Although I have defended him on numerous occasions, it may surprise some readers of this column to discover that not unlike his legions of detractors within the Republican Party, I too have some problems with Ron Paul.\u00a0 But for at least two reasons, the impulse to come to his defense I have found difficult to resist.<\/p>\n
First, in distinguishing themselves from their opponents, Republicans invoke \u201cthe conservative principles\u201d for which they stand.\u00a0 These principles, they assure us, are also America\u2019s \u201cfounding principles\u201d: \u201climited government,\u201d \u201cliberty,\u201d \u201cindividualism,\u201d and the like.\u00a0 Thus, in the spirit of these eternal verities, Republicans\u2014during election season, at any rate\u2014incessantly call for reductions <\/em>in the size and scope of government.<\/p>\n Now, Ron Paul\u2019s vision for America is as close an approximation of that of the Founders as any on the scene today.\u00a0 For all of the criticism to which Paul\u2019s Republican rivals have subjected him, not one of them dares to put into question his commitment to limited\u2014dramatically <\/em>limited\u2014government.\u00a0<\/p>\n So, when a Republican politician comes along who is passionately, unequivocally committed to restoring the Constitutional Republic that our Founders crafted for their posterity, a Republican who enthusiastically embraces the very \u201cfounding principles\u201d that the GOP claims to affirm, and that Republican isn\u2019t just criticized\u2014this is bad enough\u2014but resoundingly ridiculed as a \u201ccrackpot\u201d by his fellow Republicans, <\/em>it is hard for a Republican voter not to get more than a bit perturbed.<\/p>\n I anger for Paul, it is true, but also for the millions of Americans who regularly vote Republican (including myself), for the readiness with which Paul\u2019s rivals insult him over his positions has, ironically, exposed their own insincerity.\u00a0 You see, when push comes to shove, what we invariably discover after <\/em>they are elected is that the vast majority of Paul\u2019s embittered brethren are almost as committed to maintaining the Welfare State as their leftist counterparts in the Democratic Party.\u00a0 And they are more <\/em>resolved to maintain, and grow, <\/em>the Warfare State\u2014a point that Rick Santorum made all too clear when, during the New Hampshire primary, he declared that far from bringing our soldiers home from the proverbial four corners of the Earth, the dangers posed by Islamic terrorists insured that we would probably have to increase <\/em>our troop\u2019s global presence.<\/p>\n There is another reason why I defend Ron Paul.<\/p>\n For the activity of bullying, I have zero<\/em> tolerance.\u00a0 Being weak and cowardly, bullies delude themselves into thinking that they\u2019re strong and brave by fusing their individual identities with that of a collectivity, a gang or a mob.\u00a0 This, regrettably, is what appears to have happened to Paul\u2019s Republican abusers: they have acquired a \u201cmob mentality.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n That a mob mentality has taken over establishment Republican commentators when it comes to Ron Paul can be seen from both the swiftness with which one after the other piles upon him as well as the shoddy quality of their criticisms.\u00a0 Distortions, insults, and outright lies abound. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Take nationally syndicated talk radio show host and film critic Michael Medved for example.\u00a0 If Paul\u2019s Republican critics constitute a mob, then Medved is its ringleader, for no one more savagely and routinely\u2014even obsessively\u2014attacks the Texas congressman.<\/p>\n Medved is not beyond imparting insights; as one who regularly listens to his show, I can attest to this.\u00a0 Yet his criticisms of Paul, almost to an argument, are worthless.\u00a0<\/p>\n When he isn\u2019t referring to Paul as a \u201ccrackpot\u201d and a \u201cdisgrace,\u201d Medved is guilty of completely misrepresenting his positions.\u00a0 Because Paul rejects a Constitutional amendment explicitly defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and because he thinks that consenting <\/em>adult citizens shouldn\u2019t be coerced<\/em> into endorsing another\u2019s understanding of marriage, Medved insists that Paul favors a literally anarchic situation with respect to marriage.\u00a0<\/p>\n In reality, only one who thought that government itself should be abolished\u2014an anarchist\u2014could adopt the position on the issue of marriage or any other issue that Medved attributes to Paul.\u00a0 Clearly, Paul is no anarchist, for no anarchist would seek to hold an office in the government, let alone the office of the presidency<\/em>!\u00a0<\/p>\n Ron Paul is very clear about his position on this issue (as well as every other, for that matter) in his Liberty<\/em> Defined.\u00a0 <\/em>\u201cIn a free society,\u201d he writes, \u201call voluntary <\/em>and consensual <\/em>agreements would be recognized,\u201d and when <\/em>\u201cdisputes arose, the courts could be involved<\/em> as in any other dispute\u201d (emphases mine).\u00a0 There are two things here of which we must take note.\u00a0 First, in maintaining that such \u201cvoluntary and consensual\u201d arrangements as marriage deserve recognition, Paul maintains that the government <\/em>must recognize them.\u00a0 Second, the government provides this recognition by way of its judicial branch, <\/em>by adjudicating disputes, issuing settlements, and the like.<\/p>\n Bullies are unfair.\u00a0 That Medved and the mob that he signifies act like bullies when it comes to Paul becomes obvious once we grasp that Paul\u2019s position isn\u2019t as remotely as extreme as his detractors make it out to be.\u00a0 In fact, it isn\u2019t extreme at all.\u00a0 As Paul observes, common-law marriage requires no license and is \u201crecognized as a legal entity\u201d in twelve states. \u00a0Does this<\/em> practice portend the kind of mass chaos that Medved and company charge Paul of championing?\u00a0<\/p>\n When Paul insists that marriage is a matter regarding which \u201cthe government\u201d should refrain from interjecting itself, what he is saying is that the federal government <\/em>has no <\/em>role at all to play here.\u00a0 Yet he is also saying that neither should state governments embark upon the enterprise of defining <\/em>marriage\u2014not that they should literally stay out of the whole business of marriage.<\/p>\n Paul\u2019s positions, whether on marriage or anything else, may or may not be rationally preferable to their competitors.\u00a0 In order to determine this, however, his critics must be willing to first understand <\/em>what Paul\u2019s views actually are.\u00a0 Through either a lack of ability or a lack of will, so far they haven\u2019t come close to doing this.<\/p>\n Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.<\/p>\n originally published at The New American<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Although I have defended him on numerous occasions, it may surprise some readers of this column to discover that not unlike his legions of detractors within the Republican Party, I too have some problems with Ron Paul.\u00a0 But for at least two reasons, the impulse to come to his defense I have found difficult to…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":399,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-124","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n