A Choice, Not An Echo
Here is the text of a speech I just gave at a Ron Paul for President rally in Mountain View, California. A good 600 people showed up in the middle of a park next to Google headquarters. Ron was there, and he gave a great talk: the crowd was enthusiastic, it was a sunny day, and a good time was had by all. By the way, as I watched the crowd going wild for Ron, I wondered: what if, say, Mitt Romney showed up in Mountain View and held a rally at the same locale: would he get 600 wildly cheering highly-energized people to turn out? Somehow I doubt it....
At any rate, here’s the little talk I gave:
It’s interesting how history is repeating itself, these days, but with a twist: a candidate emerges from the Republican grassroots, straight from the conservative base that has been the bedrock of the party’s support since the dark days of the New Deal. He faces a Republican Establishment that is dedicated to the three overriding principles of Washington politics, no matter which party we’re talking about: big money, big government, and big subsides for the biggest, most powerful interest groups. We have a candidate who offers a choice, not an echo, who calls conservatives – and independent Americans – back to the founding principles of this country: the concept of constitutionally limited government and a foreign policy based on peace and the wisdom of minding our own business. We have, in short, an authentic conservative, one who harkens back to such Republican stalwarts as Robert A. Taft and even Dwight David Eisenhower, whose prescient warning against the power of the military-industrial complex went unheeded by his fellow Republicans. And we have a “mainstream” media that is hopelessly biased against anyone who doesn’t fit into their predetermined categories, who is authentic, and lives by the principles he espouses – indeed, who is motivated by those principles and cares about little else.
The last time such a candidate appeared on the Republican scene, he rose from relative obscurity to become a conservative hero and symbol, and snatched the nomination from Nelson Rockefeller and a gaggle of pale imitation “moderates,” and mounted a campaign that basically set the stage for the modern conservative movement and the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s. His name was Barry Goldwater.
Almost half a century later, the Establishment is once again facing a challenge from a maverick, an upstart who dares to point to the party’s betrayal of its principles, and seeks to revive a movement that has turned into the exact opposite of what it used to be: a crusade for limited government that, somehow, got sidetracked into becoming an all-out assault on the Constitution and what is left of our civil liberties. Like Goldwater, he is a red-state Republican, a staunch conservative – perhaps the most conservative member of Congress. He has stood like a rock against the temper of the times, and swum against the current of his own party in upholding his deep skepticism of government “solutions,” and has justly earned the sobriquet “Dr. No” because he has no trouble voting against most of the nonsense that passes for legislation at the federal level.
His name is Ron Paul.
He is the rightful heir of Goldwater, of Taft, of a party that once stood for individual rights, and a peaceful, prudent foreign policy based on the pursuit of American interests. A party that has since lost its way.
It’s sad, really, to see the decline of a once great party: a party that has presided over the biggest expansion of government since the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson, the biggest explosion of federal spending in modern times, and the most serious assault on our constitutional liberties since the imposition of the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. Here is a party that once stood for decentralized government asserting the theory of presidential supremacy, in which the power of the executive is exaggerated and mystified until it becomes a monstrous growth of precisely the same sort feared by the Founders, who warned against the return of royalism to America – and wrote a Constitution in which the authority of the other two branches of government served as vital checks and balances against the tendency of the executive to usurp power and throw off restraints.
How did this happen? How is it that the conservatives of today advocate precisely the opposite of what they advocated yesterday? How has the dream of a free America turned into the nightmare of the Homeland Security State, where government can search our homes, read our email, spy on our legal and constitutionally protected activities, all without a warrant or even a nod to anything remotely resembling a legal procedure?
Ron Paul clearly sees the key to all this, and that is why he has staked out a position as the foremost opponent of militarism in the US Congress. Our interventionist foreign policy is the motor that drives the engine of Big Government, and its fuel is the sort of war hysteria that has permeated political life since the 9/11 terrorist attacks and led to our present predicament in Iraq. Ron Paul stands alone among the Republican candidates for president in opposing our immoral and horribly counterproductive invasion of Iraq. The idea that we can or should go into a foreign country, and “transform” it according to some grand design, to fit some preconceived made-in-Washington formula – to impose “democracy”, or what passes for it these days, at gunpoint on the people of the Middle East – is an idea that one might expect from a liberal Democrat, who, after all, has an abiding faith in the power of government to do … well, practically anything! One would think that Republicans, and especially those who fancy themselves conservative Republicans, would know better.
Unfortunately, these days, one would be very wrong to assume any such thing.
The Republican party has been hijacked, and transformed into its Bizarro World equivalent: the party of Barry Goldwater has become the party of Big Brother.
In reminding Republicans of their lost heritage, in reviving the spirit of 1964, in offering a choice not an echo of the big government conservative cant that has dominated the party for the past eight years, Ron Paul is the conscience of the GOP. Will the party listen to its conscience, or will it continue to sin against its own traditions? Only time will tell. But I’ll tell you this:
The pundits are saying that Ron Paul hasn’t got a chance. He’s an outsider, a maverick, a second-tier nobody – how could he possibly win the party’s nomination for the highest office in the land? Well, I don’t know the precise answer to that question, and I won’t pretend that I do, but I do know this: once before, the know-it-all columnists and the party kingmakers, decided that a representative of true conservatism couldn’t possibly get the nomination. In 1964, Rockefeller – and, yes, another Romney, by the name of George – were the frontrunners, deemed so by the mainstream media and the political mavens. Yet Goldwater came from behind, his support welling up from the grassroots: he inspired thousands of activists, who were brought into the freedom movement by his passionate rhetoric and obvious authenticity.
Is history repeating itself? There are many indications that Ron Paul’s campaign has the potential to change the face of American politics – and this rally is one such indication. We have much work to do to bring Dr. Paul’s message to the American people: so let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work.
Comments
the very last line aobut rolling up sleeves and getting to work was hackeneyed, but the rest was brilliant and inspirational.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Ron Paul is the heir of Barry Goldwater? You mean the Goldwater who would probably be yelling, “Nuke Tehran!” right about now?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Nice to have Justin in the ring swinging for a good man.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Barry Goldwater, wanting to play a round of Golf, was once refused entry into a club because he was Jewish.
He said to the Manager ‘Look only one of my parents was actually Jewish, so how about letting me play just the first nine holes?’
Click to flag this comment as abusive
During the 1964 general election, Barry Goldwater was victim of a scare-mongering campaign, which ran a TV ad of a little girl picking a daisy, followed by a nuclear mushroom cloud. This time it’s the neocon opposition which threatens to drop A-bombs on little girls. That creates a problem for them. When they’re as scary as hell, how do they scare the public about our guy?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Goldwater was not a Jew, since his mother was not one and his father converted to Episcopalian when he married her.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Justin is a great writer. Ron Paul is a great candidate. Yes, they differ on several points, but to seem them come together should serve as a message to us all. A united America stands for limited government, anti-imperialism, Constitutionality and financial responsibility. Can’t we all just agree just agree on that?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Barry Goldwater proposed using nukes in Vietnam and joked about lobbing nukes into the kremlin’s men’s room. He was a little scary on his own.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Is it “a choice, not an echo” or “an echo, not a choice”?
Inspiration speech. I agree with one of the earlier posts, you are one of the better writers around. And your antiwar view is geniune. After you thoroughly exposed Andrew Sullivan for what he is—selfish—then I could not help but conclude that you are willing to sacrifice for your antiwar stance. So while I do not agree with some of your underlying assumptions—at least as best as I can tell— in my opinion, odds are increasing that history will judge your writing as heroic, while the work of Andrew Sullivan will be forgotten.
But...if I may...the title you gave to your speech..."a choice, not an echo”...really jumped out at me because, although it is an allusion to Goldwater, it still did not seem quite apropos. So, for the heck of it...and with all due respect to the methodology of R.G. Collingwood as well as textual criticism...I wondered if, at some level, the term reflected upon the purposes and intent of an anarcho-capitalist of the Rothbardian school. Here’s why. Admittedly, I don’t know if Rothbard was “pro-choice” or “pro-life” but, regardless, I am having a difficult time seeing how someone can call himself pro-life and Rothbardian at the same time. From what I can tell, the “abortion” issue centers not on whether or not the State should exist but how the State should intervene. Big difference between the two approaches because, if I am correct, then the existence of and need for the State is admitted. In other words, the State has a compelling interest to intervene in the free market to prevent abortion mills and the such, or alternatively, to intervene based upon a rationale leading to “a choice, not an echo”. (And if you check the amici briefs filed in this ligitation, you will find that some of those most promoting “choice” were pushing a free market analysis. They were from Ron Paul’s profession—doctors—strange he hasn’t said that, since he is “pro-life”. Also check the rationale for Sen. Webb’s pro choice stance—it sounds positively libertarian).
So is the anarcho-capitalist approach to the abortion issue one of “a choice, not an echo” or “an echo, and not a choice”? If it is the latter, then how can you deny the existence of the State—as well as deny that, in this instance, that the “psychic profit” of State intervention is more important than “material profit” from the market place? If true, then the bird has flown. Actually, the eagle has flown—and the State is born.
But I merely pose questions. And I want to emphasize that your essays often make perfect sense perhaps because our government, particularly our foreign policy, has become perfectly corrupted. So I hope you will continue to use your talents and contribute to a national discourse.
Sid
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mitt Romney couldn’t get 600 wildly cheering supporters to show up in Des Moines, Iowa - at an event organized by one who will never live down the sobriquet “Ed Failure”. This is where the pundits underestimate Ron Paul: his rag-tag, all-volunteer army of supporters who seem to spring up wherever they are needed, with home made signs and banners. Now the Ron Paul Revolution is using their spare cellphone minutes to call voters in Iowa before the Ames straw poll. Watch, and see what happens.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Goldwater? Feh!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“...so let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work.”
How can we, with our “homemade banners” and “spare cellphone minutes” compete with Rupert Murdoch’s leviathan media machine complete with orbiting satellites and tentacles reaching down to the tiniest of local [free press] spigots.
And recently, I nauseated over Chris Mathew’s ["CurveBall"] bombastic lamenting over the collapse of Field Marshall McCain’s campaign while he and his cheap-plastic panel decided for us lemmings which of the other three stooges (Mitt, Rudy, Fred) McCain’s base would be steered toward.
What’s not to love; when Opie Mathews drops the F-bomb, “on-air”, under stress from the humiliating task of filling the sheeple-feed troughs.
And this, while corporate sponsors, in their latest beer adds, teach Spanglish to the confederate, Lynyrd Skynyrd generation. What’s next--French Canadian workshops at downtown Boston’s Samuel Adams Brewery?
I’m not sure simply “rolling up our sleeves and getting to work” will suffice. This dynasty has grown to the proportions of more like, “rip off your shirts” and draw your steel.
May I suggest, for this coming Halloween, blue face paint, chain mail and the other accoutrement’s of Sir William Wallace.
(Disclaimer: All references to Sir Wallace and medieval weaponry are metaphoric only. No black SUV’s, helicopters, gulags or secret files, please.)
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I am delighted to see that Mr. Raimondo has grasped Ron Paul’s Quixotic banner. In the euphoria of political activity it behoves us to consider the prophetic admonition, “All is vanity”. As enthusiastic as I am about Dr. Paul’s message and somewhat messianic position, the reality of today’s USA (read Morris Berman’s “Dark Ages America") tugs me back to earth. Hopefully, the legacy of Ron Paul will be to have stimulated enough of a constitutional debate to have reawakened the remnant—a minority, by definition. Onward!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
”...so let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work.”
It is not hackneyed to state what must happen if we are to get Mr. Paul in Office. It is called work, and we are it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.