February 4, 2008

Constitutional Matters

You might say that today's presidential elections are really run by statisticians and cosmetologists; you hear so much about how a politician polls with "men over 40," "women under 30," "Hispanics," "Evangelicals," "Catholics," "Union Members," and every conceivable slice of the American pie. You read how they appear on camera; you debate whether the tears were genuine, whether the debate dialogue was perceived as petty or too personal, which lines got a laugh, who looked more "confident." It's no wonder that, over time, these candidates appear to flip flop back and forth, depending on the demographic wedge they are addressing. (The flip-flopping isn't as problematic, in this new world of cosmetic politics, as how they look when they're flip-flopping.) One candidate even tries to spin this reality by saying he prefers "straight talk," but to anyone who examines his record, it's very apparent he wouldn't know "straight talk" if it took a pit-bull sized hunk out of his knee.

Very few of them would. They want to appear "amiable," "likeable," "non-threatening," "uniters-not-dividers," and even "comical."

Straight talk--real straight talk--would require a mature, thinking republic, a body of citizens who were more persuaded by the discussion of issues than the appearance of Oprah, or the cooing of Scarlett Johansen. A mature, thinking republic would say to a Mike Huckabee, for example, "do you think a Chuck Norris joke can make up for your poor immigration record?" Representative government, very simply, rests upon virtue and education, and the ability to see through the sixty second smear, or the fifteen second appeal to emotions.

Enter Ron Paul and his humble hope that Americans return to a discussion of timeless ideas, and not just a pageant of face paint and expensive suits. Dr. Paul wants us to remember the freedoms articulated in the Bill of Rights, the Constitutional limits upon executive authority, and the long term damage that will be done by failing to discuss America's unConstitutional entitlement programs. He's about the only straight-talker on the stage--and for that he is called "fringe."

Ponder something that Ron Paul has not discussed directly, but that is an unavoidable benefit of a return to Constitutional principles. When the American congress "declares war," we tend to win. With respect to war, what do the pre-1949 years have in common? The Congress "declared war," all of the American people were enlisted in the cause, and we won. Since then, we have engaged in one failed series of police-actions after the next. We have failed to declare war, and consequently, we have failed to define an enemy. I tend to disagree with Dr. Paul about the intensity of the Islamo-fascist threat, but I would rather have a country forced to weigh the consequences of declaring war against a common enemy than turn our soldiers into fodder for failed nation-building, and for the quixotic hope that Muslim majorities will ever support a stable democracy. No one has ever told me why an American soldier should die to establish an Islamic Republic in Iraq. Why should we build "nations" over there we would consider repressive over here? Why should we call freedom-hating Saudis our friends and freedom-hating Iranians our enemies? They are BOTH our enemies. If we are going to rumble, let's rumble, but as Dr. Paul reminds us, the American People must make that decision, as the Constitution demands, through the stated will of the Congress.

It sounds so simple, and archaic, and...Constitutional. I think we have to start caring about a document, and a tradition, that has sustained us.

..And, speaking just for myself as an individual, that's why I'm voting for Ron Paul. As a student of history, I can't quite understand any other choice.

 

 

More of the Farm Journal -- February 3, 2008