Oy!

Ron Paul has endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.

You don’t know me, and there are no reasons why my thoughts on this should count for anything to anyone but myself.  But…but let me say that I am a Christian.  In fact, I am a member  of a sect (I’ll use that word for lack of anything better) that is considered “fundamental” even by other Christians.  Even so, the Constitution Party makes me uneasy, to say the least.

There are so many things going on in regard to this endorsement that it’s hard to get a real grip on the big picture. But here are a few things.

1.  Maybe it’s just Paul doing this out of spite to aggravate Bob Barr.

2.  The comments at Campaign for Liberty are very discouraging.  A great many commenters there are acting like the very sheep they supposedly are not; as soon as word of this endorsement came out they dutifully drank the Kool-Aid and asked for more, swearing to follow Ron Paul without apparently doing much in the way of research on their own.

3.  Many other commenters were immediately hostile because Baldwin is a Christian.  Let me tell you something.  It’s getting very tiresome to constantly see such theophobia coming from people who call themselves libertarians.  I’m sure if Baldwin were Wiccan there would be no such problem, but let someone call himself a Christian and things get ugly real fast.

4.  Baldwin doesn’t have the slightest chance of making even a tiny dent in the coming election.  However, let’s pretend the Constitution Party did become a majority in Congress.  If there’s one thing we know about people in government, it is that when they get a little power, they want more, and they become proficient at passing the very laws that grant themselves more power.  Does anyone really want Christian ideals to become legally mandatory?  Silly question, I know there are such people (just check out the CP), but I am not one of them.  My sins are no one’s business but mine and God’s.  Knowing how well the government enjoys the slippery slope phenomenon, how long would it be before “Christian” ideals became protestant ideals, and from there to Baptist ideals, or Pentecostal ideals, etc.?

5.  There are many things to like about the Constitution Party in general, and Baldwin in particular.  There are also many things not to like.  My own perceptions of the CP were colored by my first exposure to them, which was via a local candidate for a local office, who is no doubt firmly committed in the philosophical sense but should be committed in the institutional sense.

I voted for Ron Paul in the primary, and I would have voted for him if he had somehow made it onto the ticket for the general election.  But I don’t believe I can go this way.

In any case, Baldwin would have to be a write-in, because he won’t be on the ballot in this state.

Advertisements

One Response to “Oy!”

  1. 2. The comments at Campaign for Liberty are very discouraging. A great many commenters there are acting like the very sheep they supposedly are not; as soon as word of this endorsement came out they dutifully drank the Kool-Aid and asked for more, swearing to follow Ron Paul without apparently doing much in the way of research on their own.

    This is the VERY reason I have lost hope in the electoral process. The one group of “individuals” i thought i could get behind in general principal were salivating over what “Dr.Paul will tell me to do” before his earlier conference. It has been a sad 2 weeks for the ideals of the Republic. I am discourged, but not out yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: