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.

The Doomed Logic Of Ron Paul

We’ve seen it in movies a handful of times now; some longshot candidate who wants to stir things up enters a race for office and turns the system upside-down. Inevitably in these films, the longshot character wins, therefore instilling us with democratic pride that we can be truly represented by who we choose. This is not the case with 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 America is not ready for another nut from Texas. In the YouTube debates, when Anderson Cooper was asking the Republican candidates which governmental programs were deadweight, the seven candidates running against Ron Paul dodged the question, even praising all departments for their hard work. But when Cooper asked Ron Paul what he would axe, Paul answered without hesitation: Department of Energy, Department of Education, and Department of Homeland Security.

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 Iraq war. He is pro choice. He accepts gays. Is this type of logic even allowed near the White House anymore? Certainly he raised eyebrows with declaring he would rid the workforce of income tax; but in his own Libertarian way, it is his way of being the people’s champion. Ron Paul wants to give power back to the state. He actually wants to reduce the power of the executive branch. He wants to come in to power just so he can give it away? That is certainly the message that he preaches and his congressional voting record is consistent. So what are we to make of a man who wants power, but doesn’t quite fit with our Republican / Democrat dichotomy?

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?