Pro-Statist Political Disease: Unreasoning Fear of Dr. Ron Paul

Pro-Statist Political Disease: Unreasoning Fear of Dr. Ron Paul

By Joseph Andrew Settanni

Desperation and fear has, increasingly, gripped the saddened hearts of all the main conservative and neoconservative pundits or commentators, in one way or another. They, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Levin, Savage, etc., have, so mightily and most deliberately, trashed and ridiculed one particular candidate who, upon careful analysis, is very different from the rest.

What is the central source of this growing manifest fear and observed profound desperation, though often unadmitted? It seems to be what may need to be plainly called “Paulophobia,” a massive and unreasoning fear of Dr. Ron Paul. He has, singlehandedly, inspired a whole new field of demonology.

What are Republicans, when choosing a candidate, being told to do? They are generally being told that, although this upcoming election year of 2012 will be momentously and certainly deciding the grave fate of future generations of Americans, they should vote for someone, in the primaries and caucuses, who they do suspect may be sort of electable enough, though his basic policies and programs may not really conform to their fundamental belief in constitutional government.

Electorate Abuse

A very harsh duplicitous mindset, coldly fixated upon a domestic (Machiavellian) version of Realpolitik, is, usually, recommended for this age of tremendous crisis as the very future of the American Republic is now put into critical question. Standards of sound judgment, critical analysis, wise reflection, patriotic emotions, and responsible adult conduct are, seemingly, to be radically set aside for observed reckless pragmatism, subjective expediency, loathsome compromise, boorish mendacity, and just plain odious, obnoxious behavior leading, sooner or later, toward self-contempt.

Republicans are urged, often, to just then settle for a merely 2nd or, perhaps, a 3rd or 4th best candidate, someone who, on average, seems to be just acceptable enough for enough voters, though conservative political principles, however, may not really be advanced if that person ever gets elected. They are to go along and blindly follow the dictates of party operatives and experts who insist that only a moderate-to-liberal nominee can hope to win in the general election, not a true conservative.

But, e. g., John McCain lost; Gerald Ford lost; Robert Dole lost; the second attempt by George H. W. Bush, running then as a neoconservative/moderate, failed. George W. Bush, a neocon himself, was barely elected and then barely, once again, reelected. Ronald Reagan, however, had easily won two major landslides. Q. E. D.

It sounds very much like a Hobson’s choice suitable only for defeatists. It is not exactly inspiring. Not the sort of cheering and rousing words, for dramatically moving hearts and minds, before the troops are to hit hard upon Omaha Beach. Not seen is the demanded revolution against Big Government statism ardently hoped for by the Tea Party Movement and the conservative base of the Republican Party, which gets supremely ignored. And, that, in effect, commanded revolution is what Ron Paul represents to a maximum.

Such [disrespected] voters are regularly told to, in effect, turn Mother’s picture to the wall (in shame), look cross-eyed at a candidate, ignore any (liberty-destroying) principles surely unsupportive of free government, overlook all or any past “baggage,” faults, and flaws that would make even a blaspheming, drunken sailor blush—and just vote. This so means, as to a form of vicious degradation, to cast a quite sickening and ethically dubious ballot, one supposes, for the least offensive candidate who, at the least, hadn’t committed (any known) murders, one suspects. Isn’t that truly inspiring?

And, that appears to be the very height of American citizenship, in an era characterized as certainly one of supreme crisis, when courage and character ought, in truth, to be most defended, meaning when despised and discounted, so greatly, by the majority of the political commentators.

Dr. Thomas Sowell seriously recommends voting for Gingrich regardless, in effect, of how disgusting such a plausible choice can be considered to be because, after all, he is still preferable, with all of his numerous and well documented defects, depravities, defalcations, and deficiencies. Isn’t that just truly inspiring? Others back Romney, as with, e. g., Dr. Mike Savage (off and on) who insists (at times) he is, as to the then only bottom line that matters, somewhat electable. And, doesn’t all this simply make the political process a great joy to behold?

Both conservative and neoconservative radio talk-show hosts, e. g., give out many banal thoughts about why someone may or might wish to support (usually unenthusiastically) Gingrich, Romney, or almost any other of the rest of them, with, however, the typical and absolutely notable exception of Ron Paul. He genuinely inspires people, motivates his supporters, has nationwide followers, draws upon much non-Republican Party support needed for the general election, offers a genuine alternative vision against Big Government interventionism against the lives of the American people, etc.

Thus, strangely, why has he been thoroughly thrashed and repudiated and slandered by most of the major conservative talk-show hosts who keep on strenuously denying that they are NOT at all, in fact, part and parcel of the Republican Party establishment, of course? Amazing, isn’t it? But, incredible circumstances may just overtake all this obnoxious effort to stop a pro-Constitution advocate of a free political order not dependent upon an interventionist State destructive of the freedom of the American people.

He just may, in fact, win the January 3rd contest in Iowa against all odds and, now, many are becoming increasingly fearful that the New Hampshire Primary might either put him in second place or, horror of horrors, he could then become the winner there too. Thus, according to the majority of commentators, no “legitimate” candidate might, thus, win both of those initial presidential contests and that ruins the process, which then automatically invalidates it, of course. All this is dramatic empirical evidence for so much rampantly excessive Paulophobia.

The people who do participate in the Republican caucuses and primaries are told, by many, to please become (cynical) two-fisted voters. Hold one’s nose with one hand and snidely cast a ballot with the other hand for a (questionable) candidate, who is not really someone exactly worthy to be President but just a politician who seems to be, well, maybe sort of, you know, perhaps, just somehow or other, deserving of a (disvalued) vote; this is because well, you know, the presented crop of candidates, by and large, really stinks (as to the popular perception), though no one is supposed to say so.

The outstanding exception to the rule enunciated above concerns, of course, endless self-righteous denunciations of Ron Paul as supposedly the worst choice imaginable. For many pundits, Paul simply absolutely stinks, not just relatively so. One wonders if, in secret, the Republican Party hierarchy actually prefers Obama to win again as part of a greatly Machiavellian strategy to capture the US Senate in 2012, not just to retain a stronger majority in the House; so, the nominee is to be sacrificed.

Empirical evidence would seem to exist, confirming such a strategy, with the current debate regarding the $500 billion defunding of Social Security that reveals, after 75 years of Democrat Party lying, that it is really an income tax, for no real Social Security “trust fund” exists as a supposed insurance program. Of course, if a Republican President dared to defund Social Security, there would be self-righteous howls of Democrat protest and false indignation against “stealing money” from the elderly and poor.

Instead, this nauseous fraud, this vile con game, is being called a “tax cut,” as to the best euphemism made available for public consumption, in that the political class, including the Republican hierarchy, think the people are stupid enough to fall for this trick. Obama gets credited, especially by the mass media, as being the putative tax cutter, instead of the charlatan he actually is, of course, by claiming that the Republicans oppose a tax cut. Perhaps, due to this involved skullduggery, it may just be a moot point regarding whoever gets the Republican nomination. But, in any event, Paul is not a malevolent political figure, as so often falsely charged; and yet, he, as with all the others running, is tainted, one assumes, by being a politician.

Moral Monster Criticism

Michael Medved has, for instance, more than just slightly hinted that Paul is really a kind of quasi-Hitlerite figure who certainly does seem, on average, to somewhat give the basic impression, more or less, that he is a sort or kind of titular leader, in a certain sense, of Aryan Nation groups, among other failings, though he has some/many Jewish supporters, nonetheless; all of them are held to be misguided morons for even thinking about favoring him, of course, because the overtly suspected and baleful, according to Medved, anti-Semitism simply pervading this candidate automatically disqualifies him.

The impression is easily gained that he has a sort of Nazi-like temperament, somehow or other, that he just very skillfully hides as merely his (allegedly moral monster) opposition to the current foreign policy concerning the State of Israel. Clearly, only Nazi-inclined people, as, perhaps, according to Medved, would be entirely comfortable as supporters of this supposedly Hitlerite rabble rouser.

What is truly amazing is that such a vicious and unworthy fellow could get national support from people who oppose Big Government, neoconservatism (aka Medved), the ever-mounting national debt, bloated Federal bureaucracies, many failed collectivist programs, massive unemployment seeing no end in sight, militarism, foreign interventionism gone mad, the Federal Reserve, a depressed economy, a depressed housing market, no positive future for the younger generation, the ugly cesspool known as the United Nations, the IMF, etc. & etc. Are those really any important and urgent, valid and crucial, reasons for strongly supporting Paul? Is there, truly speaking, any fair, rational, and reasonable doubt?

It appears he must, by definition, be a vile, contemptible, racist swine because, after all, he is against tyranny, oppression, injustice, and corruption and stands fully in manifest and adamant favor of free, constitutional, republican government qua governance. No doubt about it. Ron Paul is a definite threat to the existence of the glorious welfare-warfare State, desired strongly by neoconservatism and liberalism, and, thus, must be stopped at all costs, according to the thinking in opposition to the political positions taken by him actually supporting—God forbid!—constitutionalism.

And, many conservative commentators, such as Limbaugh, Hannity and Levin, by adamantly favoring an interventionist foreign policy that affirms the American imperium’s existence, do then also, in effect, functionally support the welfare-warfare State in this country. As Bill Buckley was fond of quoting Trotsky, who says A must say B. Q. E. D. This misguided miscreant of a physician is, therefore, surely a tremendous danger to statism and statists everywhere. Why? He, ignorantly, believes in and actually staunchly supports, moreover, sustainable constitutional government, freedoms and liberties to be guaranteed by the US Constitution.

He cannot and ought not ever to be permitted to get the Republican nomination for the presidency of this country, as a direct consequence of his harmful and anti-tyrannical notions, as to the quite contemptibly absurd thought that self-government might be the way to go. The welfare-warfare State must, therefore, be upheld for the sakes of neoconservatism and liberalism now and forever, which is really the bottom line.

The Iron Triangle, Big Government, Big Business and Big Labor, must be strengthened greatly so that no one can again attempt to do what Paul is so stupidly doing by threatening to break it. Of course, there are other various scenarios going the rounds about ways and means of stopping him. There is, e. g., a draft Jeb Bush movement said to be possibly developing.

Sarah Palin, e. g., goes about telling people that it is not too late for others to enter the race, though the really interesting fact, however, is that she refuses to endorse any of the current runners, which usually gets just completely ignored. Even up to April or May of next year, as yet another suggestion rendered, it could still be possible to get on ballots for certain (major) primaries, especially if there is still no front runner, as is often openly thought now.

Or, it is being fantastically hoped that the delegates to the National Republican Convention, in 2012, will cast useless first, second, or, perhaps, third ballots by not reaching any critically needed delegate count; then, the vast majority would be, thus, free to deliberate among themselves and come up with someone suitable, aka especially not Paul, who could then get the most votes needed to be supported (by the party hierarchy and their attendant hacks), of course.

But, all of the above are extreme possibilities or deus ex machina actions are, obviously, prefaced upon the present massive desperation and, often, outright depressive despair; there are no vital signs of hope, at present, that just one candidate will really catch fire in the imaginations of Republican voters. Really now, what is going on here?

The liberal-toward-progressive wing of the party, meaning the minority plus some moderates, sides with, e. g., Gingrich and Romney; the majority that composes various rightwing factions and including the whole basic conservative base is now spread out among the rest. Muddled political decisions can be assumed to be logically prevalent because of this highly confusing situation.

The Tea Party Movement, as is known, is clearly split among a number of conservative candidates, which includes, of course, observed divisions among the conservative base of the Republican Party that reflect as well upon Tea Party difficulties, meaning in deciding upon just one person at this time in the process. Consequently, Paul seems, which should be just expected, to be appealing to most of the same people as a logical result of this thinning out or seen division and so related confusion of the conservative vote.

But, is there anything to fear about Paul becoming President of the USA? Would he, e. g., establish an American Gestapo to set about rounding up the Jews in this country? Medved appears, in his more paranoid moments, to seem to believe that Paul would act so directly opposite to all of his limited government principles, which would then be a total repudiation of free, constitutional, representative, republican government qua governance, at a minimum.

That would appear extremely unlikely, to say the least. As a matter of fact, social civil liberty in this country would not be threatened at all by the proper move to reduce the Federal government to its constitutional limits, as is surely and urgently needed. The kind of nightmarish monster image, being so vigorously portrayed by Medved and many others, does not quite easily connect with the numerous freedom-loving and liberty-supporting principles that have been valiantly and consistently defended by Paul for, literally, decades now.

If Medved were believed, then Nazi-style death camps would, logically, have to be just one of the absolutely massive Big Government projects of a future Ron Paul Administration, which would, however, be just as absolutely nonsensical. The incongruity of such a portrayal of this man must make all such clearly hyperbolic and struthonian criticism comprehensively bizarre beyond any rational question whatsoever.

Grave National Crisis

The admitted presumption that there does now exist a grave national crisis calls forth the need for an answer to the question as to whom the nation can turn to, in the political realm, to bring substantially needed relief and, one hopes, an eventual end to this monumental catastrophe. Does this mean that Paul is the best thing since the invention of ice cream? Certainly, no.

But, supremely better questions demand to be forthrightly asked. Is he the best man among those publicly willing to become President, at this greatly critical time in the history of the Republic, to do what essentially needs to be done to so fundamentally stop the harmful growth of the oppressive Hobbesian Leviathan, the Federal establishment? Is there a current candidate, more filled with the true spirit of American constitutionalism, ready, willing, and able to try to fight against oppression, injustice, corruption, and tyranny and, in addition, has, on balance, the basically requisite knowledge to do so?

There is truly no such thing, realistically speaking, as a superbly perfect or ideal candidate generously incorporating all the magnificent plenitude of the highest and noblest abilities, talents, attitudes, and skills, to a degree easily unmatched in the scope, depth, and history of this or any nation on earth. The recorded annals of statecraft and statesmanship have rarely, if ever, noted an outstanding statesman who had abundantly, meaning without any question, displayed tremendous qualities that almost made him appear to be a demigod among his peers.


George Washington, during his second Administration, had many quite scurrilous and defamatory things printed about him, filled with discernably vile denunciations made, as to his then supposed gross and disgusting incompetence. John Quincy Adams was said to prefer pink silk underwear. Abraham Lincoln, when in office, had been actually referred to as an ape. Most judgments, right or wrong, as to the presumed qualities of statesmanship once displayed in office have, in American history, usually come after and, sometimes, quite long after the time when the person had held the office.

Denunciations of Paul, if calmly and maturely examined in the responsible light of the course of this nation’s long and troubled history, need to be placed into context. He is actively engaged in a divisive and heated political contest. Many people are seeking the office, not just two candidates. This nation is divided, approximately, into two warring camps as to the primary or fundamental direction of all national policy. The actual future of many generations, not just the present people, has been critically put at stake.

This really, without any question, is a significant time for a decisive turning point in this country’s history that will, eventually, seek to revive or utterly destroy free, constitutional republican government. If a stark choice is not made at this historically momentous juncture, meaning for Ron Paul, the great opportunity presented may be and, probably, will be lost forever. Goldwater’s defeat by LBJ, in 1964, had, for instance, definitely consolidated and reinforced the New Deal forever.

Elections, therefore, have manifest and lasting consequences. Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, and others know this. They support the welfare-warfare State because of foreign policy issues favored by them; a substitute for the Cold War (which had to be conducted to stop and reverse the spread of Communism) is being desperately and wrongly sought after to help stoke the evil fires of ugly nationalism as a way, in their perverted minds, of then reinforcing American willpower.

Hitler, in his Mein Kampf, had, e. g., declared himself a nationalist who hated patriotism, which is why the traditionalist right supports only patriotism, never nationalism; neoconservatism is a nationalist ideology that favors ongoing foreign aggression as military adventurism. Thus, Rush et al willingly join forces with the neoconservatives, such as Medved, to favor endless interventionism abroad, which, thus, encourages and often justifies interventionism at home to, therefore, better help support the American imperium.

Predictably, one cogently sees that their definition and understanding of true national greatness, in their warped intellects, becomes inextricably connected to foreign aggression (aka war). What may be called “Rushite” conservatism and neoconservatism are, as a logical consequence, brothers under the skin; they both tend, as could so easily be proven by research, to glorify belligerence and militarism.

Paul, an American patriot, is totally opposed to nationalism and militarism, as ought to be well known by now. Of course, if no genuine calamity is perceived as existing, as happening, then any other person running could be chosen as the nominee because little of importance would be held at stake. And yet, reality must be or should be separated intelligently from various campaign-related fictions and politically-inspired animadversions set repeatedly against him.

Conclusion

There is, as stated above, no indication whatsoever, therefore, that any repressive institutions of any such nature would ever be constructed, by his orders, anywhere in this country for the harming of Jews. For that matter, it is extremely doubtful, moreover, that gulags of whatever sort would be constructed for any group of Americans or, by possible implication, foreigners.

The entire tenor and substance, presentation and character, of this man would, at a basic minimum, hold as inherently abhorrent any kind of police-state measures, of acts of tyranny, done on his behalf. Nor would he inspire actions adverse to the important cause of human liberty. In contrast, what is a truly genuine and increasing threat to actual social civil liberty, in this much suffering country, is the welfare-warfare State, with its ever increasing powers and massive Federal bureaucracy, squeezing the life out of the market economy, as it then simultaneously destroys the precious freedoms of Americans in that very heinous process of collectivism’s enforcement.

Only someone, therefore, plainly desiring to basically maintain the tyrannous status quo, meaning the welfare-warfare State, who has driven himself (Medved) deliberately into a condition of paranoid rage, would, in that sense, come to fear Paul. No rational basis, thus, exists for any Paulophobia. He is not the moral monster being depicted; he is, as should be understood by now, an avowed enemy of tyranny.

There ought to be no absurd sense of panic or dread whatsoever if he, beating the incredible odds set increasingly against him, finally gets the Republican nomination. One hopes, due to all the tons of dirt and manure massively thrown upon him, that, nevertheless, it will not turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory. This is not an era for a compromising Gingrich or a temporizing Romney, or an Eisenhower or a Gerald Ford; a Reagan is urgently needed, a true man who has a genuine strength of character, for doing what has, in fact, to be done.


This nation will, however, more than just merely endure or, perhaps, survive a Paul presidency; it will, most likely, thrive abundantly if there is a conservative and cooperative US Congress around to help him to properly restore constitutionalism in America, to lovingly reconstitute the once valiant Republic.

God save the Republic!