I’m continuing to post the answers to 7 questions I recieved from Ron Paul supporters. If you’d like, read the answers to questions 1,2 and 3 before you read about #4.

I will say that the following question brought about the most interesting answers to date. Because many of you questioned whether or not “unity” was an ideal, especially in the current political climate. I tend to think it is, but that’s just me.

Question 4: In a time where we need unity, do you think Paul’s “Dr. No” way of politics will actually bring the country together?

  • Jim: Dr. No is about controlling the state, not the people. The people are not the state. Whenever the state tries to bring people together, we see fascism or communism.
  • mike: paul is uniting all sorts of people now… i think anyone educated on all the issues would have a hard time disagreeing with his stances. 70% of the country is united in exiting the war… apparently 30% are misguided or ignorant IMO!
  • James Maynard: No, in fact we may see more division – but that is not what is important – what is important is re-establishing Constitutional law to reign in the powers of future executives, D and R. I would rather live in a divided republic at peace than in a unified aristocracy (sp?) embattled in constant, unending war. Remember – the world in 1984 was unified too, but I wouldn’t call that a successful society.
  • Spirit of ’76: Again, we can look at Paul’s own words. In a brief speech to supporters at Ames, he said: “The programs we’ve had, the type of government we’ve had, and where we’ve been drifting to are very divisive. Because what happens is the government takes over, they tell us how to live, they take over all the resources of the country, then it all goes to Washington. We can’t use our property and we can’t spend our money without permission, so what happens? Everybody goes to Washington and they claw after the largesse and the loot they take from us. […] This program that we talk about is exactly the opposite. It releases the energy, it allows people to be creative, it allows wealth to be built, and it brings people together. So this is why our groups are always diverse. It always brings people together, whether they’re conservatives, liberals, or independents.”
  • Tannim: Of course. The authoritarians in the DP and GOP will unite against him cutting off their government feedbags and then self-destruct in temper tanrtums of hate and doomsaying after he exercises exectuive authority on his branch of government and kills the offices, leaving the rest of us to thrive since we never had those feedbags in the first place.
  • chad: YES!!! do you think people actually know how the candidates vote? or why they chose to vote a certain way? no i think they care more about how that decision affects them, i think people would not be very happy with the legislators that voted for the patriot act and the no child left behind act if they actually had any idea what was in these bills and how disingenuous they are. ron paul votes no because those bills hurt people more than help them, the constitution should unite this country but only if we actually follow it.
  • bbartlog: Why do we need unity again? People are deeply divided over serious issues. I don’t expect (most) people who think Islamofascism is an existential threat to the nation to come around and agree with me; I simply hope that other, more sensible people will beat the snot out of them at the polls. The same goes for other issues.
  • Jordan: We’re united to end the war in Iraq. If Paul does that it doesn’t matter what else he kills.
  • Ellis_Wyatt: Well, what indeed are the “unifying principles” of America? Again, if you know what’s going on, “constitutionalism” is THE core value of this country, and of its people, if they have two ganglia to rub together.
  • James Aragon: Why does the country need to be brought together? People want their liberties and will decide for themselves if they will agree or disagree on issues. We need Congress to get out of bed with each other so that principles can again mean something. Compromise at times can mean quitting (is Senator McCain listening?).
  • meatwad: Putting the federal government in charge of every last legislative detail doesn’t create unity, it creates apathetic slaves like we have today. Let the people sort things out for themselves and give them back their otherwise wasted tax dollars so that they can do something good with it. Even with the highest tax rates in history, the U.S. is the most charitable nation in the world.
  • Patrick: Psychobabble. Unity is just another word that sounds good but never happens. I want to agree to disagree. But when you disagree don’t get congress to take my money and force me to agree.
  • Matt C: Is there ever a time when we don’t need unity? Saying “no” to unconsitutional actions should not be a divisive thing to do. It should not even be *necessary to do, because in an ideal world some of the laws that are passed would be constitutional.
  • Vicky: Yes. It is proven by his supporter base.
  • Edward Keithly: I question your premise of “unity” being a necessary precondition for political improvement, short of the unity required to get 50.1 percent of the vote.
  • meinaz: Yes. More so than the fear peddling which is uniting us in terror. Between Chertov’s gut feelings and ambiguous “Orange Alerts”, the average citizen is either ignoring or cowering from the world around them. If your question is in regard to current civil rights laws which violate our freedom of association, then no. It’s long past time to rid ourselves of carpet bagging heavy handedness, IMO.
  • Jeanette Doney: The US Constitution empowers people through laws first, force when diplomacy can not be had. You cannot force people to unify, only empower them to want to unify, feel safe through trade and justice.
  • Corey Cagle: I’m not entirely sure what you mean when you say we need “unity.” Unity between the liberals who love the welfare state and the neoconservatives who love the warfare state tends to lead to the welfare-warfare hybrid we’ve had in this country since Woodrow Wilson. If that’s what “unity” means in Washington, we need to run screaming from anyone promising more of it.
  • Dan Warner: Dr. No (or as I prefer Dr. Know) is allready uniting the country. Anyone who knows anything knows that Ron Paul is talking about the things that real life Americans are dealing with every day. Rather than him uniting the country, I think the country is elevating him as their own voice. We are allready united against ‘more of the same’.
  • Buckwheat: Yes! The Constitution brings us together because, unlike today’s left and right, it preaches “live and let live.”
  • Jonathan Bennett: Yes. As Paul has said several times, “The freedom message brings people together, it doesn’t divide.”
  • Aaron: Do we really need “unity?” Why is this time any different than any other in our history? The Constitution is a very distrustful document which creates unity by limiting the power of the participants. This is all of the unity we need—assurance that we are free from one another. This assurance is what allows us to work WITH one another. Any other form of unity is based on more sinister motives and coercions. The disunity that the media so often complains about is partisanship. It has become bitter but it is not about policy it is about position. These are children arguing over toys. If another kid like Ron Paul shows up shows up in the school yard threatening to take their toys away they will unify in an instant. In this sense, Paul is the unity candidate for the Democratic and Republican parties.
  • John Campbell: Why do we need Unity now more than at any other time? I think that it will take a long time to dismantle the social and corporate welfare state. It will also require leadership and education along the lines of shared sacrifice. Ron Paul is always cautious to point out that an entire generation dependent on government programs will require support while future generations opt out. Savings in military spending pay for this.
  • Jerry Clower: The Nazis had great unity. It’s not always a great thing, I would rather see our congressman duke it out on the house floor because of conviction than do the political deal making meet in the middle crap that usually ends up the worst of both worlds. What are we to unify under? You know when american unity was at an all time low, 1750-1770. I’d rather sever ties with the Tories than compromise what is right. Ideologue? You bet.
  • Doofus: I think everyone can relate partly to his message, except for war-mongers, weflare state types and interest groups who get nice federal grants & subsidies.
  • Corky: I don’t think we need the kind of unity that results from a centralized government telling us what to do and what to think. If you want a more detailed answer, you need to explain why you think we need “unity” at this time.
  • Scott: Yes, I do, because once the economy is raging from his methods, and there is no unjust income tax, and we don’t just hand money to other countries, your money, and mine that is, all of our personal money goes up, costs go down, and I believe just that in itself would make things alot better.
  • PC: What are the people of this country united on? Disillusionment of the way government operates and most want an end to the Iraq War. To me it seems like Dr. Paul could unite more people than any other candidate just looking at those issues alone. Yes Dr. No said NO to all those proposals that are ballooning our debt and risking the financial security of future generations. I am sorry but this is the stupidest question you asked so far.
  • Lex: Can he unite the country? No. Liberals and progressives will complain to no end about how he is destroying their beloved welfare state. Neoconservatives will complain to no end about he is destroying their beloved warfare state. Good riddance to both. They will no doubt try to stop him at every turn, but the American people will start to see hope again, at last.
  • paul revere II: Our current Political system needs to go!!!!!! Every single dam thing about it! From the wars, to the treason of giving all of our manufactiring base to Communist China, From Proaganda, To lobbyist to, Genocide- This Goverment SUCKS!!!!!!! We sit crammed in Traffic for hours eveyday on bridges that are rotting away paying tolls and Unconsitutional/illegal Income Tax- The Dollar at all time lows, Homelessness on the rise and Our boys dieing everyday for the Rich! no one does NOTHING! We need real true fundamental change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW! DOWN! with the current political situation! Make lobbying illegal! and arrest all Neo Cons! People hit the streets harder!!!
  • Ward Ciac: Somebody’s gotta do something about these trillion dollar bills or there will be no country left to bring together.
  • Tim: The president’s job is not to “bring the country together.” The president’s job is to secure liberty and to abide by the Constitution.
  • coainley: Yes. People would be relieved to have someone in office they can count on to bring sanity to the country.
  • Tony Lambiris: I do, because his platform will take away money and power from the government and give it back to the people, where it belongs in the first place. Like I said in my previous response, if anything it would imagine it would just make us more self-reliant, and depend more on our friends, family and community when we need help.
  • Michael: I believe getting the Senate and Congress to seriously look at the issues that are facing the American People would bring people together. This would allow the people to know that “They” choose their politicians and the politicians need to be held responsible for their actions (or inactions). It would shake up the status quo that has stagnated for so long in Washington. It is time for a bit of a shake up!
  • Dary: If Ron can’t do it, who can?

If Ron can’t do it, who can? Well, Dary might very well be right.

But the one answer here that really stuck out for me was James Maynard’s:

No, in fact we may see more division – but that is not what is important – what is important is re-establishing Constitutional law to reign in the powers of future executives, D and R. I would rather live in a divided republic at peace than in a unified aristocracy (sp?) embattled in constant, unending war. Remember – the world in 1984 was unified too, but I wouldn’t call that a successful society.

Well put. And maybe that’s why I stress the need for a third way. Paul’s beliefs definitely fall well outside of our current political ideologies and maybe that’s a good thing. Maybe shaking the system up is the only thing that can get us out of this left/right rut. Perhaps that will give rise to a viable independent movement where people demand more personal freedoms and less government instrusion in their lives. I know that many from both sides of the aisle would welcome a party based around those ideas.

But Ron Paul has said he won’t run on a 3rd Party ticket…hmm…

Well, then does anybody really think he has a shot at overtaking the GOP? Again, it seems unlikely, and my next question about Howard Dean will explore that.

Home Politics Ron Paul Realism: Question 4 of 7