic party hack, like so many other politicians. And that would be a loss for America’s body politic. |
||
[To contact
the author, phone (217) 243-2423 or e-mail
; for other articles, log on to http://www.independentcritic.com] |