My case for Ron Paul: A Plea to the Left

I am not a "Ron Paulian," as the ads for a particularly weak anti-Keynes screed ask me. I was a libertarian before his resurgence over the last few years and his brand of Old Right libertarianism has never been mine. I distrust him on trade, find his rhetoric on immigration slippery, and disagree with his take on abortion.

But he is currently our only hope.

I've read pieces like this one by those on the left warning against Ron Paul. Taken in isolation, the warnings seem, from a leftist perspective, reasonable: he wants to eliminate all the social and welfare legislation of the preceding 150 years; he has at the very least flirted with racists in order to spread his message; he is not so much a peace activist as he is an old-style isolationist.

But we cannot compare Ron Paul to some hypothetical ideal if we are going to make a decision in the real world; we must instead compare him to our real alternatives.

The Future of OWS?

Tell me, my friends and enemies on the left, what matters to you more: health care or habeas corpus? Health care is certainly a "sexier" issue and carries greater emotional appeal, but habeas corpus is a right so old and so fundamental we still call it a Latin name. Habeas corpus is, quite simply, your protection against being "disappeared," against vanishing into some government dungeon or "black site," as they are called now, never to be seen again. And that protection is under serious assault. The 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, passed by both houses of Congress and to be signed into law by President Obama, codifies as law what the Bush and Obama administrations have already claimed the right to do: the arrest and indefinite detention without trial of anyone, including American citizens, they deem to be terrorists. Once someone is declared- not in open court but by an unaccountable bureaucracy against which there is no appeal- to be a "terror suspect," the law mandates that he or she be turned over to the military, whose detainee practices you see illustrated to the left. The administration can choose to try a suspect in a civilian court, but need not, and suspects can be left to languish in the loving arms of military "justice" for however long the government deems fit.

Maybe you're thinking, "So what? Obama isn't going to 'disappear' his enemies; you're a right-wing nut." Maybe he won't. In fact, I am just about certain that Obama will do no such thing. But friends, Obama won't be President forever. We are one day, perhaps in 2013 or 2017 but certainly by 2021, going to have a Republican President again. Would you trust George W. Bush with this power? How about Dick Cheney? How about Dick Nixon? The power you willingly cede Obama because you think he knows best will be also wielded by the next hare-brained "decider" beholden to the religious right, and in case you forgot, that crowd considers homosexuals, feminists and religious minorities to be threats to national security.

Or maybe you are thinking the courts will save you. Unfortunately, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution states that "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it," and a Supreme Court that can figure out how the power to regulate interstate commerce means Congress can regulate what you can grow for your own consumption will have no problem finding that line and finding the current NDAA constitutional.

Voting and advocating for Ron Paul does not have to be a wholesale endorsement of his entire platform. When considering candidates for public office, it is important to compare what they say they want to what their office will actually let them accomplish. Ron Paul is not going to have pliant majorities in both houses. In fact, if his domestic social agenda concerns you, by all means work to elect Democrats to Congress while simultaneously trying to put him in the White House. The President cannot, on his own, pass or repeal any of the landmark laws you seek to defend. Don't let Rachel Maddow scare you: Ron Paul cannot repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Only the Congress can, and the Congress won't.

But what Ron Paul can do is veto bills like the 2011 NDAA. He can end all our foreign wars, which come at such cost to the very poorest and most defenseless in the world. He can roll back the national security establishment. He can scale back the drug war, which hurts poor blacks and Latinos far more than anyone else.

And who else will? Ron Paul is polling third nationally in the race for the GOP nomination and his numbers are rising. Some polls have him in second place in Iowa, others in a statistical dead heat for second with Mitt Romney. He is, surely, a long shot candidate, but all the alternatives for those who cannot abide the burgeoning national security state are no-shot candidates. 

He's not perfect. He's not even perfect for this libertarian, and if, by some miracle, he should win the Presidency, I fully expect my leftist friends to fight tooth and nail against his domestic agenda. But issues even more fundamental are in play, and it is those issues, issues of fundamental civil liberties and foreign affairs, on which Ron Paul can do the most good. I understand how frustrating it must be to have to choose between keeping habeas corpus and electing a President who wants to scrap the Department of Education. But that's the choice we face, and it shouldn't be a hard one. What good are all the programs and policies, laws and social progress you cherish if the government can seize and hold you without trial, if the President can simply order you killed? Ten years ago I wouldn't even have tried to make this argument to you, but things have changed. If you voted for Kerry, even though you had problems with him, simply because he wasn't Bush, then perhaps in 2012 you should do the same for Ron Paul, simply because he isn't Obama, Gingrich or Romney, simply because he supports rights won for us by our ancestors centuries ago, rights now under grave threat.

Look at what he wants to do, look at what his office will allow him to do, and then make the only responsible and realistic choice: Ron Paul for President.