I have come to the sad realization that Barack Obama is a massive failure. Ron Paul would’ve been a much better choice in 2008 and likely in 2012, even for a left-leaning libertarian like myself. I’m not saying that I would vote for any Republican over Barack Obama. Obama is at least marginally less repugnant than most of the Fox news endorsed yahoos like Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney. Nor am I saying that I agree with Ron Paul on everything. I don’t. But there seems to be no reasonable Democratic candidate who will deliver on any of the issues on which I do disagree with Ron Paul. Given that fact, the rational choice, the lesser of two evils, is the Republican. It’s not hard to see why. Just consider what Obama has delivered and compare that to what Ron Paul would’ve delivered.
I’m basically a libertarian in the Robert Anton Wilson mode; i.e. someone who likes nature and doesn’t hate taxes or poor people. Welfare doesn’t bother me but sending airplanes halfway around the world to kill a bunch of poor villagers does. With that in mind, let’s consider the issues:
Healthcare: I want a reliable, single-payer system that ensures everyone has access to reasonable health care. On this issue Ron Paul would’ve delivered exactly what Barack Obama has: absolutely nothing.
The economy: Keynes described the state of the economy we’re in 70 years ago. Massive government intervention is called for. However, that intervention should focus on shoring up people’s incomes and support systems, not the bonuses of Wall Street bankers. Here Obama may have actually done a little bit better than Ron Paul would’ve done. However, he hasn’t done nearly enough. This minor improvement is hardly justification for the continuing torture state endorsed by Barack Obama.
The environment: freedom stops at the next person’s nose. Pollution doesn’t. Regulating emissions and protecting the environment is a proper function of government. We need much stronger environmental regulations and government enforcement thereof. And once again, Ron Paul would’ve accomplished exactly what Barack Obama has: absolutely nothing.
Foreign-policy: this is the area where Ron Paul really shines. Barack Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay. He didn’t. There is at least a reasonable possibility that Ron Paul would’ve actually shut the torture prison down by now. Barack Obama promised to get us out of Iraq within a year. He didn’t, and there’s no exit date in sight. Ron Paul would have the troops out by now. Barack Obama promised to expand the war in Afghanistan and kill more people, and this is one promise he delivered on. Ron Paul would not have done that.
The Supreme Court: Barack Obama’s one choice so far for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, isn’t awful but neither is she great. Perhaps she’ll become another Earl Warren or Thurgood Marshall, but I’m not betting on it. I suspect Ron Paul would have nominated a candidate at least this good for the Supreme Court, though doubtless there’d be some differences from issue to issue.
Immigration: as a libertarian I believe in free and unrestricted movement of people. I see no reason whatsoever that anyone who wants to shouldn’t be able to walk across the border (any border) any time to seek work or for any other reason. On this issue, Paul is decidedly not libertarian. He seems to believe that freedom is only for native-born Americans, and voted for the erection of fences to restrict the freedom of movement of Mexicans. But so did Barack Obama. Recently, Obama has proposed cutting the funds for further extension of the border fence. However, I suspect Ron Paul would eliminate the militaristic checkpoints stopping all drivers in the Southwest. Again, I don’t really like Paul or his stand on the issue, but he’s not significantly worse than Obama.
Marijuana: Barack Obama claims to be okay with medical marijuana, but this is belied by the continued unrest and persecution of cannabis clubs in California and elsewhere. Ron Paul simply wants to legalize it. Advantage Paul.
Crime: Democrats have long been accused of being soft on crime, whereas Republicans have long been accused of being criminals. The last two administrations have proven both of these calumnies to be true. The Bush/Cheney administration was the most criminal in American history, and the Obama administration has completely let them off the hook. I don’t know if Ron Paul would have actually prosecuted the criminals in the Bush administration had he been elected, but he certainly couldn’t have done less than Barack Obama has.
I could go on with many other issues — freedom of choice, Palestine, government surveillance of citizens, welfare, etc. — but on issue after issue, Paul ranges from significantly better than Obama to no worse. When you get down to it, the only thing that Barack Obama has really delivered in the last year and a half is a slight improvement in credit card terms and a brief extension of unemployment benefits. By contrast, if Ron Paul had been elected, Guantánamo would be closed and we’d be out of Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s hardly an ideal scenario. The economy would still be in the toilet. Global warming would still be pushing us toward complete environmental disaster with no effective action from the government. Tens of millions of Americans would be without adequate health care. But how is that any different from the situation we’re in now? If the Democrats can’t deliver on Democratic issues like the environment, healthcare, and the economy, then we might as well vote for a Republican who would at least deliver on not torturing and assassinating people.
Previous Topic
