Ron Paul revolution
Are you ready?

by Ed Felien

People in the peace movement who want to send a message to Washington about stopping the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran have two alternatives: either caucus with the Democrats for Kucinich or caucus with the Republicans for Ron Paul. Caucusing with the Green Party is a third alternative, and that will be discussed later.

At this point the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party is Hillary Clinton. Her position on the war in Iraq is that we will continue to be involved militarily there for at least the next four years. A year ago, in an article she wrote for the Wall Street Journal, she said, “The future of Iraq’s oil reserves remains at the heart of the political crisis in Iraq.” Her solution is to set up an Iraq Oil Trust that would siphon off the oil to foreign companies. This is the solution of George Bush, Dick Cheney and Halliburton. But no one in Iraq wants that solution. They want the oil to remain the property of the people of Iraq. Even our puppet government in Iraq cannot pass legislation creating the Iraq Oil Trust because of widespread opposition from every group. It’s probably the only thing they all agree on. The whole world and Alan Greenspan know the war in Iraq is about stealing the oil, and Clinton wants us to stay there until Halliburton gets the last drop.

If four years ago is any indication, at the Democratic Convention next summer Kucinich will support the party’s nominee. His role, it seems, is to lead the left and the peace movement into the Democratic Party and keep them there.
The presumptive nominee of the Republican Party is Rudy Giuliani. He’s been described as “Bush on steroids.” Probably to compensate for his obvious vulnerability with regard to traditional family values (his divorces, his pro-gay and pro-abortion record) he has said this is a single issue campaign, “A War on Terror,” which generally translates as a war against Muslims in the Middle East.
Ron Paul, the congressman from Texas seeking the Republican endorsement for president, wants all troops out of Iraq immediately, but he admits it might take up to six months for complete withdrawal. More than that, he wants the U.S. to close all foreign bases; that’s over a thousand bases in over 130 countries. He believes trade is the way America can change the world, and he wants free trade with everybody including Cuba and Iran. He wants an end to the war on drugs; he considers it a failure and an assault on personal freedom.

He believes in the U.S. Constitution, and he believes Congress and the president are not allowed to act outside the limits of constitutional government. This means he believes only “Congress shall declare war and grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” When making speeches he likes to say World War II was the last time Congress declared war and it’s the last war we won. There must be some connection.

But two of his beliefs, one political and one personal, should give progressives pause.

His belief in a limited and strictly constitutional government leads him to oppose federal spending for education and public welfare. Those assumed responsibilities of the federal bureaucracy are not mentioned in the Constitution.
He also opposes Roe v. Wade. He doesn’t believe the Supreme Court should have acted to legalize abortion. He was a doctor, an OB/GYN, before becoming a member of Congress, and he delivered over 4,000 babies. Perhaps it is his Hippocratic oath, “First, to do no harm,” that informs his position, but, as the former presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party, this personal belief is at variance with the U.S. Constitution and Libertarian philosophy. The Constitution guarantees that people should be secure in their persons. It is fundamental to a free society that people have control over their own bodies. And, it seems a logical contradiction that a Libertarian would want the federal government out of everything except a woman’s womb, or that he would want freedom for everyone except a woman controlling her own reproductive process.

These are serious problems with Ron Paul’s candidacy for progessives. Is it worth the risk of dismantling the social welfare and educational super structure and the prospect of teen-age girls playing Russian roulette with a coat hanger to work for the candidacy of someone who would argue for the dismantling of the empire and an end to war?

First, with regard to social welfare questions, there is no doubt about Ron Paul’s position on these questions, but it must also be stated that he has said his single priority if elected president would be in the area of foreign policy. In other words, we wouldn’t have to worry about an end to federal support for welfare or education until his second term. Second, with regard to abortion, Ron Paul would leave that question up to the states. If Roe v. Wade were overturned at some point in his tenure as president, then it is probable that some states would pass laws making abortion illegal, but it is even more probable that more states would not. So, a situation would arise where abortion was illegal in some states and legal in others. It would take years for this to sort itself out. In the meantime there would be a meaningful debate on the issue—something that didn’t happen with the judicial fiat of Roe v. Wade.

It’s a difficult choice for progressives. The Ron Paul candidacy offers an opportunity to support a serious candidate for president in the Republican Party who would end U.S. imperialism, something everyone else in the world agrees is the greatest enemy of world peace. He would end the war on drugs, which is really a war on young black men, and he would allow the free trade of American goods to be the best ambassador of our good will to other nations.

It is my belief that the Ron Paul candidacy offers the best hope for forming a popular front against fascism. If you believe the policy of permanent war, torture of prisoners, loss of personal freedom and growing power of corporations signal the beginnings of fascism in this country, then it is essential that we rally around a force that can meet that challenge. We need not surrender our principles to work in coalition for the candidacy of Ron Paul. We may disagree with him on fundamental issues. We only need agree that he is right on the issue of war. I have stood and cheered nuns and priests at antiwar rallies even though I didn’t agree with all their beliefs. I believe we should stand in coalition with Ron Paul for the restoration of constitutional government and an end to war. We should attend the Republican Party precinct caucuses, get elected as delegates and alternates to the legislative district conventions, and try to get elected as national delegates to the Republican Convention in St. Paul next September.

It is entirely possible that Ron Paul might not get the Republican endorsement for president next September. It is possible that might be the end of road, but, unlike Kucinich, Ron Paul ran for president as a third party candidate four years ago. He has strong grassroots support, a national organization with experience getting on the ballot as a third party and a record breaking capacity for fundraising (he raised $4.3 million in one day from supporters on the internet, setting a campaign record for Republicans). It is possible that this candidacy could go all the way to November and force the issue of the war onto the ballot.

There is, of course, another alternative. People concerned about the war and the advance of fascism in our daily lives could caucus with the Green Party. The Green Party candidate for president, probably Cynthia McKinney, will support all the right issues. The problem with a Green Party campaign is that it is doomed from the beginning. Rightly or wrongly, the Green Party is still remembered for delivering Florida to George Bush in 2000. In 2004 the Green Party presidential candidate admitted that in states where the margin was close, it made sense to vote for Kerry, the Democratic candidate. The Green Party can make important contributions to local politics. Cam Gordon on the Minneapolis City Council has shown remarkable intelligence and leadership. But a national campaign would be counter-productive and detrimental to local organizing.

As long as we are entertaining hypothetical possibilities, there is a further possibility: if the Ron Paul campaign and the Green Party were in agreement on the basis of a coalition, there could be a Dream Team campaign of Ron Paul for president and Cynthia McKinney for Vice President. This could become a nightmare of the vanishing middle for Democrats and Republicans. They would find, like Ron Paul’s fellow Texan Jim Hightower has said, “There ain’t nothin’ in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos.”

Check out the Southside Ron Paul Revolutionaries group at ronpaul.meetup.com/1345. There will be a public meeting to discuss the Ron Paul campaign at 7 p.m., Monday, Dec. 10, at Powderhorn Park Community Center, 3400 15th Ave. S. We will be organizing for the February 5 Republican Party Precinct Caucuses. All are welcome.