THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: In the 2008 presidential election I made the mistake of actively supporting certain presidential candidates on this blog. I don't regret having done that, as the cause was just considering what happened on election day. However, I wish to take a completely different direction with this blog for the 2012 presidential election. Rather than actively endorsing particular candidates, I will instead do reviews of candidates from a traditional Catholic perspective. In the end I will probably reveal who my personal vote will go to, but I will try not to tell my readers what to do.
In the 2008 presidential election Congressman Ron Paul surfaced as an iconic darkhorse candidate, defying all odds and stealing a sizable percentage of both Republican and Democratic voters in the primary season. All signs seem to indicate he will make another bid for the Whitehouse in the 2012 election. With that in mind, Catholics should know a thing or two about him.
Religion - Baptist
Party - Republican / Libertarian / Republican
Profession - Medical Doctor / Politician
POSITIONS:
- Pro-Life
- Pro-Traditional Marriage
- Pro-States Rights (Subsidiarity)
- Anti-Socialist (pro-free market)
- Anti-Big Government
- Anti-Globalism
- Anti-Zionist
The details of Ron Paul's positions and voting record can be seen OnTheIssues.Org. At first glance his voting record is curious, almost appearing to contradict himself at times. However, when one understands his militant position on State's Rights (federalism or subsidiarity) it starts to make sense. Paul believes the overwhelming majority of social and moral issues must be handled on the state level where the government is closer to the people, and the people can assert more control over it. The intrusive power grabs of big government in Washington D.C. have exacerbated America's moral problems turning them into a full blown crisis. The problem with trying to fix these moral problems at a federal level is twofold. First, because Washington D.C. is so far removed from the American people it is out of touch with them, and virtually unaccountable to them. So trying to solve these problems at the federal level will result in no progress whatsoever. Second, concentrating power in Washington D.C. is what turned our moral problems into a crisis in the first place. Two wrongs don't make a right and the federal government is incapable (let alone incompetent) to even address them. Only the states can adequately deal with the moral and social issues before us. Granted some states will make the wrong choices, and they will learn their lessons the hard way, but they must be allowed to make these choices in the first place so they have the opportunity to learn from their mistakes. Other states will make the right choices, and they should be free to, so they can reap the rewards thereof.
The single issue that has given Evangelicals the greatest pause for concern over Ron Paul is the same issue that should give Catholics more enthusiasm for him. Ron Paul is an Anti-Zionist. By that I mean he does not support the notion of absolute Israeli supremacy over the Palestinians and does not believe Israel should get unconditional financial and military support from the United States. This does not mean he is anti-Israel per se.' Indeed, Ron Paul has supported Israel's right to defend itself from legitimate threats to it's safety. What distinguishes him from traditional Republican candidates is his assertion that Israel must follow the same moral code we would expect from all of our allies, and we need not support all of Israel's policies, especially when they are unjust toward Palestinian Christians and Muslims.
Overall, Congressman Ron Paul is an acceptable choice for President of the United States. He is far from perfect, and some of his views are less than ideal. I certainly don't agree with them all. Nevertheless, his libertarian ideology (while not ideal) does create a sound counterbalance to the authoritarian trajectory of our current federal government thanks to the actions of previous presidents. In a race between Ron Paul and Barrack Obama, Ron Paul gets my Catholic vote hands down.
11 comments; post here:
This is not a good guy. 1st he is a Baptist, Baptists have been anti-Catholic from their inception. he is against the drug laws.
In reading your post, I see that you would vote for Paul in a race between BO and Paul, hands down. This is like choosing the lesser of two evils. That is immoral.
Reason # 300 on why I hate republics.
Brantigny
The fact that he is a Baptist is of little concern to me. I know many Baptists who are NOT anti-Catholic, just as I know many Baptists who are. It's really a 50/50 chance with them.
The problems I have with Ron Paul have little to do with his religion. The problems I have with him are mainly political and deal with specific issues - such as the drug laws for example, but there are more.
Yes a vote between Ron Paul and Barrack Obama is a vote between the lesser of two evils, but so it is with a vote between Barrack Obama and any of the front-running contenders in the Republican Party. Yes, that is the inherent weakness of democratic republics. Unfortunatley, for now, that is what we're stuck with.
I cannot endure another four years of Barrack Obama, so I am going to vote for his front-running competitor no matter who he (or she) is, so long as that person is not a greater evil that Barrack Obama. (That would be hard for the Republicans to do, but I suppose I shouldn't put anything past them.)
I don't know if Ron Paul will be that competitor or not, but one thing is for sure. This man will have a VERY high political profile in the months and years ahead. Catholics need to know who he is and what he's about. Catholics also need to hear about him objectively, and I hope this blog will make some contribution toward that.
Brantigny, I find your objection to Ron Paul because he's a Baptist to be somewhat silly. If he is one of those bigoted types, I could understand your feelings on the matter. But to the best of my knowledge, RP has never said or done anything that would show he's an anti-Catholic bigot.
I can understand your feelings about drug legalization. You're a cop. But face the facts, the war on drugs is a failure for the same reason that the war on terrorism is one too. Drugs are not criminals and terrorism is a technique used by governments and private individals to subdue their enemies. I'm not thrilled abot legalization myself, but unless the police goes after the banks that launder the drug money and finance the trade in the first place, all you're going to seize an occassional drug shipment,or arrest a pusher or a user for possession.
From a Catholic standpoint, my problem with Ron Paul are not so much his protestant church, but rather who he aspires to in his economic leanings, I.E. Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises. All of these aforementioned Austrians are strong supporters of economic philosophies that favor the upper classes to the detriment of the rest of society. Ayn Rand was a fervent follower of these economists and this vein of thought is incompatible with Catholic economics as set forth in numerous encyclicals from the Popes of the 18th, 19th and 20th century. I must agree with Brantigny and say that I would refrain from voting rather than support a candidate who is merely not as bad as the other candidate. We need to demand true Christian conservatives(hopefully Catholic) rather than settle for the best of the worst.
Pax Christi
D. Morgan
In the 2008 elections the only candidate Republican or Democrat that I believed I could vote for in good conscience WAS Ron Paul. I agree with you Brantigny that “choosing the lesser of two evils. That is immoral.” because by choosing the lesser of two evils one must still choose evil. Ron Paul however I do not believe to be evil. He is against the federal governments “War on Drugs” which is failing miserably as Scotju stated. The fact that it is failing most likely is not even the reason he is against it. My guess is simply because there is no authority given to the federal government to prohibit the use of drugs. These matters should be left to the individual states to decide not the federal government. The fact of the matter is that the drug war only escalates violence and profits drug cartels. So to be clear Brantigny, just because Ron Paul “is against the drug laws” it does not mean he is all in favor of the recreational use of drugs, but to the contrary is more against the violence that is the result of them.
D. Morgan, no one with any knowledge of the development of economic thought among churchmen over the centuries would dare to claim that a single view could constitute "Catholic economics." http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods25.html Economics is still a very debated topic among Catholics. I myself find the Distributist Vs. Austrian debate among Catholics very intriguing. Neither economic philosophy to my knowledge is incompatible with Church teaching. If you don't think this is a highly debated topic just read this article and the comments that follow. http://www.insidecatholic.com/feature/why-catholics-dont-understand-economics.html
Jim B.
In regards to concerns about Ron Paul's objections to drug laws, let me ask at what point were any of given the authority to tell another what he/she may or may not ingest? If we as individuals do not have the authority to tell another what to do with their own body, how can we possibly delegate that authority to another individual or groups of individuals? The drug war is a waste of money, creates a black market for criminals to fill and compete over money/power, and is simply nothing more than Prohibition v2.0. Drugs, pornography, etc. are ethical problems to be dealt with by the Church, not a legal ones to be addressed by government, State or federal.
Also, to me "Austrian" economics and Distributism seem mighty comparable to me. I don't agree with all that the "Austrian" school professes, yet neither do I agree entirely with Distributism. In regards to Distributism, while it may be based on Catholic social teaching which is a very good thing, the Church is not infallible in politics, economics, sports, etc. We need to remember that "Austrian" economics and Distributism are both man made structures and therefore are imperfect. Perhaps we can try and find the best in both and create a new system to adopt. Perhaps we can find out which works best for an agrarian society and adopt that one (in the South).
For those that think that anyone of Obama's opposing Republican frontrunners will offer the lesser of two evils to any noticeable degree (unless it does happen to be Ron Paul) and needed "reform" is sadly mistaken. The system is overgrown and broken. We are also a glob of competing cultures that value and desire different things. One blanket government is not possible and thus cannot be reformed. Every single one of the leading Repulicrats is just as much in favour of big government as Obama is. You just have to ask yourself if you prefer the warring police state to the welfare state. You get totalitarianism either way. This is actually why I advocate voting for Obama. He'll continue to run things down at break neck speed and will help to bring about the resurgence of 50 independent, sovereign States (like the original 13 States were after the 1st War for Independence and the Treaty of Paris naming all 13 States individually) or regional/cultural/ethnic/religious unions of States.
The federal government has long since, and on a massive scale, usurped powers not belonging to it. Instead of first asking whether or not you like what a candidate wants the government to do, you first need to ask if the government, State or federal, has the authority to do so. If you as an individual do not have such authority, you can't delegate it or make laws concerning it.
"Powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people." ~10th Amendment
Restore the Church and Tradition (both Church and social) and you restore society. Not all hierarchy, segregation and discrimination is bad. Every society is unique and has its own values and social structures. Every society divides labour differently. This must be realized, valued and maintained to preserve society.
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." ~Benjamin Franklin
Integrity should be of foremost concern here. Ron Paul has the integrity to say what he believes is true and right regardless of how unpopular it may be with the conformist group think establishment.
All other Republicans and Obama will say anything to please their base without having any history of actually doing what they say. The best option is vote for Paul if he is nominated and refrain from voting in 2012 if any one else is nominated.
Ron Paul is not the lesser of two evils. He is the only true good alternative. He can beat Obama at the debates and polls because he such a contrast. Paul is the one who really brings hope back to America. It's his love for liberty and the respect for our Constitution that differentiates him from the rest. Thank you Sir Knight for your astute observation.
By the way, Ron Paul is not a Baptist. He was raised Episcopalian. He and his wife left that Church because of its contradictions to Church teachings. They go to a Baptist Church now because it is the church closest to where they live.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that has enough personal integrity to put his message first, regardless of who goes along with him. He is the only one who understands that it was the states who created the fed. govt. and not the other way around. Therefore the states have more power and the fed. govt. has more LIMITED power. He is certainly not anti Catholic, but is the only one who is in agreement with the Church's teaching on "just war." He is the only one who is not a phony.
he is against the drug laws
As Jim points out, he is against FEDERAL drug laws. If any candidate exemplifies subsidiarity, it is RP. The economic issues are above my pay grade, but at least I can trust RP's integrity, which is not true for any other politician.
Post a Comment