More taxes, anyone?

My three-word summary of the political landscape in 2008: image over ideas.

Of course, this could probably be said about most political elections since the flourishing of news and television media outlets over the last half century. Sure, the Lincoln-Douglas debates (the so-called 'roots' of today's Presidential debates) in 1858 had its fair share of rhetorical flair, but there was always a since in which there were real ideas and methodological commitments behind the rhetoric. Today, one is constantly bombarded with 60 seconds here-90 seconds there to answer a question....which, of course, only encourages more 'political spin' without ever really discussing anything at all.

Remember teary-eyed Hillary in Iowa a month or so ago? Or more recently, the 'hand-shaking incident' with Ted Kennedy during the State of the Union address? TV outlets (from Fox to CNN) ran gang-busters with this. But what do either of these incidents really have to do with the issues that the average America? It might as well be Tony Romo and Jessica Simpson that we're talking about, where the media goes out of its way to cover an issue by stating: "We, the media, should leave this one alone...because it really has nothing to do with Romo's poor performance in the playoffs." What's the real difference here? National issues get reduced to the level of 'sporting event' event tabloids.

[NB: Admittedly, I didn't follow the campaign trail to the elections of 2000 and 2004 terribly closely -- in the case of the former, I was finishing seminary and working in a Santa Barbara (internship); in the case of the later, I was preparing for and traveling to Canada. In neither case was I able to watch television due to the poor television reception in Escondido. So I've probably seen more political coverage (i.e. 'sound bites') this time around than the previous two combined....and we still have another 9+ months of this to go!]

The internet has plenty of pitfalls in the area of mis-information. But (surprise, surprise!) I'm starting to think that number-crunching articles, Q&A's that actually answer substantial questions, etc., may end up the better medium for cutting through so much of the 'spin' that takes place on television newscasts and 30-second advertisements.

The reason I'm voting for Ron Paul next week can frankly be summed up in one word: economics. All the so-called polls say the economy is now the #1 issue for most voters in America, even more than the Iraq War. The problem is that these same people that are so concerned about the economy don't understand the economics of government taxation.

The National Taxpayers Union Federation (NTUF) issued a statement this week analyzing President Bush's recent State of the Union address, and conclude that it amounts to a $134.6 Billion-dollar spending increase from 2007, the largest single increase of his 8 year term. Weren't the Republicans suppose be the party of less government spending?

The NTUF also issued another report analyzing the various budget proposals of the various candidates running for the President in 2008, showing that more spending is likely on the horizon. Increases from the various candidates include:

Huckabee: +$54.2 Billion
Romney: +$19.5 Billion
McCain: +6.9 Billion

Isn't McCain suppose to be the more 'moderate' of the three? Then there are the Democratic front-runners:

Obama: +$287.0 Billion
Hillary: +218.2 Billion

This is one of the reason I'm not really buying the 'compassionate Obama persona' that a lot of people (including a number of conservatives) seem attracted to. When it comes to government spending, Obama is as 'big government' as they come.

There was only one (remaining) candidate that scored in the negative category:

Ron Paul: -$150.1 Billion

As stated in one of my previous posts, the GOP simply doesn't understand what to do with Ron Paul. Could it be because they have become so accustomed to big-spending that someone like Paul actually sounds like a 'radical'? In fact, Paul is the only candidate that I really trust who says he wants 'change' and actually has a voting record to back up real change.

Power Politics

Two recent blog posts highlight for me the complexity and frustration with the 2008 election.

Lee Irons comments on the matter of executive power:

It’s disappointing that so few Republicans seem to care [about it] , but traditionally conservatives have been the ones upholding the Constitution, limiting presidential power, and defending civil liberties and the rule of law.

One place you really see this is the way Ron Paul gets treated by the Republican establishment. Just read a few pro-Republican pundits, and you'll see it soon enough. Paul is usually dismissed rather quickly under the conservative rhetoric that he is anti-American, anti-military, anti-War on terror, or (the really popular one) just too radical in his politics to be a true Republican.

Such 'radical' remarks about Paul actually tell you more about the political machine than Paul himself. Paul's message is frankly very simple -- it is pro-free market, pro-Constitution, and anti-government across the board. In other words, Paul is just too libertarian for the big-government ideology on the 'left'...and the increasingly big-government agenda on the 'right'! A great example of this is the way Republican diehards criticize Paul's consistent opposition to the Iraqi occupation. Note the way Paul gets lumped in with the leftist, anti-war machine; for some reason, it never really occurs to these people that Paul's rationale has absolutely nothing to do with leftist politics. His rationale for opposing Iraq (as far as I can tell) is: (a) we're involved in a prolonged conflict that really amounts to an unconstitutional 'war' and (b) it's costing the country billions of dollars to fund it.

The reason why Paul's message sounds too radical for people is because we've become too accustomed to letting big government run our lives...and that goes for Democrats and Republicans.

A great example of the 'big government' establishment surfaced in the aftermath of the Bhutto assassination. Kim Riddlebarger was particularly 'disgusted' with the way the candidates from both sides of the fence handled themselves:

Is anyone else as as disgusted as I am at all the presidential campaigns for using the tragic assassination of Benazir Bhutto as a way to shamelessly tout their own supposed foreign policy credentials?

These guys (and a gal) have spent the last two days knocking each other over to get before a camera or a mic to pontificate about something they obviously know very little about. Unless you are already in the White House and privy to hard intelligence, you probably don't know squat about what really happened and who did the dastardly deed....

And we wonder why less than 50% of Americans vote? The cynicism shown by the lot of them is disgusting to me. And just why is it that we are going through this eleven months before the election?

As Riddlebarger remarks, Paul's response makes the most sense -- "We should mind our own business and stay out of supporting military dictators." No political spin....and (more importantly!) just good economics. And yet again, Paul gets blasted by the 'neocons' for being anti-American and anti-military because Paul is critical of American foreign policy.

I don't agree with everything Paul says, but his message has a near-brutal consistency to it that is very appealing.....and no one in either party likes it.

A libertarian interlude....

Admittedly, I don't have a lot of extra time to follow every whim of the US political landscape. Perhaps that old joke -- Q: How do you know when politician is lying? A: His mouth is open! -- rings all too true in the current climate.

However, the more I hear blurbs and interviews here and there from Ron Paul, the more that I think he's exactly the kind of person to get the message of 'libertarianism' out to the masses.

Do I think he's going to win the Republican ticket? No. I think CNN, Fox, and every other network 'in between' will see to it that Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson get all of the press....and hence the ticket to square off against Hillary or Obama. But as Letterman noted the other night, you know things aren't quite right in the Republican party when "...Rudolph Giuliani had three wives and he's not the Mormon candidate." And does anyone seriously think any of the Republican's 'Big 3' can take down Obama or Hillary?

That's what makes Paul such an intriguing candidate. The Republicans know they have a monumental task ahead of them, with the general polls showing disapproval of Bush. Where do the Republicans go now? If they run on a 'Bush legacy' ticket, they know they are going to lose....and you can really sense that when you see Romney and Giuliani try to answer questions about what they would do the same and what they would change. They strike me as not really knowing what to say!

But Paul is very clear about where he stands....and (in rather strange turn of events) the Republicans have no idea what to do with him.

If you really want to put up a viable opponent to Hillary or Obama, I think Paul might be the only guy who's capable of doing so. If the Republicans don't know what to do with him now, the Democrats won't have a clue come next year! The tiring 'anti-Iraq occupation' rhetoric from Hillary and Obama simply won't work against Paul....since Paul is the only House Representative that didn't vote to send troops over in the first place!

Of course, the problem is that I'm not sure the Republican party is ready yet to embrace a truly anti-big government platform like that of a libertarian like Paul.