I thought that anyone who identifies as liberal or left-wing or at least non-conservative and non-right-wing might be a little curious about Representative Paul’s language. After reading a smattering of his writings, I sure am! Let’s check out a few of these lovely turns of phrase, some of which are notable simply for their word choice, others for their overall content.

“The proper role of government, namely the protection of natural and constitutional rights, flows from the pro-life perspective.” (March 28, 2005)

“The real motivation behind the estate tax is a deep-seated hostility to property rights, and a misguided fear of family dynasties.” (June 12, 2006)

“Morality is inherent in law, no matter what the secularists might say.” ((March 28, 2005)

“However, many Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages.” (Gay Marriage Quicksand)

“It is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states’ rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government.” (Gay Marriage Quicksand)

“Throughout the 20th century, the relentless federalization of state law served the interests of the cultural left, and we should not kid ourselves that the same practice now can save freedom and morality. True conservatives and libertarians should understand that the solution to our moral and cultural decline does not lie in a strong centralized government.” (Gay Marriage Quicksand. Note he is discussing gay marriage and homosexuality here when referencing “moral and cultural decline.”)

“Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.” (Christmas in Secular America.)

“Why have we allowed the secularists to intimidate us into downplaying our most cherished and meaningful Christian celebration?” (Christmas in Secular America.)

“The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.” (Christmas in Secular America.)

“This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.” (Christmas in Secular America.)

“Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues. It is much more difficult for pro-life advocates to win politically at the federal level. Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade 300 million Americans to agree with us. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded culture. A pro-life culture must arise from each of us as individuals, not by the edict of an amoral federal government.” (March 28, 2005)

“The political left equates freedom with liberation from material wants, always via a large and benevolent government that exists to create equality on earth. To modern liberals, men are free only when the laws of economics and scarcity are suspended, the landlord is rebuffed, the doctor presents no bill, and groceries are given away.” (February 7, 2005).

“NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.
And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.”(Campaign website)

“Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.” (Campaign website)

“But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.” (Campaign website)

“The therapeutic nanny state only encourages individuals to view themselves as victims, and reject personal responsibility for their actions.” (April 23, 2007)

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.” (April 16, 2007)

“The controversy surrounding remarks by talk show host Don Imus shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.” (April 16, 2007)

Secularists. Pro-gay secular left. Collectivist Left. Understandable fear of gay marriage. Elitist, secular Left. Nanny state. Legally and culturally biased against Christianity. Overturning Roe. Restore protection for the unborn. How much clearer does he have to be? How many more code words and phrases could he add to drive his point home?

His stance on the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, and some other issues definitely seems to set him apart from the crowd in a positive way. Those issues are huge and if you feel that they outweigh everything else, then by all means vote for him.

But if you identify as liberal or on the left. If you are gay. Female. Non-white. Non-Christian. Or just non-religious… Just please be aware of what you are voting for. He is not truly on your side. The politics of 1776—Ron Paul’s politics—do not favor you.

Ian has done a great job of highlighting the current constitutional crisis (The Third Rail War). The politicians we put into office at this time will largely determine the form of the next constitutional order and the trajectory our nation will take for perhaps the next 70 years. At this point, a decision must be made as to whether we need to raise taxes, cut social welfare, or cut the military. I, and I suspect many others at the Agonist, wish to drastically cut the military and reorganize social welfare to be more comprehensive and more efficient (cheaper and better). If taxes need to be raised, then so be it.

Ron Paul will cut all three and bring the whole edifice crashing down. I, for one, am not willing to vote for Samson and let him pull the roof down on us. Based on my readings, I think that the ascendancy of Rep. Paul to the office of the President will be a big “fuck you” from rural and outer suburban, white, straight, Christian males directed toward the rest of the country—only slightly better than when they voted for the neoconservatives in 2004 and directed it toward the rest of the world as well. It will usher in the next phase of the decline of the American republic, as solutions from two centuries ago are imposed on our modern problems and, inevitably, fail to solve them. And the festering rot will continue.

An online acquaintance of mine over at Orcinus recently expressed his frustration at living in a world with 21st century technology but 19th century political structures. I agree--and if our 19th century politics are currently failing, 18th century politics won’t work either. We need something new, we need to solve our modern problems with modern solutions, and we need to include everyone in the process of creating a better future. I don’t know who can do this right now. I have hopes for Kucinich, Gore, or Edwards, but I doubt they’ll get into office and am unsure of just how much change they’ll bring. But I see no one else who even comes close to offering a way forward.