This is no place

Ron Paul's Gaffe

Much has been said about the apparent rift in the liberty caucus. From Bob Barr's apparent snub of the Paulian We Agree statement and subsequent press conference, Dr. Paul's endorsement of Chuck Baldwin. The one thing I haven't heard anyone mention is whether the Constution Party is any more constitutional than the PATRIOT Act is patriotic.

Ever since Dr. Paul bowed out of the nomination process, his supporters have been split between support of Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr. While I understand the reluctance of some to support Barr with Congressional voting record behind him, he is the candidate of the Libertarian party, and anyone who thinks there is any political gain to be had by "flip-flopping" from the Republican Party to the Libertarian Party is drinking some seriously strange Kool-Aid.

I've never understood, however, any Paul supporters championing Chuck Baldwin. I can only imagine that these supporters came to Dr. Paul after Norma McCorvy's endorsement, and are only looking for a strong pro-life candidate. The fact that Chuck Baldwin is a former leader of the so called "moral majority" is a big enough turn off for me, and I would imagine most libertarians. This is a group that has consistency stood for the legislation and government enforcement of "morality", which is antithetical to individual liberty.

Examining the Constitution Party's platform doesn't lead me to any further understanding, either. Unlike the Libertarian Party, I can't support Baldwin on the basis of his positions as the leader of his party. One need only turn to the parties website and read the Constitution Party position on Pornography to see what I'm talking about.

We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

Orwell would likely choke on this brazen act of doublethink. Uphold federal obscenity legislation to protect free speech? Regardless of one's individual opinion of pornography, any liberty minded individual should be wary of this kind of endorsement of federal legislation. Governments can no more promote morality through legislation than they can promote prosperity though spending.

The CP tries to frame its positions in the light of state's rights and limited government, but their true motives are apparent when they champion federal obscenity legislation in the name of free speech.

Such arguments are typically defended as being the will of the majority, or on the grounds that American is a "Christian" nation, and should reflect "Christian Values". But Dr. Paul himself denounces the idea of democracy as mob rule.

In Democracy is not Freedom, Dr. Paul writes:

The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights.

In the same article, Dr. Paul predicts that a purely democratic election in Iraq would result in a tyrannous Shi'ite theocracy. I agree with him completely, which makes me wonder further how he could support a candidate or a party with a theocratic platform.

Theocratic how? How about denunciation of homosexuals as "sexual offenders? From the CP's "family" page:

We reject the notion that sexual offenders are deserving of legal favor or special protection, and affirm the rights of states and localities to proscribe offensive sexual behavior. We oppose all efforts to impose a new sexual legal order through the federal court system. We stand against so-called "sexual orientation" and "hate crime" statutes that attempt to legitimize inappropriate sexual behavior and to stifle public resistance to its expression. We oppose government funding of "partner" benefits for unmarried individuals. Finally, we oppose any legal recognition of homosexual unions.

The equating of homosexuals with sexual offenders is despicable in its own right. But there is more in that short paragraph. While the so-called Constitution Party rejects the "funding of 'partner' benefits for unmarried individuals", it says nothing about the funding of married partners. It is my position (and I think it should be the position of all small government types), that government has no business funding benefits for ANY marriages. While courts may be necessary to manage the divestiture of assets after a divorce, there is no need in a free society for government to provide tax exempt status for married couples that it does not provide to unmarried couples. How can one claim that the government can force employers and insurance policies to provide medical coverage for spouses, but restrict and even penalize people who want to provide medical benefits for unmarried partners? While I get a benefit in the form of tax credits when I buy health insurance for my wife. But if I were not married, and my employer provided insurance for unmarried domestic partners (gay or straight) I would have to pay additional taxes on the benefits for my partner as income.

As soon as the Constitution Party starts arguing against government handouts for married people, I will accept their argument against handouts for unmarried people.

Dr. Paul's endorsement of a candidate or party that supports promotes such views is anathema to every reason I've supported him.

Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. Government is not moral and cannot make us moral. Law should reflect moral standards, of course, but morality comes from religion, from philosophy, from societal standards, from families, and from responsible individuals. We make a mistake when we look to government for moral leadership.

Statements like this are what led to my support of Dr. Paul, but now I see him endorse a candidate who endorses a theocratic worldview that seeks to impose the will of a "moral majority" on the American people instead of championing individual liberty and personal responsibility. Therein lies Ron Paul's gaffe.

The politician who has always risen above politics and stood on principal has succumbed to endorsing a candidate primarily on the basis of a personal vendetta. Given the context of the article containing Dr. Paul's endorsement, I don't think I'm wrong about his motiviations. If I am wrong, and Ron Paul actually supports the theocratic Constitution Party, then he doesn't really represent the ideas that led me to become a supporter, donater, and precinct leader in his presidential campaign.

The Barr campaign's gaffes, as they relate to my choices this Tuesday were failure to get on the West Virginia ballot, and failing to register for official write-in status in a state that even Santa Claus is an official write-in. Therefore my write-in of Bob Barr would be as effective as writing in Ron Paul. Since I can no more support an anti=liberty theocracy than a socialist or a fascist, I have two choices this presidential election. Write in a protest vote for Santa Claus, or join principled libertarians and remove my consent to be governed by abstaining.

I guess it's time to stop drinking the Kool-Aid.