Ron Paul is Seriously Flawed as a Candidate; We’re Just So in Love With Him That We’re Not Paying Attention

First off, let me just say that I am a serious Ron Paul supporter. I’ve
blogged about
him
>, spammed promoted him
to friends and family, and even put a Ron Paul 2008 bumper sticker on my car
(I don’t do bumper stickers). I’ve been resisting the call to write this
piece for some time now, but I can resist no longer.

It’s time for us, as Paul supporters, to stop pretending his flaws do not
exist. We are ignoring his more extreme and illogical views because we’re so
smitten by his good ones. This is a problem. Our ability and/or willingness
to evaluate him as a complete candidate is being suppressed by our surprise
and appreciation for his views on foreign policy and personal freedom.

In short, we’re so in love with him that we’re focusing only on his
positives while ignoring his negatives.

Not only will his weaknesses get him thrashed during a primary, but we need
to have a serious discussion about whether or not he’s too extreme to even
get anything done as president. Here are the main positions that trouble me:

He Doesn’t Believe in the Separation of Church and State

A “robustly Christian” America? That’s what he thinks the founding fathers
wanted? Ouch. And the separation of church and state has no basis in
the constitution or the writings of the founding fathers? How about this?

How did he miss that? I’m definitely not with him on this, but
I am at least comforted by the fact that he would never force his views on
anyone at the federal level.

He’s Not For Federally Supported Public Education

He wants the state and local government to provide education to the public.
He also regularly mentions churches when asked about how this will come
about.
He spoke at Google recently
>
and he was asked how the poor are supposed to get an education if the
government doesn’t provide one free of charge. The audience members worried
about the rich getting great educations while the poor got none. He has no
good answer on this, and if he does he’s not telling anyone. He admits there
will be inequality but says that it’ll be better than what we have now. I
disagree.

I also fail to see how state governments will have an advantage over the
federal government when it comes to providing education to the public. To me
it looks like his solution simply creates smaller chunks of corruption and
waste rather than one big one. Furthermore, I do think something can be said
for having a standard that we as a nation strive to live up to. Ideally it
would not federal law, of course, but one has to wonder how else it would
come about if everyone was allowed to go off on their own tangents. Is it ok
for Kansas to decide that math is evil and strike it from their curriculum?
Does the drive to be perfectly constitutional outweigh the need to have us
all meet a certain standard? It’s worth having the discussion.

Yeah, That Means No Federal College Loans

He didn’t get any loans to go to college and he doesn’t think you should
either. Again, he doesn’t think the federal government should be involved
with education at all. Many of the people in the room he was speaking to at
Google used federal loans to make it through school and to Google in the
first place. Again, I agree that this shouldn’t be necessary, and
that it’s unconstitutional. My problem is with simply stopping the program
and hoping (or praying) for another solution to materialize.

Having hundreds of thousands of young people who need a college education
turn to “the community” is not a solution. This sort of transition would
have to be incredibly well orchestrated — with state, local, and charitable
infrastructures coming into existence right as the federal one was being
dismantled. I simply lack confidence in our ability to pull this off. It
doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, but it does mean that we can’t just run out
and pull the federal systems without considering the consequences very
carefully.

Once again he is right in concept but I fear the extreme tone in which he
speaks about the issue. I’m not getting the feeling that he realizes how
catastrophic it would be to stop these programs without having something in
their place. What I am hearing from him is, “It’s the right thing to do, so
whatever happens happens.” I simply cannot accept that despite feeling his
position is ideally correct.

He’s Not For National Health Care

Again, not the role of government. His basic view is that the market will
find a way. He openly admits that many people will fall through the cracks,
but he responds to that by saying that it’ll be better than what we have
now. Does this seem hopelessly optimistic to anyone but myself? This is just
like the education thing: ideally it wouldn’t be a national plan, but this
is simply a matter of practicality given the problem we’re facing. We simply
have too many people that need health care right now.

Look at the countries who are handling it better than us. What are
they doing? Are any of these highly successful programs completely
separated from the national government? Why not? Is there a working model
for this anywhere? I just feel like we have to explore the realities very
carefully before taking rash actions. This is the type of language I’m not
hearing from him.

He Would Abolish Federal Consumer Protection Groups Like The FDA

You think that food you bought at Safeway or Publix is safe? Well, he
doesn’t think that’s the role of the federal government to help you with
that. Leave it up to someone else. He things some community groups will
spring up and organize to help us fill the void, and I agree that will
happen to some extent. But in the meantime there will be no standard for
determining whether something is safe to consume or not. Imagine the fun the
corporations will have with this. They’ll sell all kinds of crap that causes
serious harm to uneducated consumers.

He says the answer is consumer groups and litigation. How many people are
going to meticulously check consumer reports before buying food and drugs?
Does he not see how easily this will be exploited with ill effects? Think of
the money to be made by corporations with no oversight. This is precisely
the type of policy that will allow the powerful and immoral to stomp all
over those who are less educated. The libertarian answer to that is
caveat emptor
>, and that I simply cannot accept.

The extreme libertarian view here is that if people are too stupid to do
their own research before consuming dangerous products, they deserve what
they get. I agree that’s fine for an ideal society where people would
be educated and able to fend for themselves, but it’s simply not a humane
approach given how many ignorant people would suffer in the country we live
in today.

No More Federal Environmental Protection. If GiantChemCorp Does Something
Wrong, Sue Them

He wants to handle pollution in a purely “property rights” fashion, i.e.
people who infringe on other peoples’ property rights would get sued. But
there wouldn’t be any federal oversight of the matter. No regulation at the
national level whatsoever. Again, this sounds great in an ideal world but it
neglects the reality of the situation. The fact of the matter is that if
corporations can get away with something they will. Oh, you want to sue? Be
serious.

Get a weekly breakdown of what’s happening in security and tech—and why it matters.

So GiantChemCorp dumped something in Bob and Shirley’s backyard? Great, get
a lawyer. Exxon will show up with their team that’s paid millions a year.
Oh, Bob and Shirley can’t afford a good one? Perhaps they can get help from
your local church or consumer group. Please. This is yet another example of
having exactly the right idea for an ideal society but not grasping
that the reality we’re presented with works differently. Again, the powerful
would trounce upon the weak with impunity.

He’s Against Abortion and Would Like to See Roe vs. Wade Overturned

He Doesn’t Believe The Evidence for Man-Made Global Warming Is Convincing

He regularly says things such as, “I think it [the case for man-made global
warming] is overblown.”, and “There’s still debate on the issue.” Overblown?
What part of
the massive IPCC study
>
where over two thousand climatologists from 130 countries agreed on the
matter does he disagree with? I find his rejection of this overwhelming
scientific consensus to be disturbing. And before you think to retort with
the number of scientists who disagree with the report, consider the concept
of
scientific pseudosymmetry
>.

Conclusion

The bottom line is that Dr. Paul has significant flaws just like the other
candidates, but on different issues. He simply takes things too far given the world we live in.
We’re endorsing him because we’re infatuated with his views on foreign
policy and personal freedom.
We’re in love with the fact that someone will speak out against the
absurdity that is the current status quo. But is that enough? Can we still
back him if he’s lacking in other important areas? Where’s the line?

Again — I have to repeat this — the problem is not with his views
given an ideal world. I agree on most points that his vision embodies
the way America should be. That’s why I’m behind him. My point
is simply that our country has strayed so far off the path that to try and
return it too quickly would cause great amount of suffering.

His overwhelming belief that “the market” will somehow make everything
o.k. is naive at best. He trusts this libertarian ideal with an unsettling
and almost religious level of faith. Does anyone truly believe that if we
remove the safeguards that provide for the poor and uneducated that
everything will somehow work itself out? He has
to address this question sufficiently in order to get to the next
level.

I am not going to stop supporting him and I am not taking the sticker
off of my car. I am not going to stop talking about his campaign or about
how he’s igniting the political interest of so many young voters. I will
continue to speak about his overwhelming positives. But in the back of my
mind I’m secretly hoping that he’ll get the message that his more extreme
views (or at least how he’s communicating his views) will destroy not only
his campaign but his very ability to help our ailing country.

Please wake up, Dr. Paul. This country desperately need you at full
strength. You have to show us exactly how you intend to take us from the
horrible mess we are in to the ideal you speak of (and we support) without
causing so much suffering that you lose your support nationwide. If you are
not as extreme as you appear to be on these issues and you do have
good plans for transitioning with minimum suffering,
you have to communicate this information much better than you are now.

Let’s work out these issues among ourselves before we get hit with the same
questions by our opposition.:

—[ Updated: 09.16.07 ]