| Ron Paul was in Missoula yesterday - and Pete Talbot and I were there to see him!
Pete, of course, took copious notes. I just gawked and listened. Some observations:
Good crowd. The paper called it 1,000 people. That seems about right. It was comparable to the Clinton crowd out at the airport. It was also an eclectic bunch, much more so than at the Obama and Clinton rallies. There was a mix of old and young, some cowboy hats, some with that particular "shine" of being saved, some known Republicans, some known progressives. I'd say of the crowd, only about half were supporters, got up and cheered every point, shook signs, etc. But by the end, Paul had most of 'em clapping. |
Paul's speech was probably the least specific, the most reliant on bland generalities, of the three that I've personally heard from presidential candidates here in Missoula. Kim Briggerman's report sums up those generalities well:
He pounded home the message that's earned him the nickname Dr. No - no big government, no federal income tax, no more misguided wars - and a few new ones that have recently cropped up....
Paul scoffed at the notion that America faces the threat of invasion, and said scare tactics to plant such an idea are employed to steal basic freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
"Are we going to accept this idea that if we just get scared enough, we allow the government to run roughshod over us? So in times of war ... the people are supposed to roll over," Paul said.
"I would say it's time not to roll over, but to stand up and resist."
Good stuff, right? It is good. He painted the image of a society that touted individual liberty and responsibility as the foundation for our American Republic. And that is good stuff.
But then he said some weird and contradictory stuff, like he would abolish the income tax (a progressive tax that raises revenue fairly), but we should work to restore our nation's infrastructure. (With what money?) He touts individual liberty, but when a man stands at the open mike and says his pro-choice stance seems a natural fit in Paul's laissez-faire vision of the world, he's hissed at by the audience and lectured on the issue by Paul, who's unabashedly pro-life. He decries the vanishing middle class while simultaneously touting government deregulation of business - and one's left wondering how those two ideas are compatible. Isn't deregulation how we got into this mess?
He never mentioned the words "corporation," "environment," or "global warming."
And he certainly didn't expand on his own record on many issues. From a January post:
He wants to abolish the IRS and most cabinet positions - including the departments of energy, education, health and human services - and end the income tax. He wants to dismantle Social Security. He wants to end regulation of business. He's got a long record of voting against gay rights, civil rights, and the environment. He favors repealing birthright citizenship. He talks a good game about individual liberty, but opposes a woman's rights over her own body. Despite his touting of the Constitution, his record on church-state separation is abysmal. He's a big opponent of unions and work safety regulations. I could go on. He basically opposes every idea of good government that mainstream America cherishes.
So when Paul talks about "liberty," it's freedom to be just like him. No wonder he skimmed the surface of his beliefs during his speech.
I'm not saying his Missoula supporters embrace Paul totally; I suspect the reason for the crowd's eclectic mix was that Paul's superficial message resonates with different people in different ways. For some, it's his plain-spoken opposition to the Iraq War that's attractive. To others, it's his message about personal responsibility and ending the "welfare state." Others still, probably see him as a defender of their conservative social views.
Whatever. In the end, I came out of Paul's speech feeling hopeful and optimistic. It was stirring to see so many conservatives stand up and shout for the end of the war in Iraq. It was stirring to see so many conservatives stand up and shout against government's violations of our Fourth and Second Amendments, against the Patriot Act, Real ID, and torture.
And, while I certainly don't share Paul's vision of a crippled government, of regressive taxes and deregulation of business, it was at least refreshing to hear a Republican genuinely embrace those issues, and to see his supporters passionately voice their support to those ideas. It was certainly a marked contrast to the actions, voting records, and deeds of the current incarnation of the GOP at the state and national levels, which seems dedicated to bloated, inefficient government, irresponsible fiscal management, and authoritarianism.1
What I'm saying is that there's common ground here that many progressives and conservatives share. Too often we bicker over the things that divide us. Wouldn't it be better to fix the problems we agree on first? |
