False Gods Create False Hope
Posted: Thursday, January 17, 2008
by Joel Hirschhorn
http://www.delusionaldemocracy.com
The good news is the huge pent up public demand for political change. The bad news is that presidential candidates have made a mockery of the concept of change while ignoring true political reforms. Missing are details about fixing the corrupt, dysfunctional political system and restoring balance among the three branches of government and between the states and the federal government.
When people rally behind false change agents something worse than being disappointed and having their hopes killed happens: the national energy for real change is wasted. In the end, false change agents protect the status quo political establishment. Hope is replaced by despair for disaffected anti-establishment masses. The worst false change agent is Ron Paul.
An early sign of trouble was that Paul supporters seemed to worship him as if he is the long-awaited savior for America , akin to one of our Founding Fathers. In their writing and behavior they seem like members of a cult, not thoughtful political activists open to new information. They don't appreciate the need to have disagreements without being disagreeable. Though their hero speaks of persuasion, his supporters express obnoxious in-your-face anger, disparagement, and intimidation. They show disdain for others that want major political change but do not support Paul.
For years before he became a Republican presidential candidate I had admired Paul for his maverick behavior in Congress and had a very pleasant meeting with him. But I had doubts about most of his policy goals, and his use of pork spending earmarks to get billions of dollars for his district was troubling. Paul remains a change talker, not a change agent.
The more I examined what he wanted to do as president the more he looked like the emperor with no clothes. He never produced detailed plans on how he would use new legislation, presidential actions or constitutional amendments. This is especially important for his drastic changes, such as eliminating much of the federal government and putting the country's currency back on the gold standard. His supporters never seem to demand details. Paul and his supporters exhibit therapeutic activism: activism that makes them feel good but lacks details necessary to convince others.
Yes, I have advocated a Second American Revolution and Paul's supporters also want a revolution. But a revolution requires leaders that can communicate so effectively with diverse Americans that massive public support results. Paul and his supporters give freedom their highest priority, but do not welcome the exercise of freedom by Americans to reject their beliefs. As Gary Wood, a Paul supporter correctly observed: "You will create more damage to our cause than good if you continue to spew hatred and poisonous venom rather than reason and kindness. Threats and nasty vile hatred will not spread our message; only detract from the importance of liberty and freedom."
Paul, the professed champion of the Constitution, brings it up in virtually every public statement and claims to believe in a strict reading of it. But he refuses to honor what is in Article V: the option the Founders gave us to have state delegates in a convention consider proposals for constitutional amendments. The one and only numeric requirement in Article V has been more than satisfied, as explained at www.foavc.org . Yet Paul has not demanded that members of Congress obey Article V and their oath of office to obey the Constitution. This is no trivial matter.
You would think he would honor the purpose of the Article V convention option: a way to circumvent an ineffective federal government and restore balance between it and the states. Paul should use his candidacy to make a public commitment to get the nation's first Article V convention. That would be revolutionary.
Nor has Paul not forcefully criticized the two-party stranglehold on the political system, despite once losing as a Libertarian Party presidential candidate pushing the same policy ideas. Nor has he clamored for the impeachment of George W. Bush, whose foreign policies contradict Paul's isolationist beliefs. No reason for Paul to be concerned about Bush supporters, only 4 percent of Republicans support Paul. And thankfully, citizens in Iowa , Wyoming , New Hampshire (a Libertarian stronghold), and now Michigan have not succumbed to Paul's demonology. Despite having considerable money Paul has won no delegates.
Whether other candidates are true reformers remains doubtful. Obama's glib talk of more bipartisanship smacks of protecting the status quo political establishment. Huckabee's religiosity and Romney's automaton personality are plain frightening, as are McCain's and Giuliani's bellicose beliefs. Edwards looks like the real thing, but like Kucinich has been out spent by Obama and the ever phony Clinton whose change priority is moving back into the White House.
Like others, I want Mike Bloomberg to enter the race as an independent candidate, if only to mount a serious attack on the two-party stranglehold on our political system.
This Article has been viewed 614 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (2 total)Hirschhorn argument: Ron Paul is a phony/not a real "agent of change" Hirschhorn reasoning: All of his supporters are unruly Hirschhorn argument: Ron Paul only gives lip service to the Constitution Hirschhorn reasoning: Ron Paul refuses to promise that he will abuse presidential power once he is elected...oh, btw, he is not going to win anyway, but wtf...we should assail him relentlessly like he's a threat anyway Hirschhorn argument: Ron Paul never criticizes the undemocratic election process (which is a lie, and Hirschhorn knows this) Hirschhorn reasoning: "chirp.......chirp" Hirschhorn argument: We need "real change" Hirschhorn reasoning: We need a corporatist, status quo nightmare...Mike Bloomberg! (wow! that's satire, right, Joel?) Hirschhorn facade: I'm a concerned citizen and I honestly, genuinely speak truth to power, with the constitution as my measuring stick and the American people at heart Hirschhorn reality: "Joel S. Hirschhorn was a senior official at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association" (hmm...an "insider" huh?...a statist?...perhaps that's why Hirschhorn constantly concocts straw men arguments against the strongest anti-state and pro-liberty candidate...is Hirschhorn a Zionist-neocon plant? cointelpro? hmm...all he ever does is write half-baked and mostly fallacious smear pieces against a man he says has no chance of getting elected...hmm)
I'm going to be as nice as I can, this is NOT meant to be a hate-mail! I can respect someone else's opinion as well as anyone, and I'm about as open minded as they come, according to my family & friends. Just some notes on your facts: - PORK? Paul asks for part of the budget to be distrubuted to his district because he's part of a corrupt system that will not re-elect him if he lets his taxpayer's money go into that system without a fight. If they don't get it, the Executive branch spends it at it's discretion. To top it off, to express his belief that system shouldn't even exist, he votes against it. If all his cohorts followed suit, the whole corrupt Pork Barrel Spending situation would cease. But, since he's the most honest among them - John McCain said so himself - he stands alone. - CHANGE? It's staring us all in the face, but the CFR-approved candidates, and journalists like yourself don't want Americans to see it. It's simple logic. We're just about broke, and it's because of our empire, our nation-building exploits & resulting blowback, and the FED devaluing the dollar to pay for it all. It's plain, simple, madness to continue. Unless we want to be another developing serfdom in the kingdom of the world, we need direction from someone outide the globalist CFR. The guy with the best shot at it is Ron Paul. - DETAILS?Paul's plans do have details. You just can't compress them into short conversations, let alone 30-second sound bites that are made to look good but in the end mean little or nothing. Dig deeper, answers are there, mostly in existing laws either in the Federal or State level. Everyone says "cut the fat, cut the fat!" Now they scream bloody murder when someone actually is bold enough to say "let's get it on!" and it's not the person they hoped it would be. - ANGER? You paint all supporters with the same broad brush. We Americans ALL have plenty to be angry about, and people that don't get their facts straight @#$@#&* us off even more when they push their flawed opinon, because people too easily buy those OPINIONS without further research. How's this for a rebuttal: Journalists that make a living pushing opinion pieces to mold the public mindset are the worst sort of yellow. Does this apply to you? If not, then you should not be offended by my saying so, right? It's just MY opinion of course, but you're about as far out as you accuse us of being. Paul should call for a Article 5 convention? Yeah, like the media hasn't already gone overboard trying to make him sound bonkers. You REALLY want to lock-in that "crazy" buzzword, don't you! Of course, if Rudy or McCain said it, well, Fox News would call them pure genius! Good luck with that Bloomberg run. He should have started by now if he wanted to have a chance to be something other than the gadfly this season. What's he stand for by the way, direct me to some links. I only know he's rich, which offhand puts him in company with Romney as another guy that might think he can buy Americans votes. Sincerely, James A. "Jamie" Moore Pemberville, OH Oh, and GO RON PAUL! lol
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.