This morning I learned that Dickie Jensen has selected his candidate for president. It's former Libertarian and current Republican congressman Ron Paul. I went to his website myself to learn a little more and found that it was a bit sparse on policy details. However, there are links to several videos where Mr. Paul discusses his political philosophy. Perhaps Mr. Paul's base of support comes from folks like Dickie who prefer watching television to reading.
If there is anything that government does, you can bet that Mr. Paul is opposed to it. Unlike many fellow Republicans, he is against going to war in most cases. He even expressed opposition to the Civil War which, to some, might make about as much sense as Fred Thompson's attack on Gandhi (and, indirectly, JC). Now, old Ron is not in favor of slavery or even the establishment of the Confederacy (he is a Texan). He just feels that the matter could have been resolved peacefully.
This got me to thinking. Freddie Thompson is mad at Gandhi (and, by extension, JC) because he wouldn't fight bad guys like Saddam Hussein. Ron Paul risks ridicule by suggesting we seek peaceful solutions rather than fight wars (on one of Ron's videos, this stance prompted skepticism from well-known Leftie and pothead Bill Maher). Of course, I'm not suggesting that Ron Paul occupies the same moral high ground as Gandhi or JC. There are only a few of us up here.
Why is this view so widely rejected? I think it's because folks look at someone like Hitler and say, "Well, somebody has got to stop him." From that perspective, they are right. However, the true path to peace is much more complicated. You have to discover a way to prevent dudes like Hitler from coming to power, and that requires action long before anyone ever hears of them. Usually, folks like that gain support from those who perceive that an injustice has been done to them.
Of course, if a nation were to always act justly, it would have fewer enemies. So, how the heck do you do that? More to come . . .
Stevie Joe Parker