As of this writing, it is 533 days until Election Day 2008. Despite this huge length of time, we have already been inundated with news coverage of the candidates from each of the two major political parties. (That we have heard essentially nothing of any third parties from mainstream media is a disappointment that can be discussed at another time.)
So far, both the Republican and Democratic candidates have held multiple intra-party debates to showcase their differences to the nation. I consider these debates to be very useful for the informed voter, since it gives us a chance to see and hear the views of more than just the “big candidates” from each party.
Of all the candidates who have participated in these debates, perhaps the one who is causing the greatest controversy — at least within his own party — is congressman Ron Paul (R-TX). Dr. Paul, who is a physician by trade, has long been known for his libertarian views and actions as a member of the House of Representatives. For example, he voted against the Patriot Act, against the resolution authorizing the Iraq War, and against any other bill that is not explicitly authorized by the U.S. Constitution.
In a nutshell, Paul is perhaps the most conservative member of Congress, at least if you define a conservative to mean someone who advocates small government across the board.
In the most recent Republican debate, Paul pointed to the longstanding U.S. foreign policy of intervention as one of the root causes of 9/11. He essentially argued that if we did not constantly meddle in the affairs of other nations that radical terrorists would have less reason to attack us.
While Paul’s position is certainly logical — and conservative, in the small-government conservative sense — it did not bode well with the Republican leadership. The head of the Michigan GOP, Saul Anuzis, went so far as to draft a petition to the Republican National Committee that would ban Paul from future debates. Amazingly, the grassroots response was overwhelmingly against Anuzis, and he withdrew his petition in a matter of days.
To be fair, we should consider why the head of a state political party would want to censor a sitting congressman of the same party. Here are Anuzis’ own words, taken from the Michigan GOP blog (http://migop.blogs.com):
“After consulting with my fellow RNC members, I believe there isn’t anything to be gained by advancing a petition aimed solely at removing Congressman Paul from the debates. The primary is and will continue to work itself out.
“...continuing these “debates” as they are currently structured is not to our benefit, nor to our candidates, not to our party, nor to the country.
“...The idea of 10 candidates each getting a little over 6 minutes each and competing for the best “sound bite” of the evening isn’t very helpful in determining who our nominee should ultimately be.”
I do agree that sound bites are not the best ways to promote ideas. However, when you have a situation where two or three candidates have raised two orders-of-magnitude more money than the other seven, how else can we hear from those seven?
Even worse is the tone of Anuzis when he says that the debates are not beneficial to our country. I know the Republican leadership has a habit of stifling dissent, but to flat-out say that debate is bad for the country? Maybe that’s true in Communist China, but not the United States.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the real reason the GOP leadership doesn’t like Paul is because he’s pointing out how far they’ve strayed from conservative principles. A true small-government conservative doesn’t spend more than they bring in, nor do they sacrifice individual civil liberties for some false sense of security. Those on the grassroots levels know that, which explains their support for Paul. It seems that the GOP leadership has gotten drunk on power, and has been willing to sacrifice their principles to keep that power.
Paul represents a growing rift within the GOP between those who truly believe in smaller government and those who wish to be more like the Roman Empire. That the Republican leadership is eager to silence him is evidence that they are afraid to admit this rift exists.
Deep link provided by Citebite
