Hey everyone, seeing as this is my first article here on All Things Democrat I thought I’d give myself a quick little introduction: My name’s Scott, I’m a 21-year old northern Virginian who was born and raised in Sterling, now attending school at Christopher Newport University in the south of the state. I am currently a junior, double-majoring in American Studies and Political Science and double-minoring in Philosophy of Law and U.S. National Security Studies. After getting my undergraduate degree, I would like to go on to law school and get a job for the government. With that out of the way, let me get started.
Recently, Republican candidate Ron Paul received a mighty big donation from Peter Thiel, a multi-millionaire co-founder of PayPal and one of the first investors of Facebook. This, of course, has made Ron Paul’s enormous fan base very giddy, as they are aware that an election is largely determined by advertising, especially in this age of super PACs. As many of you probably know, Ron Paul has become very popular among voters lately – especially voters of my generation – and it’s easy to see why. In an age of government defined by inane wars, questionable legislation (the Patriot Act, SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, and the NDAA), a huge debt, unemployment, and personal liberty issues, who wouldn’t back a candidate openly outspoken against all of those things? Actually, I think I might know who… perhaps those who believe that the New Deal saved us from the Great Depression? A few crazy people who understand how necessary government regulation can be for businesses? Insane idiots who realize the government needs to be supported with taxes to ensure that its citizens are being treated fairly and entitled to programs for those less fortunate? Deranged psychotics who see the Constitution as a document laying the foundations of our society, but not as a perfect, prophetic document whose somewhat-vague laws should be the maximum, not the minimum, of those every entity should abide? I recall a Ron Paul fan on YouTube saying that “you should vote for a candidate based on their entire platform, not just one or two things that they believe,” but based on what we know from history, what he’s suggesting you shouldn’t do sounds like the philosophy of everyone who supports Ron Paul!
Now, I’ve heard a lot of people compare the current GOP to that of a “Modern Confederacy.” I don’t think this is entirely fair, as there are a few big differences – namely, the Tea Party Republicans would rather instill their backwards beliefs in our federal government rather than secede, and instead of blatantly standing for segregation, it’s more of a contest to see who can be the most subtly racist without crossing the line (which Mitt Romney has clearly won, given Gingrich’s comments that “African-Americans should demand paychecks,” Santorum’s infamous “blah people” remark, and even the big RP himself way before the contest began with racist newsletters bearing his name). On that note, I think it’s fair to liken Ron Paul to a Modern Anti-Federalist, with only one big difference; unlike the Anti-Federalists of their day, Ron Paul has had the cushy advantage of knowing and seeing a successful federal government operate for hundreds of years, yet continues to ignore the benefits of a powerful nationwide government keeping us united. I don’t know about you, but I’m pretty glad that we’ve only experienced one civil war, rather than a constant conflict between the United Kingdom of New England and the Mid-Atlantic Union fighting over who owns New York territory with constantly changing state borders. Yes, I might be exaggerating a bit since Ron Paul wouldn’t necessarily divide us to that extent, so let’s get a bit more realistic here (although I’m a little disappointed that what I’m about to suggest is even considered realistic in this day and age).
I’m honestly surprised that corporations and CEOs aren’t behind Ron Paul, given that he wants to put a stop to the evils of federal minimum wage and corporate regulations, but I guess there are a few drawbacks – the weapon suppliers and corporate prisons would lose business with his isolationist desires and pro-drug legislation, respectively, his unwillingness to go to war would keep the country focused on domestic issues so that they’ll be more proactive in trying to oppose unfair laws, and most of all, his overall platform won’t earn him the vote of two important groups of his party – the social conservatives and the establishment Republicans (actually, do those even exist anymore?). And maybe, just maybe, some of them are enlightened enough to understand that his views are so extreme they would hurt every single consumer and tank the economy… but I somehow doubt that’s much of a reason for rejection in their eyes. Also, I want to point out that this guy claims he’s with the 99%… please. I will admit that Paul is an absolute genius when it comes to hiding this: touting the reversal of years of progressiveness as “allowing liberties protected under the Constitution,” he’s basically advocating Mitt Romney’s concept that “corporations are people too” in a not-so-direct way. This misconception that he would (somehow) not help corporations by severely deregulating them gets him so much more appeal than he would if he were more openly friendly with big businesses, and that’s what makes his strategy so calculatingly evil – if I were running as a president trying to undo all of the hard work that FDR and other progressive leaders have done to ensure fair working conditions for us, I would definitely go about it the same way with this twisted association between corporate regulations and natural rights.
Obviously, if elected president, Ron Paul would have to go through Congress to get any of this crazy, extremist legislation passed. However, if we were to assume that it got through (which it very well may considering the Libertarian uprising), here’s how it might directly affect me as a random American citizen: my dad is a federal employee (yes, the government created his job, suck on that anti-establishment), but under Ron Paul, it is very likely that his branch could be shut down and put my dad out of a job. My mother and brother, who work through the public education system, could have their jobs in jeopardy as well, but nonetheless, my dad is the main provider for our family. So now that my dad’s unemployed and our modest middle-income family isn’t making enough to get by, we’re entitled to a number of welfare programs, right? No way, because those aren’t liberties guaranteed in the Constitution! Instead, it is left up to the states (which is conservative speak for “get rid of it”), and I don’t think the Old Dominion’s ever been one of those very progressive states that would establish such a program if they didn’t have to. At this point, my dad’s desperate to find a job, and he would be really lucky if, with his law degree, he could work somewhere that offers $5 an hour, regardless of how inhumane the working conditions may be. And thus, unless we use the last of our earnings to move to a sensible country in Europe or Canada before airports raise their prices to massive levels, we are doomed to a lifetime of poverty. Of course, this is the worst case scenario (although I neglected to mention the issue of operating on the gold standard, because honestly I’m not quite sure what effect relating money to some arbitrary object would have on the economy), but the fact it’s a possibility at all certainly makes me think twice about voting for such a person – with any other GOP candidate, the worst case scenario is that my dad gets a pay freeze and the economy gets even worse than it was under Bush (but still, not as bad as it would in Ron Paul’s case).
Lastly, I would like to point out that Ron Paul does not understand the Founding Fathers at all. They never intended the Constitution to be the permanent, all-purpose law of the land (if they had, why would they have established Congress?) and even predicted it would be amended or re-written much more often than it has been, with Jefferson in particular strongly believing that “the living should not be ruled by the dead.” You could argue that the Constitution would be amended more often under Paul’s standards, but is there really a point to that if it simply replaced the current legislation process? The most that would do is de-legitimize its value as a document guaranteeing the minimum of personal liberties all Americans are entitled to.
With that, I will leave you with a quote from Thomas Jefferson:
Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment…But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.
PDF 
