scratch-mark

“Rebublican Renaissance”

I’ve just spent a rather enthralling 45 minutes watching the video, Ron Paul: A Man For All Seasons. It’s very, very tight in terms of coherence to a simple set of principles; it’s comprehensive in terms of the message it seeks to deliver and the impressive volume of sources it uses; and it’s put together by one David McClain, an apparent "nobody," like you or I.

I like the substantial, all-caps tag line to his blog, Republican Renaissance.

"THIS IS ABOUT CHANGING THE DIRECTION OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
IT’S A CALL TO TRUE CONSERVATIVES WHO FEEL THEIR PARTY HAS BEEN LED
ASTRAY, STEERED BY AMBITIOUS BIG-GOVERNMENT POLITICIANS FUNDAMENTALLY
INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THEIR COUNTERPARTS ON THE LEFT. JETTISON THE
PRETENDERS, THE SLOGANEERING MOUNTEBANKS, THE PROFLIGATE
CAESARS-IN-WAITING, AND SHOW THE COUNTRY A DIFFERENT KIND OF
REPUBLICAN. BECAUSE THERE ARE ENOUGH CLINTONS IN POLITICS AS IT IS."

For me, the most interesting aspect of this campaign, thus far, is the
various and impressive videos being put together by Paul’s supporters.
I’m certainly not sure if we have a Black Swan in the making, but this
is exactly where it’s likely to come from if we do end up with one. And now here’s the video.

In case it isn’t obvious by now, I freely admit that I was 100% and in every way dead wrong in supporting this war in Iraq — every little bit of it — and not just the follow-on "nation building" which I initially was less enthusiastic about, but admittedly OK with. It’s an easy thing to do, you know: to admit you were dead, stinking, stupidly wrong, wrong, wrong.

Try it, sometime.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

3 Comments

  1. Richard Nikoley on August 30, 2007 at 12:17

    "I'm curious, just to clarify on the Iraq war, would you not support eliminating dictators like Saddam Hussein?"

    I'd support it, that is, be fine with it, but not as a moral imperative. That's where I was chiefly wrong about the whole thing.

    To state it another way, if anyone were to go a knock of Saddam, I wouldn't care a lick about it; but I don't think there is any obligation for anyone to get him on the basis that to not get him is to default on a moral responsibility to self defense.

  2. Greg Freeman on August 30, 2007 at 11:32

    I'm curious, just to clarify on the Iraq war, would you not support eliminating dictators like Saddam Hussein? I understand and see the problems with nation building– which seems a lot like imperialism in disguise– where a government is forcing a specific, non-voluntary (democratic derivative) government on a geographic group of people. I also see problems with simply going around and offing any dictator that rears his head, mainly because it still leaves intact the culture that produced that dictator.

    If the United States was a free country, didn't have the massive leach of Washington DC and various corrupt state governments sucking the individuals dry that happen to reside there, maybe then that culture could spread to other countries such as Iraq. And it would probably happen freely, without being forced in their face at the point of a gun. There isn't a role model out there for such things now, and the cultural momentum keeping it from being that way needs to be corrected, philosophically, before that can change. The fact that Ron Paul is out there and getting attention like he is means a great deal, even if not actually elected president. I remember reading that the American Revolution was fought with only around 15% of the colonists supporting it, but I don't know if that figure is correct as I don't know how such a thing would be calculated, but it would be a very inspiring idea if true.

  3. bob r on August 31, 2007 at 20:24

    My take on "eliminating dictators": morally acceptable but not a moral obligation on anyone.

    Most particularly, it _cannot_ be a "moral" obligation on a _country_. A country is a collection of people and the collective cannot have obligations that do not exist in the individuals; nor can it be acting morally if carrying out actions that would not be moral if carried out by an individual.

    The real challenge would seem to be putting together an army to take out such dictators without committing wholesale rights violations in the process (not just in the fighting — just building the army would be a challenge).

Leave a Comment





YouTube1k
YouTube
Pinterest118k
Pinterest
fb-share-icon
40
45
Follow by Email8k
RSS780