For the first time in over forty years, Ron Paul deviated from his usual rhetoric on his website last Wednesday. This watershed was not unprompted however; there was a very clear and concise purpose: A complaint voiced with a suggested improvement? A compliment to the executive branch? A much overdue forfeit? No, of course not. Any one of those three suggestions would be a radical way to breathe new life (briefly) in Ron Paul’s flailing campaign. But no such luck. Instead Ron Paul changed his rhetoric for the first time in his career for the sole purpose of advertising.
Ah money – it changes all of us. Puts us at ease. Makes us forget about our cares (and everyone else’s). And of course, brings out that evil little Republican in all of us. Has anyone ever heard of a rich radical? Nope; the position of radical is fun but pays horribly. Ron Paul therefore recognized that if he wanted to make any money on his new book, he’d have to briefly hop down off his well-worn soapbox and talk to the American public like a normal politician.
He titled his post “Let’s take the country by storm – again.” Did anyone notice the last storm? Some more accurate titles could have been, “Let’s bemuse college kids one more time,” or “Let’s see if I can get Anderson Cooper to remember my name.” Really though, Ron Paul would have to play saxophone on Arsenio if he wanted to incite true political mania from the younger generation. In fact, it’s surprising Hillary hasn’t pulled a similar publicity stunt since it worked so well for her husband. Except Hillary looks like she’d be more a tube player; you know, a supporting, fart-like instrument that uses a lot of air and sounds awful solo. Yeah, that’s Hillary.
And as we continue to delve into the ridiculous, it impossible to overlook the proud testimonial Ron Paul included about his book: “My friend’s are calling it ‘Ron Paul’s legacy’.” What friends? Certainly not anyone in Congress. Certainly not Mexicans. Certainly not black people. It can only be assumed then that Ron Paul’s ‘friends’ refers to pot-smoking Libertarian white kids who listen to Bob Marley, hand out literature in coffee shops, and love the look of braless boobs under tie-dye. When it comes to testimonials, those kids fall somewhere between being as influential as Rosie O’Donnell and Al Sharpton.
Ron Paul also assures “With [this book], I’m letting the establishment know we’re not going away.” If only I were a gambling man; I would put fifty dollars on the Republicans literally banning Ron Paul from their National Convention.
Ron Paul had one thing that he did better than arguably any other candidate running: rhetoric. No one really listens to Ron Paul anymore, but given a microphone, he could be counted on to make the most incendiary political remarks and act as a voice for the disillusioned. With this post, Ron Paul has officially lost his venom. He was never supposed to play their game. He was the outsider who was a hero to other outsiders. Now he is just another salesman. Maybe he can get big tobacco to back his book and he’ll make millions. I’m sure it wouldn’t bother McCain a bit.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
Assignment 6
Besides the record-breaking amounts of money he has raised and the radical policies he hopes to put in place, Ron Paul might be most notable for the dedicated support he has amassed from followers. While it may be Hillary, Obama, and McCain in the headlines, Ron Paul’s name is most easily found on the bumper stickers and front lawns of Southern Pennsylvania and Northern Maryland. A drive up Route 30 would have someone actually believe Ron Paul is winning, by a landslide. While his numbers continue to slip and more people are accepting they might have to align themselves with a frontrunner, the few that are holding strong to Ron Paul’s dream are fighting as fervently as ever.
While the three main candidates have areas on their webpages to sign up as a supporter, Ron Paul has by far the most grandiose. Obama’s simply says “Join The Movement,” Hillary’s says “Sign Up As A Supporter,” and John McCain’s says, “Join Our Team.” Ron Paul on the other hand, requires that a supporter take a pledge before entering their e-mail address. In order to officially support Ron Paul, one must proudly enter their name, address, e-mail, and phone number under, “As a supporter of freedom, peace, and prosperity, I will work to the best of my ability to deliver my precinct's votes for Dr. Ron Paul for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. I will review training materials provided by the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign and usethe resources supplied to me by the campaign to reach out to every registered voter in my precinct. I will identify Ron Paul's supporters and recruit new supporters to the cause of peace and freedom. At all times I will hold myself to the highest ethical and professional behavior as a volunteer for Ron Paul. For life, liberty, and peace, I pledge to volunteer in good faith and support the Ron Paul 2008 Campaign.” Once again, I remind you, Hillary’s just said, “Sign Up As A Supporter.”
By and large it seems supporters of Ron Paul want these over-the-top theatrics in their candidate. Ron Paul has done everything he can to alienate nearly every other politician, contemporary or historical. The supporters of Ron Paul want an underdog and a loose cannon and a firecracker. The supporters of Ron Paul want pathos.
And Ron Paul delivers. John McCain might talk about Charlie a lot and Hillary cried in New Hampshire, but Ron Paul packs so much ethos into his speeches that there almost seems to be no room left for ethos or logos. In a speech entitled, “Has Capitalism Failed?” Ron Paul says, “Politicians are having a field day with demagoguing the issue while, of course, failing to address the fraud and deceit found in the budgetary shenanigans of the federal government – for which they are directly responsible.” That sentence is only pathos. And it makes some wild jumps. The word ‘demagogue’ has become almost synonymous with Hitler, while the word ‘shenanigans’ conjures up images of the Lucky Charms leprechaun. Ron Paul is out to make everyone a villain, and whether it is a rascally animated cereal mascot or the man who wiped out 95% of the Jews in Poland, Ron Paul is going to find a way that big government is parallel.
In the same speech, Ron Paul says, “No one asks why the billions that have been spent and thousands of pages of regulations that have been written since the last major attack on capitalism in the 1930s didn't prevent the fraud and deception of Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossings.” There’s a trigger word: Enron. And while most people may not know who WorldCom is (telecommunications company that forged 11 billion dollars in company assets), or Global Crossings (telecommunications company that harnessed 1.3 billion dollars in inside trading), the fact that these companies appeared next to Enron in a list pretty much guarantees the reader that the companies have something to do with corruption. Ron Paul in his speech points out that corruption has continued and will continue, no matter what the government does. What he surprisingly does not insinuate in his speech is that the government is in fact sponsoring these scandals. Since the strong connection between Dick Cheney and Enron back in 2001, and Ron Paul’s enthusiasm for conspiracy theories, the connection between government and major corporations would not be a hard one for him to draw.
His supporters perpetuate the pathos of their leader. The most prominent support group of Ron Paul is Ron Paul Friends USA, and they are just as guilty of generating pure pathos. On their homepage ronpaulfriendsusa.com, they describe Ron Paul as, “Congressman Ron Paul is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record.” Even in the standard dramatic political forum, that is a lofty description. Very little of that introduction is based in fact, and instead opts to portray Ron Paul as a warrior fighting off a mass of Commie Representatives on Capitol Hill. What is also interesting is they never once mention that he is a Republican. To most Ron Paul supporters, Ron Paul’s political affiliation matters very little since it is his flair for pathos that wins them over. He makes his followers believe that Congress generates nothing but lies and that every new bill means the end of America. And they go for it hook-line-and-sinker, never once realizing that Ron Paul would deconstruct government, fire everybody, and then hang himself with his own copy of the Constitution (see, I can do pathos too).
The reality of the situation is that it matters very little what Ron Paul is up to. It is doubtful that he has anything else up his sleeve and his brief mark on this presidential race was entertaining but far from important. He doesn’t have numbers to wreck the race for either side of the aisle and his supporters don’t have the influence to be anything other than loons with billboards. If the United States was run on pathos alone though, no one would be more fit for the job than Ron Paul.
While the three main candidates have areas on their webpages to sign up as a supporter, Ron Paul has by far the most grandiose. Obama’s simply says “Join The Movement,” Hillary’s says “Sign Up As A Supporter,” and John McCain’s says, “Join Our Team.” Ron Paul on the other hand, requires that a supporter take a pledge before entering their e-mail address. In order to officially support Ron Paul, one must proudly enter their name, address, e-mail, and phone number under, “As a supporter of freedom, peace, and prosperity, I will work to the best of my ability to deliver my precinct's votes for Dr. Ron Paul for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. I will review training materials provided by the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign and usethe resources supplied to me by the campaign to reach out to every registered voter in my precinct. I will identify Ron Paul's supporters and recruit new supporters to the cause of peace and freedom. At all times I will hold myself to the highest ethical and professional behavior as a volunteer for Ron Paul. For life, liberty, and peace, I pledge to volunteer in good faith and support the Ron Paul 2008 Campaign.” Once again, I remind you, Hillary’s just said, “Sign Up As A Supporter.”
By and large it seems supporters of Ron Paul want these over-the-top theatrics in their candidate. Ron Paul has done everything he can to alienate nearly every other politician, contemporary or historical. The supporters of Ron Paul want an underdog and a loose cannon and a firecracker. The supporters of Ron Paul want pathos.
And Ron Paul delivers. John McCain might talk about Charlie a lot and Hillary cried in New Hampshire, but Ron Paul packs so much ethos into his speeches that there almost seems to be no room left for ethos or logos. In a speech entitled, “Has Capitalism Failed?” Ron Paul says, “Politicians are having a field day with demagoguing the issue while, of course, failing to address the fraud and deceit found in the budgetary shenanigans of the federal government – for which they are directly responsible.” That sentence is only pathos. And it makes some wild jumps. The word ‘demagogue’ has become almost synonymous with Hitler, while the word ‘shenanigans’ conjures up images of the Lucky Charms leprechaun. Ron Paul is out to make everyone a villain, and whether it is a rascally animated cereal mascot or the man who wiped out 95% of the Jews in Poland, Ron Paul is going to find a way that big government is parallel.
In the same speech, Ron Paul says, “No one asks why the billions that have been spent and thousands of pages of regulations that have been written since the last major attack on capitalism in the 1930s didn't prevent the fraud and deception of Enron, WorldCom, and Global Crossings.” There’s a trigger word: Enron. And while most people may not know who WorldCom is (telecommunications company that forged 11 billion dollars in company assets), or Global Crossings (telecommunications company that harnessed 1.3 billion dollars in inside trading), the fact that these companies appeared next to Enron in a list pretty much guarantees the reader that the companies have something to do with corruption. Ron Paul in his speech points out that corruption has continued and will continue, no matter what the government does. What he surprisingly does not insinuate in his speech is that the government is in fact sponsoring these scandals. Since the strong connection between Dick Cheney and Enron back in 2001, and Ron Paul’s enthusiasm for conspiracy theories, the connection between government and major corporations would not be a hard one for him to draw.
His supporters perpetuate the pathos of their leader. The most prominent support group of Ron Paul is Ron Paul Friends USA, and they are just as guilty of generating pure pathos. On their homepage ronpaulfriendsusa.com, they describe Ron Paul as, “Congressman Ron Paul is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record.” Even in the standard dramatic political forum, that is a lofty description. Very little of that introduction is based in fact, and instead opts to portray Ron Paul as a warrior fighting off a mass of Commie Representatives on Capitol Hill. What is also interesting is they never once mention that he is a Republican. To most Ron Paul supporters, Ron Paul’s political affiliation matters very little since it is his flair for pathos that wins them over. He makes his followers believe that Congress generates nothing but lies and that every new bill means the end of America. And they go for it hook-line-and-sinker, never once realizing that Ron Paul would deconstruct government, fire everybody, and then hang himself with his own copy of the Constitution (see, I can do pathos too).
The reality of the situation is that it matters very little what Ron Paul is up to. It is doubtful that he has anything else up his sleeve and his brief mark on this presidential race was entertaining but far from important. He doesn’t have numbers to wreck the race for either side of the aisle and his supporters don’t have the influence to be anything other than loons with billboards. If the United States was run on pathos alone though, no one would be more fit for the job than Ron Paul.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Assignment 5
My interest in Ron Paul's campaign has always been novelty at best. After these few weeks of reading his new and archived speeches though, it's impossible to ignore that he's been generating the same meandering rhetoric since the 1970's. The fact alone that I ever heralded his bravery as a politician puts me in the same gullible category as every college toolbag who was convinced four years ago that Ralph Nader could be a revolution.
And to be fair, I have stated my disinterest with politics before; politics exist without any semblance of reason or practicality. I went down to see Chelsea Clinton speak in Spart’s Den and, before the rally could even start, it took twenty-five minutes for eight people to hang one banner. Literally eight people standing in the spotlight waiting for the work to do itself. That was case and point as far as I'm concerned.
And really no candidate is ever going to truly interest me. The issues that concern me most are the banning of: crying in public, sandals, southern pride, and religious bumper stickers. I can accept all the other stuff. No Child Left Behind is awful, but where was this surplus of smart public school kids before George Bush? Our chemical emissions are beyond irresponsible, but when was the last time anyone’s met a satisfied environmentalist? The war in Iraq is a quagmire deathtrap, but Canada’s only a roadtrip away. The Patriot Act is offensively invasive, but then again Republicans have never been big Orwell fans. And our Healthcare System may leave sick patients in waiting rooms for over 24 hours, but at least we’re weeding out the fakers.
So that’s what it’s come to: apathy. Ron Paul isn’t going to save the world, Ralph Nader isn’t going to save the world, none of us will ever see an Independent president in our lifetime, and no government official will ever be elected by the hair of a single popular vote. Isn’t anyone’s time valuable to them anymore? Go outside. Read a book. Paint the shed. Just because we live in a democracy doesn’t mean the work should be done for us. Half the stuff people get worked up over, they could solve for themselves on a domestic level. Gas prices too high? Pump up the tires on the old bicycle. Don’t like abortion? Have some kids. Think the war is an atrocity? Don’t enlist. Where did this self-importance come from that dictates we know what’s best for anyone else? (although I really do wish we’d do away with sandals)
Anyway, so now that I have completely run this rhetorical analysis into the ground, my sterling introduction actually does tie in with a Ron Paul speech.
On April 2, 2008, Ron Paul weighed in on new regulations on the private sector, imposed by the Joint Economic Committee. Try to guess what he said? Even if you knew nothing about the regulations, nothing about private vs. public sector, and nothing about the Joint Economic Committee, anyone who knows a thing about Ron Paul could guess what he speech was about. Ready for a shocker? Ron Paul doesn’t like the regulations; and he’s not afraid to throw in a sharp retort to boot: “I have never been opposed to regulation, although my idea of regulation differs from that of many people in Washington.” Yes, Dr. Paul. You’re that sassy livewire from Texas, we remember.
Ron Paul, in just about every one of his speeches, uses the same format: Spiteful opening line, example of slightly-parallel historical injustice, short diatribe about why the government hates America, short diatribe about why any new policy is the worst thing to ever happen in the history of the world, alternate solution that only makes sense to Libertarians, and then a short manifesto about what it really means to be an American.
The speech he gave on April 2 has all the parts, except one. For his speech, Ron Paul completely left out an alternate solution. Even though he usually proposes the most ludicrously unrealistic solutions, at least it shows that he’s trying. In this speech he doesn’t even give his audience that. He has his historical example (“Back in the 1970s, government-caused inflation reached levels high enough that the Nixon administration decided to implement wage and price controls”), he has his diatribes (“The Federal Reserve's actions got us into at least one depression in the last century…”), and then his standard proud-to-be-an-American finish (“It is about time that we recognize the failure of government intervention, get our hands out of the private sector, and for once allow the market to function”); but he totally overlooks providing a solution.
The rule of thumb for any complaint: a solution must follow a criticism; otherwise it’s just whining. I may be apathetic, but Ron Paul is just a Debbie Downer.
Ron Paul suffers, and has suffered, intrinsically from not knowing when to pick his battles. The man hates everything. He runs for office just so he can lambaste any proposal that hits the Senate floor. Sure Clinton, Obama, and McCain voice oppositions, but they occasionally support some things. Ron Paul is like a student who signs up for Spanish class, then spends the entire semester whining about what a stupid language Spanish is (that analogy works even better when you look at Ron Paul’s proposal for dealing with Mexicans).
I realize my ethos as a political writer suffers tremendously with each new blog I write, but certainly I haven’t rendered myself completely untrustworthy yet. And while not much can be said about my voice as a commentator, at least when I provide a grievance, I provide a solution. My solutions may not be universal, they may not be respectable, and they may not even be reasonable, but the fact that I at least include a suggestion shows that I am trying. Ron Paul, through years of uphill battles and blind disregard, has forgotten that as a politician, even a radical one, the goal is not whistleblowing; the goal is improvement.
And to be fair, I have stated my disinterest with politics before; politics exist without any semblance of reason or practicality. I went down to see Chelsea Clinton speak in Spart’s Den and, before the rally could even start, it took twenty-five minutes for eight people to hang one banner. Literally eight people standing in the spotlight waiting for the work to do itself. That was case and point as far as I'm concerned.
And really no candidate is ever going to truly interest me. The issues that concern me most are the banning of: crying in public, sandals, southern pride, and religious bumper stickers. I can accept all the other stuff. No Child Left Behind is awful, but where was this surplus of smart public school kids before George Bush? Our chemical emissions are beyond irresponsible, but when was the last time anyone’s met a satisfied environmentalist? The war in Iraq is a quagmire deathtrap, but Canada’s only a roadtrip away. The Patriot Act is offensively invasive, but then again Republicans have never been big Orwell fans. And our Healthcare System may leave sick patients in waiting rooms for over 24 hours, but at least we’re weeding out the fakers.
So that’s what it’s come to: apathy. Ron Paul isn’t going to save the world, Ralph Nader isn’t going to save the world, none of us will ever see an Independent president in our lifetime, and no government official will ever be elected by the hair of a single popular vote. Isn’t anyone’s time valuable to them anymore? Go outside. Read a book. Paint the shed. Just because we live in a democracy doesn’t mean the work should be done for us. Half the stuff people get worked up over, they could solve for themselves on a domestic level. Gas prices too high? Pump up the tires on the old bicycle. Don’t like abortion? Have some kids. Think the war is an atrocity? Don’t enlist. Where did this self-importance come from that dictates we know what’s best for anyone else? (although I really do wish we’d do away with sandals)
Anyway, so now that I have completely run this rhetorical analysis into the ground, my sterling introduction actually does tie in with a Ron Paul speech.
On April 2, 2008, Ron Paul weighed in on new regulations on the private sector, imposed by the Joint Economic Committee. Try to guess what he said? Even if you knew nothing about the regulations, nothing about private vs. public sector, and nothing about the Joint Economic Committee, anyone who knows a thing about Ron Paul could guess what he speech was about. Ready for a shocker? Ron Paul doesn’t like the regulations; and he’s not afraid to throw in a sharp retort to boot: “I have never been opposed to regulation, although my idea of regulation differs from that of many people in Washington.” Yes, Dr. Paul. You’re that sassy livewire from Texas, we remember.
Ron Paul, in just about every one of his speeches, uses the same format: Spiteful opening line, example of slightly-parallel historical injustice, short diatribe about why the government hates America, short diatribe about why any new policy is the worst thing to ever happen in the history of the world, alternate solution that only makes sense to Libertarians, and then a short manifesto about what it really means to be an American.
The speech he gave on April 2 has all the parts, except one. For his speech, Ron Paul completely left out an alternate solution. Even though he usually proposes the most ludicrously unrealistic solutions, at least it shows that he’s trying. In this speech he doesn’t even give his audience that. He has his historical example (“Back in the 1970s, government-caused inflation reached levels high enough that the Nixon administration decided to implement wage and price controls”), he has his diatribes (“The Federal Reserve's actions got us into at least one depression in the last century…”), and then his standard proud-to-be-an-American finish (“It is about time that we recognize the failure of government intervention, get our hands out of the private sector, and for once allow the market to function”); but he totally overlooks providing a solution.
The rule of thumb for any complaint: a solution must follow a criticism; otherwise it’s just whining. I may be apathetic, but Ron Paul is just a Debbie Downer.
Ron Paul suffers, and has suffered, intrinsically from not knowing when to pick his battles. The man hates everything. He runs for office just so he can lambaste any proposal that hits the Senate floor. Sure Clinton, Obama, and McCain voice oppositions, but they occasionally support some things. Ron Paul is like a student who signs up for Spanish class, then spends the entire semester whining about what a stupid language Spanish is (that analogy works even better when you look at Ron Paul’s proposal for dealing with Mexicans).
I realize my ethos as a political writer suffers tremendously with each new blog I write, but certainly I haven’t rendered myself completely untrustworthy yet. And while not much can be said about my voice as a commentator, at least when I provide a grievance, I provide a solution. My solutions may not be universal, they may not be respectable, and they may not even be reasonable, but the fact that I at least include a suggestion shows that I am trying. Ron Paul, through years of uphill battles and blind disregard, has forgotten that as a politician, even a radical one, the goal is not whistleblowing; the goal is improvement.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Assignment 4
I never thought I would say this about a Republican, but on a great deal of fundamental values and key issues, I agree with Ron Paul. I’m not a registered voter and never plan to be, so my opinion doesn’t matter much, but if I were to lend any real concern to the political climate of our country, Ron Paul would most likely be my choice.
I mention that I am a non-voter because, when it comes to political commentary, ethos is essential. And the bottom line is I don’t have any. When pundits bark about what’s wrong with the country, people like me are easy targets: I don’t watch the news, I don’t read newspapers, I don’t follow the issues, I’ll never attend a political rally, I avoid debates at all cost, I think all politically-savvy college students are just trying to get laid, I actively try to hit hippie protestors with my car, and worst of all, I don’t vote.
I have even less ethos as a blogger. I have never read a blog, never subscribed to a blog, could not tell you a single famous blogger’s name, and only got the internet in my home three months ago (after the guys at Circuit City explained me how to steal it from my neighbors). To make matters worse, I think bloggers are the bottom of the barrel when it comes to writers. The only thing I think is more worthless than a blog writer is a faithful blog reader. Whenever I even hear someone mention “blog” in normal conversation, I automatically think “douche bag.” All-in-all, I have no ethos as a political commentator and even less as an internet-opinion-poster. So stop reading here. Seriously. Stop.
Well, if you made it this far, then I successfully employed the same rhetorical strategy Ron Paul has used countless times during his Presidential campaign. I referred to this in my last post as the Everyman appeal.
Ron Paul does not want to be thought of as a politician; he wants to be your neighbor, your PTA carpooling buddy, your friend. He’s even still listed in his hometown’s phonebook. While Obama has a creepy middle-name, Hillary is a bulldyke, and John McCain tells more stories about “Charlie” than Roald Dahl, Ron Paul manages to sit under the radar as the underdog. Unfortunately the only time in America the underdog actually wins is when America is the underdog, and that only happened once, two-hundred-and-thirty-two years ago.
Ron Paul’s campaign is stalled at the moment as a result of John McCain’s acquisition of the Republican candidacy. Ron Paul is understandably not generating too much rhetoric these days. Instead, it seems appropriate to take a look back at how the craziest man in politics (since Strom Thurmond died) has found incredible grassroots success from both sides of the aisle.
Ron Paul has been sharpening his teeth on the executive branch for forty years, so an archived speech to examine his strange ethos could almost be picked at random, which is exactly what I did.
On February 13, 2007, Ron Paul gave a speech entitled “Another Supplemental Spending Bill for the War in Iraq.” Even reading that title now, the groans from the House of Representatives can still be heard. The speech packs heavy appeals to logos and pathos, and in truth, is one of his better speeches. But instead of dissecting the politics and policies of Ron Paul, his rhetoric can also be useful when determining exactly what he thinks of himself.
And what candidates think of themselves is important. Hillary’s tear soaked confession about how hard the campaign trail is showed she thinks she is the most stressed candidate since FDR. Obama talking more about his mistakes with cigarettes than how he will fix Health Care shows he would rather be McGruff the Crime Fighting Dog than a straight-to-the-point politician. And McCain soliciting support from Bush shows he is not afraid to swallow his pride and ask the least-popular president of all time for an endorsement, even after the president accused McCain of being psychologically unfit to participate in government because McCain was tortured during warfare. Now I could see how voters would be torn when presented with such an all-star cast for Commander In Chief, but just for posterity and good measure, let’s see what Ron Paul thinks of himself.
In the “Another Supplemental Spending Bill for the War in Iraq” speech, Ron Paul only says “I” twice.
The first is, “Two weeks ago I discussed how Congress and the administration use our fiat money system to literally create some of the funds needed to prosecute our ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” This is the first sentence of his speech. Ethos is typically about closing the distance between a speaker and audience, but not for Ron Paul. Just as I did with the whole I-don’t-vote-and-I-hate-blogs introduction, Ron Paul finds his ethos in remaining as far from his audience as possible. His audience, after all, is Congress; and does a real Everyman ever get to feel like Congress is a peer? No. So in order for Ron Paul to move closer to the voters, he has to move farther from the politicians. He actually removes himself entirely: “Congress and the administration use our fiat money.” In this sentence, Congress and the administration are on one side, and the generators of fiat money are on another. With the phrase “our fiat money,” Ron Paul declares he is on the side of the public.
The other use of “I” is, “I doubt very seriously that most Americans think the war in Iraq is worth one trillion dollars.” The rhetoric of this sentence is not so subtle, however, is much more admirable. Ron Paul is speaking on behalf of the people, which theoretically, is his job. Even more importantly, his representation is accurate. One trillion dollars is more money than most people can comprehend. Oprah and Bill Gates combined are not worth a trillion dollars. Fortunately, Ron Paul breaks down exactly what this cost means: “We seek nothing less than to rebuild Iraq’s judicial system, financial system, legal system, transportation system, and political system from the top down – all with hundreds of billion of US tax dollars.”
And finally, the persona which Ron Paul takes most pride in, is his public-informant position. Ron Paul uses his speeches to let the public know what’s going on in the more private wings of Washington. “The mentality in Washington is simple: avoid hard choices at all costs; spend money at will; ignore deficits; inflate the money supply as needed; and trust that the whole mess somehow will be taken care of by unprecedented economic growth in the future.” Ron Paul does this in almost every speech; he tells on the government. He tells the public which money is going where for what. Usually it’s infuriating. But doesn’t that make Ron Paul look like a crook since he’s part of Congress too? No, that’s where his distance comes in. It’s the don’t-shoot-the-messenger principle. If Ron Paul wasn’t telling us, who would? Ron Paul is the public’s ear to the ground. He is our informant, dressed as a politician.
Ron Paul’s ethos slightly predicates on shock value; but it is more than that. The most shocking aspect of his persona is honesty. The American public isn’t sure how to take that. And while I may have wrecked my ethos as a political blogger by saying I don’t vote, Ron Paul knows how to use distance to strengthen his ethos. When Ron Paul speaks in front of Congress, the more steps he takes to further himself from his immediate audience, the closer he comes to the audience he really cares about.
I mention that I am a non-voter because, when it comes to political commentary, ethos is essential. And the bottom line is I don’t have any. When pundits bark about what’s wrong with the country, people like me are easy targets: I don’t watch the news, I don’t read newspapers, I don’t follow the issues, I’ll never attend a political rally, I avoid debates at all cost, I think all politically-savvy college students are just trying to get laid, I actively try to hit hippie protestors with my car, and worst of all, I don’t vote.
I have even less ethos as a blogger. I have never read a blog, never subscribed to a blog, could not tell you a single famous blogger’s name, and only got the internet in my home three months ago (after the guys at Circuit City explained me how to steal it from my neighbors). To make matters worse, I think bloggers are the bottom of the barrel when it comes to writers. The only thing I think is more worthless than a blog writer is a faithful blog reader. Whenever I even hear someone mention “blog” in normal conversation, I automatically think “douche bag.” All-in-all, I have no ethos as a political commentator and even less as an internet-opinion-poster. So stop reading here. Seriously. Stop.
Well, if you made it this far, then I successfully employed the same rhetorical strategy Ron Paul has used countless times during his Presidential campaign. I referred to this in my last post as the Everyman appeal.
Ron Paul does not want to be thought of as a politician; he wants to be your neighbor, your PTA carpooling buddy, your friend. He’s even still listed in his hometown’s phonebook. While Obama has a creepy middle-name, Hillary is a bulldyke, and John McCain tells more stories about “Charlie” than Roald Dahl, Ron Paul manages to sit under the radar as the underdog. Unfortunately the only time in America the underdog actually wins is when America is the underdog, and that only happened once, two-hundred-and-thirty-two years ago.
Ron Paul’s campaign is stalled at the moment as a result of John McCain’s acquisition of the Republican candidacy. Ron Paul is understandably not generating too much rhetoric these days. Instead, it seems appropriate to take a look back at how the craziest man in politics (since Strom Thurmond died) has found incredible grassroots success from both sides of the aisle.
Ron Paul has been sharpening his teeth on the executive branch for forty years, so an archived speech to examine his strange ethos could almost be picked at random, which is exactly what I did.
On February 13, 2007, Ron Paul gave a speech entitled “Another Supplemental Spending Bill for the War in Iraq.” Even reading that title now, the groans from the House of Representatives can still be heard. The speech packs heavy appeals to logos and pathos, and in truth, is one of his better speeches. But instead of dissecting the politics and policies of Ron Paul, his rhetoric can also be useful when determining exactly what he thinks of himself.
And what candidates think of themselves is important. Hillary’s tear soaked confession about how hard the campaign trail is showed she thinks she is the most stressed candidate since FDR. Obama talking more about his mistakes with cigarettes than how he will fix Health Care shows he would rather be McGruff the Crime Fighting Dog than a straight-to-the-point politician. And McCain soliciting support from Bush shows he is not afraid to swallow his pride and ask the least-popular president of all time for an endorsement, even after the president accused McCain of being psychologically unfit to participate in government because McCain was tortured during warfare. Now I could see how voters would be torn when presented with such an all-star cast for Commander In Chief, but just for posterity and good measure, let’s see what Ron Paul thinks of himself.
In the “Another Supplemental Spending Bill for the War in Iraq” speech, Ron Paul only says “I” twice.
The first is, “Two weeks ago I discussed how Congress and the administration use our fiat money system to literally create some of the funds needed to prosecute our ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” This is the first sentence of his speech. Ethos is typically about closing the distance between a speaker and audience, but not for Ron Paul. Just as I did with the whole I-don’t-vote-and-I-hate-blogs introduction, Ron Paul finds his ethos in remaining as far from his audience as possible. His audience, after all, is Congress; and does a real Everyman ever get to feel like Congress is a peer? No. So in order for Ron Paul to move closer to the voters, he has to move farther from the politicians. He actually removes himself entirely: “Congress and the administration use our fiat money.” In this sentence, Congress and the administration are on one side, and the generators of fiat money are on another. With the phrase “our fiat money,” Ron Paul declares he is on the side of the public.
The other use of “I” is, “I doubt very seriously that most Americans think the war in Iraq is worth one trillion dollars.” The rhetoric of this sentence is not so subtle, however, is much more admirable. Ron Paul is speaking on behalf of the people, which theoretically, is his job. Even more importantly, his representation is accurate. One trillion dollars is more money than most people can comprehend. Oprah and Bill Gates combined are not worth a trillion dollars. Fortunately, Ron Paul breaks down exactly what this cost means: “We seek nothing less than to rebuild Iraq’s judicial system, financial system, legal system, transportation system, and political system from the top down – all with hundreds of billion of US tax dollars.”
And finally, the persona which Ron Paul takes most pride in, is his public-informant position. Ron Paul uses his speeches to let the public know what’s going on in the more private wings of Washington. “The mentality in Washington is simple: avoid hard choices at all costs; spend money at will; ignore deficits; inflate the money supply as needed; and trust that the whole mess somehow will be taken care of by unprecedented economic growth in the future.” Ron Paul does this in almost every speech; he tells on the government. He tells the public which money is going where for what. Usually it’s infuriating. But doesn’t that make Ron Paul look like a crook since he’s part of Congress too? No, that’s where his distance comes in. It’s the don’t-shoot-the-messenger principle. If Ron Paul wasn’t telling us, who would? Ron Paul is the public’s ear to the ground. He is our informant, dressed as a politician.
Ron Paul’s ethos slightly predicates on shock value; but it is more than that. The most shocking aspect of his persona is honesty. The American public isn’t sure how to take that. And while I may have wrecked my ethos as a political blogger by saying I don’t vote, Ron Paul knows how to use distance to strengthen his ethos. When Ron Paul speaks in front of Congress, the more steps he takes to further himself from his immediate audience, the closer he comes to the audience he really cares about.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Assignment 3
Ron Paul stepped in front of a New Hampshire crowd on January 8, 2008 to give his most disappointing speech to date. While his tirades against federal power are often as motivating as they are humbling, his speech entitled “Live Free Or Die” is his most blatant employment of tired semantics and textbook rhetoric.
Most voters, whether for better or worse, consider Ron Paul synonymous with “Washington Outsider.” True he’s been a congressman for forty years, yet he’s just never quite fit the bill. Aside from trying to deconstruct the federal government brick by brick, he is also guilty of the political blasphemy of admitting and apologizing when he is wrong. It is for these reasons that it is disheartening Ron Paul would construct a speech using several examples of false dichotomy.
False dichotomies are cheap. How many major political parties does the United States have? How many candidates after the primaries will have an honest shot at the presidency? Two is the magic number of false dichotomies. There are over a dozen political parties and even more candidates involved in the presidential race, but in this country after the primaries, only two will matter (and a quick heads up – Ron Paul will not be one of the two).
We expect false dichotomies from our mainstream politicians. It’s Hillary vs. Obama on the Democrats side, although some Conservatives see Clinton as a more viable Republican candidate than McCain. Either way, it’s always in twos. Hillary will first have to overtake Obama (which doesn’t seem likely), then she will have to overtake McCain (which seems even more unlikely). She will never face both men at the same time, since a race of three in politics is unheard of.
While our mainstreamers duke it out in the spotlight, Ron Paul, at times, seems to be the bigger man. But for the first time in this presidential race, Ron Paul took off his Better-Man Hat, and dove into the trenches of mudslinging and stale reasoning.
If Ron Paul’s audience were really as anti-Washington savvy as they claim to be, the tomatoes would have started flying after the line, “You only have two choices in the Republican Party Primary. You can vote for me or you can continue to see your country’s future squandered.” That’s right, Ron Paul actually announced that without him, America’s future would be squandered. The idea is absolutely ludicrous. First off, we have had a President for eight years that has done nothing but “squander,” and our country isn’t circling the drain just yet. And secondly, Ron Paul is a radical. And nothing proclaims a radical’s shoddy foresight like saying immediate change is the only avenue for improvement. Evolution is slow. Cultural evolution is even worse.
Ron Paul survived his first embarrassing line, only to immediately pontificate another. “Now, I’ll admit I’m not much of a politician. I’m not smooth, polished or particularly inspiring speaker but I don’t need to be…” Did Ron Paul steal Mitt Romney’s playbook? This is almost word-for-word Romney’s appeal to living outside the private sector. When will politicians realize no matter what they do, they will never be The Everyman. Archie Bunker was an Everyman. Edward Hopper was an Everyman. Drew Carey is today’s Everyman. Politicians are not. And nothing is more damning when trying to relate to someone than coming right out and saying I relate to you.
As stated before, the most impressive aspect of Ron Paul’s political career is his willingness to admit fault. When racist opinions appeared in his newsletters, he went on national television, affirmed that these allegations were true, and said 'Sorry folks, I don’t know how those got in there. I should be more careful about what I put my name on.' End of story. Incredible. He didn’t cry forgery. He didn’t say he was going to launch a formal investigation to uncover who was at the heart of these slurs. He just jumped on television in a grandpa-like sweater and said sorry.
Ron Paul makes mistakes. Totally forgivable. So as a Ron Paul fan, after hearing his horrific false dichotomy and his flat appeal to The Everyman, I just expected him to say 'Sorry folks. I didn’t realize this speech was so lame. Let’s see if I can make this right'. But no such luck. Instead, his false dichotomies only got worse.
“When I am elected I will bring our troops back home to their families. I will end this war.” That is not an option. In no way are there two clear-cut answers to our Iraq debacle, but immediate withdrawal would just be criminally irresponsible. A country cannot just walk away from an international quagmire. The war is beyond the point of pointless by now; but if we broke it, we have to fix it. Burning Iraq down, then saying Oops and going home is no way to save face. I understand Ron Paul’s concern for the troops and I would like my friends home as much as the next guy, but they made a mess and now they have to clean it up.
Forgive the sophomoric vocabulary, but idiotic is the only word I can think to describe Ron Paul’s next false dichotomy. “You want freedom? I support legalizing drugs and abolishing the IRS.” Now granted, I thought anarchy was cool too when I was fifteen and smoked pot, but sooner or later people are supposed to realize there is more to life than pissing off your parents. Ron Paul, with this dichotomy, actually suggests that illegal drugs and federal taxing are what’s really holding America back. I myself am really crossing my fingers for the right to drink and drive too. Of course that’s going to be difficult under Ron Paul’s direction since the government won’t be able to afford roads in the first place.
And for his finale, Ron Paul explained the real reason he’d make a good president. “You want honesty, integrity and commitment? I’ve been married to my lovely wife for 50 years.” That’s all it takes? My grandparents have been married for 60 years, so should I vote for them instead? Family values have nothing to do with being a good leader. Ben Franklin had three bastard children. God knows how many women JFK gave a tour of the White House to. And Bill Clinton certainly didn’t lead the United States into its greatest (and short-lived) economic surplus because he was a faithful husband. Ron Paul usually isn’t this short-sighted. Ron Paul is sharp on his American history and his international understanding of cultures. Why would he fall into such a generic mindset then?
Ron Paul thinks he is a frontrunner. The fact that he has been buried by the polls has not deterred him a bit. Ron Paul thinks he is a frontrunner, and is beginning to act like a frontrunner. It’s only a matter of time before he’s kissing babies and shaking Bono’s hand. Ron Paul was the people’s champion. But if this cookie-cutter speech, which shares its title with the creepiest license-plate slogan in the country, is any indication of what is up Ron Paul’s sleeve, it won’t be long before his grassroots candidacy is laid on the cooling board next to Ralph Nadar’s and Ross Perot’s, down at the political morgue.
Most voters, whether for better or worse, consider Ron Paul synonymous with “Washington Outsider.” True he’s been a congressman for forty years, yet he’s just never quite fit the bill. Aside from trying to deconstruct the federal government brick by brick, he is also guilty of the political blasphemy of admitting and apologizing when he is wrong. It is for these reasons that it is disheartening Ron Paul would construct a speech using several examples of false dichotomy.
False dichotomies are cheap. How many major political parties does the United States have? How many candidates after the primaries will have an honest shot at the presidency? Two is the magic number of false dichotomies. There are over a dozen political parties and even more candidates involved in the presidential race, but in this country after the primaries, only two will matter (and a quick heads up – Ron Paul will not be one of the two).
We expect false dichotomies from our mainstream politicians. It’s Hillary vs. Obama on the Democrats side, although some Conservatives see Clinton as a more viable Republican candidate than McCain. Either way, it’s always in twos. Hillary will first have to overtake Obama (which doesn’t seem likely), then she will have to overtake McCain (which seems even more unlikely). She will never face both men at the same time, since a race of three in politics is unheard of.
While our mainstreamers duke it out in the spotlight, Ron Paul, at times, seems to be the bigger man. But for the first time in this presidential race, Ron Paul took off his Better-Man Hat, and dove into the trenches of mudslinging and stale reasoning.
If Ron Paul’s audience were really as anti-Washington savvy as they claim to be, the tomatoes would have started flying after the line, “You only have two choices in the Republican Party Primary. You can vote for me or you can continue to see your country’s future squandered.” That’s right, Ron Paul actually announced that without him, America’s future would be squandered. The idea is absolutely ludicrous. First off, we have had a President for eight years that has done nothing but “squander,” and our country isn’t circling the drain just yet. And secondly, Ron Paul is a radical. And nothing proclaims a radical’s shoddy foresight like saying immediate change is the only avenue for improvement. Evolution is slow. Cultural evolution is even worse.
Ron Paul survived his first embarrassing line, only to immediately pontificate another. “Now, I’ll admit I’m not much of a politician. I’m not smooth, polished or particularly inspiring speaker but I don’t need to be…” Did Ron Paul steal Mitt Romney’s playbook? This is almost word-for-word Romney’s appeal to living outside the private sector. When will politicians realize no matter what they do, they will never be The Everyman. Archie Bunker was an Everyman. Edward Hopper was an Everyman. Drew Carey is today’s Everyman. Politicians are not. And nothing is more damning when trying to relate to someone than coming right out and saying I relate to you.
As stated before, the most impressive aspect of Ron Paul’s political career is his willingness to admit fault. When racist opinions appeared in his newsletters, he went on national television, affirmed that these allegations were true, and said 'Sorry folks, I don’t know how those got in there. I should be more careful about what I put my name on.' End of story. Incredible. He didn’t cry forgery. He didn’t say he was going to launch a formal investigation to uncover who was at the heart of these slurs. He just jumped on television in a grandpa-like sweater and said sorry.
Ron Paul makes mistakes. Totally forgivable. So as a Ron Paul fan, after hearing his horrific false dichotomy and his flat appeal to The Everyman, I just expected him to say 'Sorry folks. I didn’t realize this speech was so lame. Let’s see if I can make this right'. But no such luck. Instead, his false dichotomies only got worse.
“When I am elected I will bring our troops back home to their families. I will end this war.” That is not an option. In no way are there two clear-cut answers to our Iraq debacle, but immediate withdrawal would just be criminally irresponsible. A country cannot just walk away from an international quagmire. The war is beyond the point of pointless by now; but if we broke it, we have to fix it. Burning Iraq down, then saying Oops and going home is no way to save face. I understand Ron Paul’s concern for the troops and I would like my friends home as much as the next guy, but they made a mess and now they have to clean it up.
Forgive the sophomoric vocabulary, but idiotic is the only word I can think to describe Ron Paul’s next false dichotomy. “You want freedom? I support legalizing drugs and abolishing the IRS.” Now granted, I thought anarchy was cool too when I was fifteen and smoked pot, but sooner or later people are supposed to realize there is more to life than pissing off your parents. Ron Paul, with this dichotomy, actually suggests that illegal drugs and federal taxing are what’s really holding America back. I myself am really crossing my fingers for the right to drink and drive too. Of course that’s going to be difficult under Ron Paul’s direction since the government won’t be able to afford roads in the first place.
And for his finale, Ron Paul explained the real reason he’d make a good president. “You want honesty, integrity and commitment? I’ve been married to my lovely wife for 50 years.” That’s all it takes? My grandparents have been married for 60 years, so should I vote for them instead? Family values have nothing to do with being a good leader. Ben Franklin had three bastard children. God knows how many women JFK gave a tour of the White House to. And Bill Clinton certainly didn’t lead the United States into its greatest (and short-lived) economic surplus because he was a faithful husband. Ron Paul usually isn’t this short-sighted. Ron Paul is sharp on his American history and his international understanding of cultures. Why would he fall into such a generic mindset then?
Ron Paul thinks he is a frontrunner. The fact that he has been buried by the polls has not deterred him a bit. Ron Paul thinks he is a frontrunner, and is beginning to act like a frontrunner. It’s only a matter of time before he’s kissing babies and shaking Bono’s hand. Ron Paul was the people’s champion. But if this cookie-cutter speech, which shares its title with the creepiest license-plate slogan in the country, is any indication of what is up Ron Paul’s sleeve, it won’t be long before his grassroots candidacy is laid on the cooling board next to Ralph Nadar’s and Ross Perot’s, down at the political morgue.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Assignment 2
On February 13, 2008, Ron Paul delivered a speech to the House of Representatives, insisting that the United States begin recognizing and accepting foreign forms of currency. Ron Paul, who is no stranger to radicalism, knew he would be facing a tough crowd.
Ron Paul’s ethos in Washington is questionable. While college kids and aging hippies embrace his outlandish ideas that cite values from both ends of the spectrum, his colleagues often describe him as short-sighted and stubborn. Within his Republican party, he is an embarrassment.
With this in mind, one has to wonder how much of Ron Paul’s career is based on shock value. He lives in an age that no longer exists and aims his appeals at a morality politicians don’t have, or appreciate. Ron Paul knows this. Ron Paul knows every seam of the US Constitution and has no qualms about picking at the loose ends. On February 13, 2008, Ron Paul noted yet another seam in our country’s fabric: our monetary system.
Ron Paul’s argument, like so many of his others, is a strategy frame, supported by an equally strong value frame. It is Ron Paul’s ability to blend these frames so effortlessly that has won him the support he has. For Ron Paul, values are a strategy, and actions should be based upon moral fortitudes. This is also the reason for dissention towards Ron Paul: his arguments are only logical to those who share his reverence for morality.
The specific frame Ron Paul employees in his speech is a Balance frame. He not only provides the House of Representatives with an exceptionally structured Balance frame, but he also calls to light the government’s often used Us Vs. Them frame.
He begins his speech slow; almost mocking. He explains the monetary system in its most basic theology. “Currency, or money, is what allows civilization to flourish. In the absence of money, barter is the name of the game; if the farmer needs shoes, he must trade his eggs.” There are literally three paragraphs this painstakingly barren. While his goal is obviously a strong stasis theory, it is this patience which causes his opponents to call him simple.
Ron Paul, for better or for worse, has made it his mission to stay as far away from being considered a typical politician. He continues to fuel his reputation by including lines such as, “On the desk in my office I have a sign that says: “Don't steal – the government hates competition.” Ron Paul is an outsider and wants to remain an outsider.
He sets his Balance frame immediately after with the lines, “Just as we have gone from a constitutionally instituted national defense consisting of a limited army and navy bolstered by militias and letters of marque and reprisal, we have moved from a system of competing currencies to a government-instituted banking cartel that monopolizes the issuance of currency.” His reasoning is based in consistency, and his argument is essentially structured as if this is what we have learned from the military, shouldn’t we apply that same brand of knowledge to our monetary system. His argument is far from airtight; but since it is structurally sound and phonetically pleasing, he will most likely be championed once again for his unapologetic individualism.
“In order to introduce a system of competing currencies, there are three steps that must be taken to produce a legal climate favorable to competition.” He structures his strategy for the people keeping score at home. This is effective as far as organization goes, especially for Ron Paul who has the reputation of being a complete loon.
His first step, as expected, is in direct violation of the Constitution. For the reason that the House of Representatives will never overturn the Constitution for Ron Paul, it’s safe to say it’s okay to skip his first plan of action.
His second step is interesting however, and relevant in paralleling political debates. Ron Paul’s second step is to, “reestablish competing currencies to eliminate laws that prohibit the operation of private mints.” Ron Paul likes to give governmental power away, which is why the government hates Ron Paul. Especially when he recalls stories such as, “One private enterprise which attempted to popularize the use of precious metal coins was Liberty Services, the creators of the Liberty Dollar. Evidently the government felt threatened, as Liberty Dollars had all their precious metal coins seized by the FBI and Secret Service this past November. Of course, not all of these coins were owned by Liberty Services, as many were held in trust as backing for silver and gold certificates which Liberty Services issued. None of this matters, of course, to the government, who hates to see any competition.”
Examples are important when making an argument such as this, which falls in the extreme left of center. Ron Paul has vaults full of corruption stories just like the Liberty Dollar debacle, but the moral climate he appeals to simply is not reality.
Ron Paul’s final step in procuring value and morality in the US monetary system is to, “eliminate capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coins.” Not only does Ron Paul want to give away governmental power, he always wants to give away governmental money. Once again, this third step can be completely overlooked because it will not receive any real consideration.
The strategy is this: value will return to the US dollar if competition from equally stable monetary systems forces our government to be competitive at home. Ron Paul asserts that monetary corruption has been made possible because nothing keeps it in check. This fits nicely with his specific Balance frame, which says that the potential of the United States’ dollar can only be obtained if it can meet the value of even the most stable international currency. The value frame of all of this is, of course, the United States wants to be just as good, and better, than every other country in the world. Ron Paul promises however, with the current political climate, this is not possible.
Ron Paul’s ethos in Washington is questionable. While college kids and aging hippies embrace his outlandish ideas that cite values from both ends of the spectrum, his colleagues often describe him as short-sighted and stubborn. Within his Republican party, he is an embarrassment.
With this in mind, one has to wonder how much of Ron Paul’s career is based on shock value. He lives in an age that no longer exists and aims his appeals at a morality politicians don’t have, or appreciate. Ron Paul knows this. Ron Paul knows every seam of the US Constitution and has no qualms about picking at the loose ends. On February 13, 2008, Ron Paul noted yet another seam in our country’s fabric: our monetary system.
Ron Paul’s argument, like so many of his others, is a strategy frame, supported by an equally strong value frame. It is Ron Paul’s ability to blend these frames so effortlessly that has won him the support he has. For Ron Paul, values are a strategy, and actions should be based upon moral fortitudes. This is also the reason for dissention towards Ron Paul: his arguments are only logical to those who share his reverence for morality.
The specific frame Ron Paul employees in his speech is a Balance frame. He not only provides the House of Representatives with an exceptionally structured Balance frame, but he also calls to light the government’s often used Us Vs. Them frame.
He begins his speech slow; almost mocking. He explains the monetary system in its most basic theology. “Currency, or money, is what allows civilization to flourish. In the absence of money, barter is the name of the game; if the farmer needs shoes, he must trade his eggs.” There are literally three paragraphs this painstakingly barren. While his goal is obviously a strong stasis theory, it is this patience which causes his opponents to call him simple.
Ron Paul, for better or for worse, has made it his mission to stay as far away from being considered a typical politician. He continues to fuel his reputation by including lines such as, “On the desk in my office I have a sign that says: “Don't steal – the government hates competition.” Ron Paul is an outsider and wants to remain an outsider.
He sets his Balance frame immediately after with the lines, “Just as we have gone from a constitutionally instituted national defense consisting of a limited army and navy bolstered by militias and letters of marque and reprisal, we have moved from a system of competing currencies to a government-instituted banking cartel that monopolizes the issuance of currency.” His reasoning is based in consistency, and his argument is essentially structured as if this is what we have learned from the military, shouldn’t we apply that same brand of knowledge to our monetary system. His argument is far from airtight; but since it is structurally sound and phonetically pleasing, he will most likely be championed once again for his unapologetic individualism.
“In order to introduce a system of competing currencies, there are three steps that must be taken to produce a legal climate favorable to competition.” He structures his strategy for the people keeping score at home. This is effective as far as organization goes, especially for Ron Paul who has the reputation of being a complete loon.
His first step, as expected, is in direct violation of the Constitution. For the reason that the House of Representatives will never overturn the Constitution for Ron Paul, it’s safe to say it’s okay to skip his first plan of action.
His second step is interesting however, and relevant in paralleling political debates. Ron Paul’s second step is to, “reestablish competing currencies to eliminate laws that prohibit the operation of private mints.” Ron Paul likes to give governmental power away, which is why the government hates Ron Paul. Especially when he recalls stories such as, “One private enterprise which attempted to popularize the use of precious metal coins was Liberty Services, the creators of the Liberty Dollar. Evidently the government felt threatened, as Liberty Dollars had all their precious metal coins seized by the FBI and Secret Service this past November. Of course, not all of these coins were owned by Liberty Services, as many were held in trust as backing for silver and gold certificates which Liberty Services issued. None of this matters, of course, to the government, who hates to see any competition.”
Examples are important when making an argument such as this, which falls in the extreme left of center. Ron Paul has vaults full of corruption stories just like the Liberty Dollar debacle, but the moral climate he appeals to simply is not reality.
Ron Paul’s final step in procuring value and morality in the US monetary system is to, “eliminate capital gains and sales taxes on gold and silver coins.” Not only does Ron Paul want to give away governmental power, he always wants to give away governmental money. Once again, this third step can be completely overlooked because it will not receive any real consideration.
The strategy is this: value will return to the US dollar if competition from equally stable monetary systems forces our government to be competitive at home. Ron Paul asserts that monetary corruption has been made possible because nothing keeps it in check. This fits nicely with his specific Balance frame, which says that the potential of the United States’ dollar can only be obtained if it can meet the value of even the most stable international currency. The value frame of all of this is, of course, the United States wants to be just as good, and better, than every other country in the world. Ron Paul promises however, with the current political climate, this is not possible.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
The Doomed Logic Of Ron Paul
Ron Paul is a Libertarian in Republican clothing. It’s an impressive act of subterfuge and he has lasted longer than any pundit thought he would, but it appears
Is Ron Paul crazy? Energy, Education, and Homeland Security? Don’t we need those things? According to statistics and polls, probably not. Even with our empirical Department of Energy, we are the most wasteful country on the planet. Department of Homeland Security? Professional fearmongers. And we only need to ask any given teacher what they think of No Child Left Behind if we want a good idea of how well the Department of Education is going over.
Ron Paul is against the
For better or for worse, it is not a question anyone seriously has to worry about. Ron Paul is dead last amongst the remaining four Republicans, and is not longer even covered by the news. He proved himself a master fundraiser and an idealist, but little else. Ron Paul has been embraced wholeheartedly by college students who think that bleeding heart liberals aren’t soft enough; but if you ask anyone off these campuses who Ron Paul is, the answer will invariably be Who?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)