Posted by
Nick Hankoff on Friday, June 22, 2007 7:01:49 PM
My dad politically raised me with talk radio. Beginning
when I was about 12 or 13, he would turn on conservative talk shows and
I would listen. I learned to love it. I loved talker Michael Savage
after 9/11, and he is still one of my favorite hosts. But he is not a
good source for sound philosophy or a focal point for American
political thought. The average Michael Savage listener does not like
"empty suits" and sees little difference between Republicans and
Democrats. The average Michael Savage listener, however, has plenty of
problems with a candidate like Ron Paul.
My dad is one of these conservatives. Here are some typical arguments
against Ron Paul since the debates May 15th on Fox News. Dad, feel free
to comment and tell me where I'm off. And for those who can't tell,
this blog is littered with "clicky-goodness!" It's important to post
this political discussion because it's important to unite the
conservative base under an idea of limited government.
*Ron Paul
isn't "presidential" looking*... and Michael Savage is? I've heard talk
about how good it would be to get an outsider in public office, a
non-professional politician as it would be. But now we're looking at
height, hair, and suits? Looking "presidential" is only for the
mindless moderate who doesn't understand ideas anyway. In a time where
constitutional ideas don't have any other time in the mainstream
spotlight, there's no time in the pro-freedom movement to pander to
hollow-headed voters who only want to look at the pictures, and not
read the text.
*Rudy got him good*...
Like canned laughter doesn't mean Everybody Loves Raymond is funny, a
round of applause in South Carolina during a Fox News Debate doesn't
mean "Rudy got him" either.
*Ron Paul stupidly offended millions of Americans*... or is it possible that millions of Americans were just offended stupidly?
Ron Paul defended his remarks, and is hardly the first rational voice
to tell us that our foreign policy is a catalyst in the terrorist's
motive to kill us. Ron Paul doesn't promise that non-interventionism
will keep us safe all the time. He does not give a false promise of
security. He gives a true promise of liberty.
*Culture of Death
in-part caused 9/11*... the notion that our culture is hated is true.
But our culture is a free culture, and if you want a free country, you
must be brave enough to face all facets of it. Unfortunately it is our
government-corpatism that has brought our culture (quite aggressively)
to the lands of the Middle East since the 1970's. Non-interventionism
will strengthen our national security because it means more minds and
bodies here to improve defense.
The regurgitation of the
average conservative's talking points doesn't work. They only want
freedom when it allows things they agrees with, which isn't real
liberty. You have to be honest with where you're coming from. We're
fortunate to live in a society where if you don't like this Culture of
Death as you put it, you can choose to not support it by changing the
channel or whatever the appropriate response may be.
Ron Paul's
message is the only one that will bring any conservatism to the White
House. If you think any other Republican will be in the White House in
2009, you are in a dream world.