The problems with Ron Paul

He is treated like a god by many on the web. A independent-minded Republican representative from Texas, Ron Paul is thought to be a potential wonder candidate of the 2008 presidential election. I have crowned Paul 'the web candidate' due to the fact that most of his support comes from the internet, and most of his supporters spend much of their lives in cyperspace.

Ron Paul is better than Bush (but that's not a very high standard, now is it?). However, he is an inexperienced paleo-conservative libertarian who wants to abolish everything from the IRS to FEMA — that's just not practical! He and his supporters seem to be living in their own dream world impervious to the reality that that kind of libertarianism doesn't work, especially in today's modern world. You cannot just shut yourself off from everything because of some bad experiences.

If you thought the response to Hurricane Katrina was bad, how would getting rid of FEMA help? Sure thanks to incompetence and a slew of negative traits associated with the Bush administration FEMA did a terrible job in the Gulf Coast, but getting rid of the organization all together is not the answer. Imagine: under Ron Paul's ridiculous vision for America there would be no federal response to something like Katrina, many more would suffer and the conditions there would be far more abysmal as they were following Katrina in 2005.

SO for all those praising Paul as the answer to America's political woes — he's not.

What's so special about Ron Paul? Well, according to this Salon article...

[Paul's] the only Republican candidate who wants to end U.S. involvement in Iraq and withdraw the U.S. Navy from the waters off the Iranian coast. He wants America to pull out of the United Nations, NATO, the International Criminal Court, and most international trade agreements. He wants to abolish FEMA, end the federal war on drugs, get rid of the Department of Homeland Security, send the U.S. military to guard the Mexican border, stop federal prosecutions of obscenity, eliminate the IRS, end most foreign aid, overturn the Patriot Act, phase out Social Security, revoke public services for illegal immigrants, repeal No Child Left Behind, and reestablish gold and silver as legal tender.

Which of those do I consider meaningful? Nearly all of them. NATO, the ICC, FEMA, DHS, the IRS, Social Security... the list goes on. Ron Paul would be fine in the 1800s, in fact, he sounds like a good ol' 1890s Populist with the gold and silver idea, but his ideas wouldn't work this day in age. He wants to turn America into an isolationist, closed-off, libertarian haven — that kind of system just won't work in a culturally and economically globalized world. Isolationism isn't too much better than neoconservative interventionism. Ron Paul would work years ago, but not anymore. Under Paul, and without income tax, homeland defense and security, and social welfare, the US would be going back in time more than it has even under the Bush administration. I don't want that.

Too all those hell-bent on rooting for Dr. Paul, I issue you this challenge: Explain to me how it would work if we got rid of FEMA, the IRS, the DHS, and other agencies that the United States would go to hell without?

Ultimately, we don't no government, we need a better government

A great orator, but are his policies (too) shallow?

Several days ago I watched Barack Obama inspire a crowd in Fairfield, a town in Iowa, a so-called bell weather state, on C-SPAN. Iowa serves not only as the site of one of the first party primaries, but also is seen as a measure or standard of support. The role it will play in the 2008 presidential election remains to be seen. It is amazing, though, that a state with such a small population, carrying little significance (sorry Iowa) can attract some of the biggest names in US politics.

Truth be told this special day-before the 4th of July (Independence Day) event was the first time I watched or heard a full Obama speech. What was more covered was Obama's complementing Bill Clinton — which made headlines, tons of them. The junior senator from Illinois is known for his fantastic speeches, after all his claim to fame was his moving address at the 2004 Democratic Convention. That one speech shot him up the ladder of political stardom.

Obama's policies and charisma seemed great... until he started talking about our "globalized economy" — not that I disagree with that point itself — and his Democratic protectionist trade populism (yuck!) set in. (The Dems have their protectionism from trade, the Republicans have theirs in the area of immigration.) Nonetheless that succeeded a few policy winners like the idea of putting solar panels "on every roof"; the globalization talk was followed by Iraq and national security. He is already talking like he is the Democratic choice for president. Obama is a great orator, plain and simple. Here are some more quotes from his 3 July Fairfield speech:
"There is no military solution in Iraq."
"The world still needs America, just like America still needs the world" (sounding somewhat like Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton, Ann-Marie Slaughter, etc.)
He says he can see from the perspective, "viewpoint" of a foreigner.
"This campaign has to become the vehicle for your hopes."

Then Obama — after talking more on foreign policy, which I'll touch upon in a later post (Foreign Affairs is publishing an array of essays from all the candidates on their pledged foreign policy), with power and energy in every syllable — spews into talk of a people-powered candidacy (see last quote). "We want something new", he is really plugging at the progressive-minded members of the audience, as well as those just fed up with the status quo, i.e. Bush. He, however, talks little of drastic reform, keeping with his earlier precedent of a belief in moderate reform [scroll down to February]. He doesn't want to alienate voters more cautious of great change.

After that he talks about civil rights and the Selma march for black voting rights at the height of the civil rights era in the 1960s, further tying in how his African immigrant plus native American (note: not Native American/American Indian) heritage makes him a symbol of America: with it's goods like openness and rights, and it's bads like xenophobia and repressiveness.

More on Obama:

Profile by The Economist

Wikipedia article

Barack Obama for America website

Washington Post profile (with voting record)

I'll leave you with this question: among the other mainstream candidates, none of whom besides Obama have been called "inexperienced", is Obama really as inexperienced as many point out as his most universal flaw? What do you think counts as experience? — Being governor for a term (or more)? Senator or congressperson for a term (or more)? Business leader? Or more than that?

Barack Obama's political report card score for his two-day Iowa run, plus a bit before and after: B. Seeming like a mix of populist-cheesy-progressive at times, which can only be expected; made amazing amounts of money, without an ex-president as spouse; connected with people but failed to touch upon experience factor. So overall above average, but not stunning.

technorati tags: Barack+Obama, Obama, politics, democrats, republicans, 2008+election, presidential+election, america, united+states, news, iowa, populism, trade, foreign+policy

Focus on Hillary Clinton

I'm going to start a new, reoccurring blog post series focusing on politicians in the news, their backgrounds, political analysis about their actions, and, of course, an arbitrary grade of that policy-maker's performance — from my perspective, their peer's perspective, and the view of the voters.

Senator Hillary R. Clinton (D-NY) is leading the Democratic pack in terms of funds and popular support.

Hillary Clinton has lost the support of some liberal supporters because she has refused to apologize in any way about her support for the Iraq war. She remains ambiguous on her real views on hot topics like Iraq. Clinton tries to please so many different groups: from the anti-violent video game parents to the anti-war collegians. She'll have to make a conscious choice about who her real target audience(s) will be if she is to prevent herself from stretching further her ambiguous views on big issues.

Iraq is a huge issue, not only among the voters: whoever wins the election will inherit Bush's disaster of a war.

The Democrats already get more of the female votes than the Republicans, but Clinton's gender, alas, will no doubt be an issue. Pundits and other politicians trying not to sound sexist, but who actually are sexist, will be making plenty of stealthy jabs: the same we've seen against France's Segolene Royal.

Clinton has raised record funds so far, but no doubt her spouse, former President Bill Clinton, has helped her gain a large amount of those funds. The younger, more youth-savvy and fresh Barak Obama is chasing at Clinton's heels, and John Edwards is not out yet.

Clinton's refusal to admit the wrongs of her vote on the Iraq war — which seems to have some hypocrisy to it — shows negatively on her political grade, and she has no new visions or ideas, even modest like those of Obama, to offer the voters. However, she has plenty of money and is still the Democratic frontrunner for 2008. Her grade stands at a B(-), or roughly 6/10 or 7/10 — 10 being excellent, one being unbelievably pathetic (e.g. Al Gore has an 8/10, but at the time of his Oscar, etc, boom it was more like 9/10; Obama has maybe 7/10 or 8/10... still working out the grading system).

technorati tags: politics, usa, united+states, elections+2008, presidential+elections, hillary+clinton, clinton, obama, edwards, democrats, in+the+news, iraq, bush, gore, royal, woman