A DEFENSE OF RON PAUL'S VOTING RECORD: IN HIS OWN WORDS

A DEFENSE OF RON PAUL'S VOTING RECORD:
IN HIS OWN WORDS
By Bryan John Dini

The trouble with most criticism of Paul's voting record (especially on the popular leftist/liberal blogs like Daily Kos) is that it is very difficult to determine where Paul stands on the issues if one looks strictly in terms of the binary yes/no vote, without studying the underlying reasons for each particular vote, which may be completely contrary to first impressions. Now, I want to preface this by saying that I won't even get into the ridiculous "guilt by association" claims that have been made about his "close ties" with the John Birch Society, for example (as if that were a bad thing, considering that everything they warned us about in regards to the EU usurping the political and economic rights and constitutions of the member nations is now coming true, among many other noteworthy examples), as well as that allegedly racist newsletter of dubious authorship, and prefer to stick instead with his voting record and the clear expositions of his reasoning for each vote in writing, as this is what matters most to us in the legislative sphere in the final analysis, regardless of his personal idiosyncrasies and attitudes.

As soon as one engages in a serious study of Paul's voting record, one begins to appreciate immediately the unrivaled transparency and depth of insight with which he probes these issues in their most fundamental and radical details--a philosophical consistency that clearly crosses party lines and challenges conventional wisdom on every front: whether it be the origins of the Social Security number and the Federal Reserve, the debate over the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act, whether pro-life conservatism is compatible with libertarian principles, whether identity politics and affirmative action aren't perpetuating racism in another form, the examination of the supposed failure of free market capitalism at the turn of the twentieth century, the crucial difference between a Democracy and a Republic, or the enduring contemporary dilemmas of national sovereignty, "free trade" and corporate globalization through international entities like the WTO, the IMF and the U.N.--nothing goes without scrutiny in Paul's all-encompassing vision.

In most cases it is a constitutional issue for Paul: does this piece of legislation a) appropriate federal funds or b) usurp states rights and local jurisdiction--in breach of the designated, enumerated powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution? Paul does not believe, with good reason, that the "general welfare" clause means Congress can spend whatever it wants on whatever social programs it wants without the informed consent of the people, nor does it mean that the Supreme Court court should re-write the Constitution with its legal "interpretations" and thus force a national mandate on any particular social issue it deems worthy of its imperial platonic guardian attention--as these were powers granted specifically to the states and the people under the Tenth amendment.

For example, at first glance it looks like Paul is against, say, stem cell research because he voted "no" on a stem cell research bill. In reality what he voted against was *federal funding* of stem-cell research, i.e. the usurpation of your tax dollars and states' rights without your say on an issue which remains controversial to many. This does not, in any way, rule out state and private funding for this kind of research. The same thing applies to his voting "yes" on a controversial "gay adoptions" bill. If you read the bill carefully you will find that what it legislates against is the appropriation of federal money to adoptions by people "not related by blood or marriage". In point of fact, Paul is against federal funding of adoptions--period. The issue, again, is the federal funding, the jurisdiction of social issues like these at the local and state level, not whether or not gay adoptions are "natural" or fit some traditional family mold (you would be hard pressed to find this kind of language in Paul's writings; the worst I have found are references to the importance of "two-parent" families).

Here are some typical examples that are brought up in the aforementioned blogs:

-abortion: Paul challenges us to reconsider our fundamentals on this one, and argues that a pro-life libertarian is not a contradiction in terms. In fact he argues that the pro-life position is consistent with the libertarian non-aggression principle and reaffirms the essential connection between life and liberty, in that you cannot defend the one without the other. Remember, libertarians do not believe violent and/or aggressive force is authorized except in the case of imminent personal and/or national defense. For this reason, Paul made an exception to abortion *if* it will protect the life of the mother, which he admits is a very rare case indeed. This also extends to his opposition to the death penalty (which is again, "pro-life") and his belief that Roe v. Wade should be overturned not only because he believes all social issues like this should be left to the individual states that are closer to the needs of the various communities, but also because it allows for the slippery slope possibility of including human life in the "natural" sphere along with animals and vegetation, making way for eugenics-type programs, patents on sections of the human genome, and more genetically modified organisms. This is why he also backed legislation that would deem "life to begin at conception." Of course, the states would still have final jurisdiction over how this "life" is to be treated and prosecuted in court, but Paul believes it is an essential step forward in defining the issue, as the federal government has a constitutional duty to protect life and liberty above all else. This duty immediately trumps dubious privacy and property issues, which he spells out below. If you think the debate is over as to *where* life begins, you are mistaken. Ask any bio-ethicist.

-prayer in schools: Paul did not vote for *mandatory* prayer in schools--only that schools should not prohibit the free exercise of religion on public property, which is consistent with constitutional principles.

-vouchers: Paul's support of vouchers indicates his belief that parents (and, for that matter, students) should have more choice in their education than just compulsory district schooling; that is to say, they should have more say over where their tax money is invested, as the bureaucrats in the Department of Education don't have perfect knowledge of which of the various branches and methods and learning should be subsidized. This should be left strictly to those who know best--in other words, those in the community doing the teaching. I personally think it is a shame, for example, that philosophy and critical thinking has been given so little priority in public schools, which rely on a kind of mindless regurgitation of facts and reliance on authority. There should be more private *secular* schools. Our public schools are starting to exhibit a dangerous behaviorist and materialist ideology that is sanctioned on the federal level in the same department as a kind of social engineering experiment (read up on "outcome based education"), the natural symptom of which is our vegged out, spiritually bankrupt and over-medicated juvenile population.

-marriage rights: Paul voted *against* the Federal Marriage Amendment Act, but he supported the Federal Protection of Marriage Act. This troubles some people. But it is not inconsistent. Paul opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment Act because, again, it would "nationalize" a social issue that should be left up to the individual states. He supported the Federal Protection of Marriage Act for the same reason: it would make sure that a singular ruling in the federal courts would not impose upon the jurisdiction of the state courts, and it would prevent one state from being forced to recognize the definiton of marriage established in another state. As a gay man myself, I highly resent being coerced into a traditionally heterosexual and religious institution. I see "marriage" as a dirty word loaded with historical baggage. When it comes down to it, I would much rather have a "civil union." Let them have their "marriage" and get on with it! As a libertarian, I don't see why we should ask the government for a "license" to perform a perfectly ordinary and civilian ceremony (Paul agrees with me on this). You should have the same rights *period,* married or not married, gay or straight. In short, Paul's treatment of the issue, like all the others, shows nuance, caution and discretion, and would lead to a nation that is not so bitterly divided against itself. Just imagine: all those in favor of gay "marriage" would simply move to, say, California, and those who are not would move to, well, Texas. This is how the free market of ideas works itself out on the local/state levels.

-"protecting" the pledge of allegiance/burning the flag: Remember, Paul voted to *restrict* the jurisdiction of federal courts on the matter. Simply put, the federal government has no authority to alter the pledge of allegiance, which is another example of the "one size fits all" approach; if you would like this to happen, take it up with your local and state representatives. Remember, Paul did not support legislation to make flag burning illegal nation-wide for the same reason. The freedom of expression that the flag represents is more important than the flag or symbol itself. Again and again, it comes down to the issue of local jurisdiction and states rights.

-net neutrality: This bill may be just as deceptive as the so-called "patriot act," as the bill would allow the federal government to regulate the internet, and if the history of the FCC is any indication, this is bound to lead to a situation where the federal government will begin to control speech and other content on the internet as well (a la the "fairness doctrine"). Paul voted, likewise, against banning online gambling, and against imposing universal filters on the internet that would take the responsibility away from parents to monitor their children's exposure to "indecent" online material.

-affirmative action: Paul has said time and time again that there is no such thing as "group" rights, and that such "group" mentalities actually perpetuate racism. There are only the rights of the individual, and every individual should be treated the same. This is reflected in his vote to stop reverse discrimination in our schools by admitting students based on the color of their skin rather than their merits as an individual.

etc. etc.

Issue after issue, I am convinced that if people simply put aside their party allegiances and opened up their minds to a crash-course in the American Constitution and the kind of classical liberalism enshrined in Paul's message, they would find answers to nearly *all* of the problems we face in the world today. It is all there in his voluminous speeches, articles and books, a brilliant testimony to his unfaltering statesmanship and his incisive, scholarly reason, which in the good Doctor's hands has the precision of a surgeon's scalpel. Again, this will require you to suspend all your pre-conceived notions of how you think the world (or, more specifically, the government) works, or should work. But I am certain you will be glad for the opportunity to re-educate yourself and understand why nearly all the big government solutions proposed to treat our problems over the years (especially since 1913--whether it be the New Deal and the Great Society, or the War on Drugs and Poverty, or the War on Terror) have failed miserably and have incrementally brought us closer to the draconian police state/corporatist military-industrial takeover we suffer under today.

There is another way.

A vote for Ron Paul will mean a vote for a seasoned philosopher-statesman who represents potential for *real* change, *real* solutions to our problems, rather than superficial tinkering, bureaucratic band-aids and porkish hand-outs. Paul targets the *real* centers of power in our society. I urge *everyone* to compare his votes with the articles written below and only then decide where to cast *their* vote in turn.

I am confident of the results. This is not so much about liberals vs. conservatives, Democrats vs. Rebublicans, socialists vs. capitalists--this is about a return to the rule of law and the Constitution, a return to self-governance, self-motivated initiative, private charity and personal responsibility. In the end, we *can* have equality and fraternity--we can be as progressive or as conservative as we like, as a truly free market allows for competition even between public and private organizations, as long as they are voluntarily entered into, expanding the range of possibilities rather than narrowing them--but we can never have these virtues at the expense of the one thing that can bring about our desired results, and upon which everything else is irrevocably premised--We the People demand it back, once and for all--our Liberty, our Constitution, our Republic.

This is about nothing less than the perennial struggle between the Free Human Spirit and the Divine Right of Kings.

Remember, the Framers never intended "government for the people, by the people" to mean that civic life is merely a matter of voting the right representatives into power under the pretense that they would take care of all our economic, social and political problems *for* us. Nor did they ever intend a system whereby a majority of people could vote away the rights and property of the individual for the supposed gain of some "group" or other which claims a higher mandate on his or her life through state coercion and looting deductions. They disdained all such pure democracies and collectivist ideologies, for the simple reason that they end up destroying all the individuals in the society and therefore all the "groups" which those individuals comprised, as the best way to work against the interests of the group is to work against the interests of the individual. The government was instituted via the liberal social contract in order to protect our inalienable rights against the colluding intrigues of the minority *and* the fraternal tyranny of the majority, to further make sure our voluntary contracts are not violated by fraud or treachery, etc., so that *we* could address the problems of the world *ourselves*--whether it be through private charities and co-operative clinics, humanitarian organizations, consumer advocacy groups, environmental and labor unions, etc. etc. Remember, federal spending means federal regulation. True charitable work is achieved only through voluntary mutual aid, with no strings attached. We all know what happens when you trade liberty for security...you get neither.

Our government, in other words, was designed in such a way that even if a president with dictatorial powers came into office he would not be able to do much harm, because the resources allocated to such centralized authority would be very limited in size and scope. How far we have strayed from this ideal, when we must rely on near *perfect* regulators and bureaucrats to run practically every aspect of our daily lives, whether it be the Federal Reserve chairman running our economy or the Department of Education running our schools or the IRS redistributing our wealth or the FDA imposing a virtual monopoly on the distribution of drugs and health supplements that may very well save our lives.

It is time we reverse this trend and change course--radically--before it is too late.
It is time we have faith, once again, in the the Free Human Spirit and return the would-be emperors to the dust bins of history, as we must do, it seems, with renewed zeal and vigor according to each successive generation.
It is time to recognize we have survived periods of uncertainty before--whether it be famine, civil unrest or even climate change--but in times of universal slavery, our survival rate diminishes exponentially.
It is time to get people who represent *our* interests into power--because "those without power cannot defend liberty."
It is time--at last--to Vote Ron Paul.

With that in mind: here, finally, is Ron Paul on the Issues:

SAME SEX MARRIAGE:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul160.html

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, FLAG BURNING:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul205.html
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=636

PRAYER IN SCHOOLS:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul85.html

STEM CELL RESEARCH, CLONING:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul252.html
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=765

IMMIGRATION, BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul269.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html

ABORTION, PRO-LIFE LIBERTARIANISM:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=912
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=634
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=635

NAFTA, WTO, "FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS" VS. FREE TRADE:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul250.html
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=866
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=140

PATRIOT ACT:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=407

NATIONAL I.D.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=396

ON OIL, GAS PRICES, MIDDLE EASTERN POLICY:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul273.html
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=536

ON THE UNITED NATIONS:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul82.html

ON THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=475

ON GUN CONTROL:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul374.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul330.html

ON CIVIL RIGHTS ACT AND FORCED INTEGRATION, RACISM:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html

ON NON-INTERVENTIONIST FOREIGN POLICY

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/fff-video.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul356.html

ON LABOR UNIONS:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst98/tst072798.htm

ON FREE SPEECH, FCC, AND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS REFORM:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul165.html

LOWERING THE COST OF HEALTH CARE, HMOs:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul339.html
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=644
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=847

ON INCOME TAX, "PROGRESSIVE TAXATION" AND TAX CUTS:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul316.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul347.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul348.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul74.html

ON FEDERAL RESERVE, INFLATION AND SOUND MONEY:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul53.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul380.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul333.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul370.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul358.html

ON THE WELFARE STATE VS PRIVATE CHARITY:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul80.html
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=707

NET NEUTRALITY, REGULATING THE INTERNET:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=834
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=705
http://www.mises.org/story/2139

SOCIAL SECURITY, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul215.html
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=861

THE WAR ON DRUGS

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=844

FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, VOUCHERS, NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=202
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=241
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=781

KYOTO TREATY, ENVIRONMENTALISTS, EPA:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=24
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=151
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=154

FDA, HEALTH FREEDOM:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=523
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=886
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=586

FEDERAL POLICE (FBI, ATF, ETC.):

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=190
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=159
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=112

ARE WE A DEMOCRACY--OR A REPUBLIC?

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=661
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=887

CAPITALISM VS. SOCIALISM, INDIVIDUALISM VS. COLLECTIVISM:

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=688
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=266
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=176

DOES BIG GOVERNMENT WORK? LAW OF OPPOSITES

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=533

IS AMERICA A POLICE STATE?

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=690

WHY ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SO ANGRY?

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=534