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.
Friday, April 18, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)