Our featured Presidential candidate for today is Texas Congressman Ron Paul, a Republican.
I first heard of Ron Paul in 1988, when he was the Libertarian candidate for President. A friend of mine, a political junkie, gave me a copy of the Presidential Biblical Scoreboard, a publication of the Christian right. It was an interesting magazine. It had the voting records of all the Senators and Congressmen, as well as a list of issues (e.g., abortion, homosexuality, pornography, euthanasia, the death penalty, SDI) with biblical references that supposedly gave God's perspective on them. Mostly, they were pretty applicable, though I don't think that you can find support for SDI in the Bible. But, anyway, the magazine featured George Bush, Dan Quayle, Michael Dukakis, Lloyd Bentsen, and (for some reason) Ron Paul.
This was actually my first exposure to the Libertarian Party (remember, I was only 12). At the time, I was your typical conservative Republican. I believed that the government should tax, spend, and regulate less, since less government means more freedom. But I also thought that it should ban things that are wrong, like drugs, pornography, prostitution, and (most importantly) abortion. There were a few times when I thought that my second belief contradicted the first one, since the pro-abortionists' emphasis on choice and keeping government out of personal decisions sounded pretty conservative to me. But I usually quieted that thought with, "Well, of course the government should ban murder! Duh!"
I assumed that everyone agreed with prohibiting drugs and prostitution (except for those who use them, of course). I knew that there were people who supported legalized pornography, but my thought on that was, "Look, banning pornography prevents rapes and all sorts of other vile acts, so it must be done." And, if those answers didn't quiet my dilemma of why I supported government intervention in some areas but not others, I said to myself, "Everyone supports some government involvement. What, do I want to have no party to endorse at all? I'd better stick with the Republicans."
Then, I encountered the Libertarians, who were against government intervention in the vast majority of cases. I didn't know what to do. In a sense, I still don't. I still believed in the pro-life position on abortion, since even libertarianism holds that the government should protect life (along with liberty and property). But most libertarians do not see the unborn baby as a life, and that is a problem for me. Over the years, I have found that I sympathize with the libertarians more than I do with the Republicans, since Republicans tend to support big government, particularly when it's married to big business. And when the Republicans do cut spending, they neglect to curtail the government intervention that is driving up prices in the first place (the sorts of things I discussed in yesterday's John Cox post). Because they try to cut government only partially, without any systemic change, they end up leaving people out in the cold. At least Libertarians want to cut spending and create a system of freedom and prosperity.
But I can never bring myself to vote for the Libertarian Party because it supports legalized abortion. The exception was Ron Paul, who, in 1988, explicitly disagreed with the pro-choice position of the Libertarian Party. After that year, I was often hoping that a pro-life Libertarian (like Ron Paul) would run for President, but I recognized that, even in that scenario, I'd end up supporting a third party that hardly gets any votes. I didn't expect Ron Paul to start a revolution, gain rock-star popularity, and raise more money than any of the other candidates.
To be honest, I'm still uncomfortable with legalizing drugs, pornography, and prostitution, but Ron Paul has a way to handle that: let the states decide. On some level, I can understand why people may dislike this approach. "So the federal government can't interfere with freedom, but the states can set up mini-fascistic dictatorships if they so desire, huh?" I can picture a person asking. But states and local communities should have the right to set their own standards. If a small town doesn't want to be a brothel with drug pushers on every corner, then that is its right. And, if a person chooses to look at porn or do drugs, then he should move to a more permissive area where those things are allowed.
As far as foreign policy is concerned, Ron Paul challenged my ideas as early as 1988. In those days, I was a big fan of Reagan's foreign aid policies, which financially supported governments and movements that resisted Communism. But, like Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater, Paul was critical of foreign aid. In the style of conservative Republicans during the world wars, he had a non-interventionist foreign policy. And he wasn't for turning a blind eye towards Communism either, since he said that the Soviet Union would collapse if we just stopped trading with it. After all, the USSR couldn't feed itself, right? Does a successful foreign policy have to mean billions of dollars in taxes and debt? Ron Paul made me struggle with the Republican approach to foreign policy back then, and he does so still today.
There are many things that I like about Ron Paul. Except for the earmarks that he sends to his own district, he is consistent in his opposition to big government. According to the documented wikipedia article about him, he "supported his children during their undergraduate and medical school years, preventing their participation in federal student loans because the program was taxpayer-subsidized. He has rejected a Congressional pension for the same reason." Unlike most politicians, he discloses the identities of his contributors more than the law requires. He is gaining notoriety on a national scale, and yet he is humble enough to do an interview in a college dorm room. And he stands by his principles, whether he is receiving thunderous applause, hostile boos, or derisive laughter (and he's gotten all three!). This is a man who doesn't have a superficial Clintonesque charisma, and yet he is starting a revolution.
On matters that hit home, he supports home schooling and the right of health food stores to sell dietary supplements and natural remedies. My aunt homeschooled my cousins, so I definitely believe that parents should be able to teach their kids at home. And the way that the FDA picks on health food stores (but not the big companies, which give us toxins and other junk) just makes my blood boil. And this is personal for me. My mom and grandma owned a health food store in the 1990's, and the FDA was continually cracking down on their right to sell different supplements. In protest, they decked the vitamins in black for a mock funeral. I saw big government's oppressive tentacles firsthand, and I'm thankful that we had an ally in Senator Hatch! But the problem continues, and I am glad that there is at least one candidate who is standing for the rights of Americans to make their own health decisions.
I don't expect Ron Paul to win the nomination, but he is my favorite candidate nonetheless. My dilemma right now is this: Do I go with my favorite candidate, even though he's a lost cause? Or do I vote for Huckabee, a candidate I like (partly) who seems to stand a chance?