In some of my more recent posts, including Ron Paul the most hypocritical candidate, I strongly criticized Ron Paul for being yet another “miracle elixir” charlatan when addressing to the masses. I also criticized him for finding easy scapegoats to blame and for distorting the liberal/libertarian message.
At the beginning of the 2008 economic crisis, precisely during the Paulson Plan, the bailout stimulus and at the peak of the socialist “Yes we can” campaigns, I correctly predicted that the public opinion would change from socialism to “liberalism”.
I will go deeper into this in subsequent articles, but the point is that the change of political direction of the masses was fairly predictable. But if on the surface the political opinions have changed, it’s really both sides of the same coin.
Socialism was simply running out of “miracle pills” for all society issues, so logically “liberalism” took over.
When I say “liberalism”, I am referring to Ron Paul’s propaganda, sort of based on liberalism… on the surface.
The problems in the United States are not so much political than ideological. Going from international socialism to international “ronpaulism” (sorry I really can’t associate liberalism or libertarianism to his policies) is not really what we need.
Sure it’s better to have an ethnomasochist government that’s not in debt and doesn’t fuck with our currency rather than an ethnomasochist government that does, but the core problems are still here.
The masses went from international socialism to international ronpaulism, thinking of it as a major change in our politics.
They went from :
- cheering “Yes we can” to cheering “End the Fed”
- seeing the “rich” as the cause of all our problems to seeing the “government” as the cause of all our problems (scapegoating)
- defending foreign interests by bailouts and international aids to defending the foreign by non-interventionism
Notice that every scapegoat found for our problems has to be American (corporates, governments, the American rich class), otherwise you are labelled as racist.
Even the 9/11 attacks are blamed by the Americans on other Americans, since they are so scared of conflicting the foreign.
And if in appearance Ron Paul’s message seems liberal, it’s not.
I can’t stress this enough but liberalism means individual responsibility.
Is finding scapegoats a responsible attitude ? Blaming the government for everything (I never thought I would defend the government some day) ?
Ron Paul simply chose a few parts of liberalism that seemed appealing to the masses, such as the opposition to statism (that Ron Paul incorrectly distorts into the opposition of our government), debt reduction (which should be mandatory for every politician by now), low taxes and non-interventionism.
He added a good dose of ethnomasochism and foreign loving propaganda for it to be even more demagogic, and based his whole political program on those ideas.
But as stated in the title, those ideas aren’t everything. Neither the government nor the debt caused our huge trade deficit (granted that governmental intervention might contribute to extend it), neither the government nor the debt caused massive delocalizations, unemployment and foreign outsourcing, neither the government nor the debt caused ethnomasochism and the cult of the foreign.
Ron Paul is just another miracle pills selling hippie, just as Obama, Bush and all the internationalists that value foreign interests above American interests. He simply chose to changed his message to fit the “new-age” public opinion.
What the United States of America need is a serious nationalist candidate, with serious liberal propositions. We don’t have fifty solutions anyway.
A balanced budget is a requirement, but it’s definitively not a solution. Don’t confuse means and ens.