It is getting wild out there. Must be presidential election season or something. I have several things this morning and they are all related.
First up is the news that Ron Paul has lost Nebraska 33-2 and so he will not automatically get a speaking slot at the Convention in Tampa. His name will not be automatically place in nomination. Butler Shaffer is one of my all time favourite writers. He is a law professor, philosophic non-voter, and anarchist but still follows politics and has rooted for Ron Paul. He made a short comment this morning:
Posted by Butler Shaffer on July 14, 2012 05:12 PM
Phew! By denying Ron Paul a majority of the 35 delegates at its state convention, the Nebraska Republican party saved itself, and the rest of the national GOP, the embarrassment not only of having Ron speak at the national convention, but of having his name placed in nomination. 90% of the party constituents, and 100% of its establishment hierarchy, will now be saved the pain of listening to ideas that express philosophic principles that were once popular among the GOPers. Wars, police-state practices, torture, presidentially-decreed assassinations, imprisonment without trial, censorship, etc., represent the “new world order” that will bring conservatives to their feet. No more will these people have to suffer the indignity of having to listen to Ron suggest that the peaceful thinking of Jesus should govern American foreign policy! (“Ain’t that treasonous, Ralph?” “Well, it’s at least blasphemous, Martha!”)
I am curious about how the GOP management will fill the 15 minutes of time that Ron might otherwise have had to speak to the world. Perhaps they can get John McCain and Mitt Romney to provide us with a James Cagney toe-tapper, as they sing and dance to McCain’s 2008 hit “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran!”
I hope that my liberty minded friends understand the the GOP as it is presently constituted is no friend of liberty and freedom. The GOP no longer even gives lip-service to the libertarian minded. GOP or Democrats? What difference does it make?
Next I read that a fellow writing in the Washington Times claims that American Idol needs Ron Paul as a Judge to gain market share in the youth demographic. He also recommends Justin Bieber for the other open slot. Can you believe it? He claimed he was dead serious that Ron Paul would make a great choice and I believe him. Wild times.
Presidential candidate Ron Paul is perfectly qualified to be a judge on American Idol, and he’s just what the show needs.
First, he’s available. He’s not going to win the Republican presidential nomination no matter what happens at the convention in August. He’s not tied up touring, recording a new album, being a parent or holding public office.
Ron Paul’s supporters are the perfect demographic for American Idol. Paul knows what it’s like firsthand to campaign for votes, just like the contestants on Idol. He can easily judge someone’s presence in front of a large audience. He’s been endorsed by the original American Idol herself, Kelly Clarkson. He’s all about success based on your own hard work and on the merits, not on a government handout. So far so good.
Without question Paul brings to the show an impressively loyal group of young supporters. Younger than Steven Tyler for sure. Is anyone under 30 listening to Aerosmith? Doubt it. But voters under 30 support Paul in a big way. More than a third of all the visitors to Paul’s website are age 18 to 34. His appearances on college campuses rival the enthusiasm of fans at Comic-Con. These are the kind of viewers the Fox network would do just about anything to draw. So, put Dr. Paul on the panel and you’re set.
I am telling you my dear friends that it is wild times when a 76 year old man who is a Representative from Texas is suggested for American Idol. Just wild I tell you.
Why? Why do the younger people of America love Ron Paul? I suppose it has to do partially that he has never changed positions over the decades. That is very rare in American Politics: it is like finding a unicorn. I suppose it also has to do with his position as a Classic Liberal. The political ideology that build this nation and was its dominate ideology until 1900 has great popularity with today’s youth.
The great Ralph Raico explained Classic Liberalism, and you can read it here.
“Classical liberalism” is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying “classical” is now usually necessary, in English-speaking countries at least (but not, for instance, in France), because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals. This version of liberalism — if such it can still be called — is sometimes designated as “social,” or (erroneously) “modern” or the “new,” liberalism. Here we shall use liberalism to signify the classical variety.
Although its fundamental claims are universalist, liberalism must be understood first of all as a doctrine and movement that grew out of a distinctive culture and particular historical circumstances. That culture — as Lord Acton recognized most clearly — was the West, the Europe that was or had been in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Its womb, in other words, was the particular human society that underwent “the European miracle” (in E.L. Jones’s phrase). The historical circumstances were the confrontation of the free institutions and values inherited from the Middle Ages with the pretensions of the absolutist state of the 16th and 17th centuries.
From the struggle of the Dutch against the absolutism of the Spanish Hapsburgs issued a polity that manifested basically liberal traits: the rule of law, including especially a firm adherence to property rights; de facto religious toleration; considerable freedom of expression; and a central government of severely limited powers. The astonishing success of the Dutch experiment exerted a “demonstration effect” on European social thought and, gradually, political practice. This was even truer of the later example of England. Throughout the history of liberalism, theory and social reality interacted, with theory stimulated and refined through the observation of practice, and attempts to reform practice undertaken with reference to more accurate theory. …
It would be wonderful if America could just reawaken the Classic Liberal spirit of its youth. Even anarchists must see that Classic Liberalism is a huge step in the right direction compared to where we are now. More liberty is always better than less.