Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Restore America?

Dear Madame L,

Per your frequent suggestions, I've been trying to keep up with news on the Republican presidential primary contenders, and I think I've found the one I could vote for: The libertarian Ron Paul.

Ron Paul really seems to oppose big government and the foreign entanglements we've gotten ourselves into over the last 10 years, and I saw in one of his televised speeches that he responded favorably to some "Occupy" protesters, telling them he's on the side of the 99%.

What do you think of his candidacy?


Informed Voter

Dear Informed Voter,

Madame L commends you for your interest in politics. Madame L believes that ALL of us took a stronger interest in what the politicians are saying and, more importantly, how they are voting, we would have a stronger and more responsive government, a government that would be doing what we, the people, the supposed government itself, want to be done.

Madame L has been fascinated with Ron Paul's supposed populism and his proposals to "restore America." Like you, Madame L likes the idea of our elected officials responding to our actual wishes and needs rather than the desires of big businesses and wealthy campaign donors.

However, Madame L finds Ron Paul's proposals and, more importantly, his actual stances on social policies, disappointing. In fact, this politician has just dressed up the anti-social programs of Ayn Rand philosophy, or so-called libertarianism, in words that appeal to the very people who would be hurt by his proposals.

Because here's the thing: He wants to cut the very programs that benefit the middle class and the poor people of our country. He actually believes these programs are wrong, that he would be doing the country a favor by keeping the poor from "looting" the resources that should be available to others, i.e., the wealthy. 

For example, he would cut $645 billion in Medicaid over four years, as well as food stamps, family support, and child nutrition, because in his libertarian view, society does not function to benefit its weaker, poorer, and/or sicker members.

If you don't believe Madame L, please check out his "Restore America" plan.  This shows that Ron Paul's real desire is to "restore America" to some pre-industrial state of increased wealth for the wealthy and abysmal poverty for the rest of us.

Ron Paul named his son Rand after Ayn Rand, the mentally disturbed, sociopathic, atheist. Ayn Rand believed there is no such thing as the public and there is no social or moral obligation among humans. It was victory to the strongest, and let the poor suffer, as "Nature" intended (see Tennyson's In Memoriam A.H.H.: "...Nature, red in tooth in claw...").

(Note that Madame L does not call Ayn Rand a writer, because although her scribbles were published, she wrote  horribly; and Madame L will never review any of Rand's books on these virtual pages because they are so full of moral and philosophical garbage in addition to being badly written.)

So, even if Madame L agreed with Ron Paul's desire to cut defense spending to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, she would not agree with these proposals of his:

Cut aid to education. (Slash the Department of Education)
Cut government-subsidized housing. (Slash the Department of Housing and Urban Development)
Cut energy programs. (Slash the Department of Energy)
Cut programs to promote commerce and technology. (Slash the Department of Commerce)
Cut support for the environment. (Slash the Environmental Protection Agency)
No more national parks. (Slash the Department of the Interior)

You want a nice park where you can enjoy nature? Take a bath and get a job (to quote another ridiculous and anti-social Republican presidential candidate), make a lot of money, and buy some land of your own where you can enjoy nature.  

You want your children and the other children in your community to have a good education so they can get jobs? Pay for it yourself. Those who can't pay, let them send their children out to start working as young as they can (to quote that same other ridiculous and anti-social Republican, who thinks child labor laws are "stupid"). 

You want to maintain the clean air and water standards we've had for 30 years now, thanks to Nixon's Environmental Protection Act? Tough, because Ron Paul wants to cut drastically the funds going to the Environmental Protection Agency. 

You want our country to make progress in commerce and hold its own against the other nations of the world? Madame L has no idea how Ron Paul would propose to do that, but she assumes it would involve slashing social programs and providing further entitlements to the wealthy.

Madame L thinks Ron Paul is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. He doesn't care about the 99%. His proposals are based on immoral and unjust and anti-Christian principles, and they would benefit no one but other people like himself --- and the 1%.

If you want to find a Republican candidate who really stands up for the little guy, check out Buddy Roemer. Don't know who he is? That's because he hasn't been allowed into any of the televised debates, and that's because he hasn't been getting any donations from big business and wealthy individuals like the others, including Ron Paul, have. If you want to help him get into a debate, he'd love to have your help. 

(Full disclosure: Madame L does not support Buddy Roemer, hasn't donated and won't be donating any money to his campaign, and will not vote for him, ever. But she likes the way he tells the truth, including pointing out the lies of his opponents, including pointing out that Newt Gingrich, the aforementioned ridiculous and anti-social candidate and current front-runner, has accepted millions of dollars to lobby on behalf of the 1%, and including distancing himself from the libertarian ideas of Ron Paul.)


Madame L

1 comment:

AskTheGeologist said...

Wow. "Libertarian", then, means survival of the meanest and wealthiest, and let the poor and the children die. As a teenager I read a Rand book, but threw it away when I got to the part where she advocated rape as a good thing.

Profoundly anti-Christian.