If You Love Peace, Become a “Blue Republican” (Just for a Year)

Interesting idea: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html?page=2

I am aware that the main objection to Ron Paul from the left concerns his belief that private charities and individuals are more effective in maintaining social welfare than the government. To this I ask one question. Do you believe so much in the effectiveness of our current centralized delivery of social welfare that it is worth the war making and the abrogation of civil rights supported by both Bush and Obama’s administrations? Moreover, while Ron Paul would look to transition out of the huge federally run welfare programs in the long-run, that’s not where he wants to start: his immediate fight would be to bring our forces back to the USA and to re-implement the Bill of Rights.

Koerner hit it right on here. This is one of my main concerns with Ron Paul. Another huge and far reaching concern is that he would deregulate like there is no tomorrow, which will end in an ugly corporate rule. I don’t see how he is all that different in the end. I see the same results as any other candidate, just a different road to get there.

Or am I mistaken?


 Related Links




One thought on “If You Love Peace, Become a “Blue Republican” (Just for a Year)”

  1. Yes, the main problem with lefters/Ron Paul is that he advocates private charity, etc. You ask if that’s work the war, etc. and that is a sobering question. It’s a bit more complicated than that because you’re assuming that big government is the reason that we’re at war when lefters don’t care so much about big government as good government; however, since I’m guessing that you’ve heard something close to this argument before I want to tell you what I immediately thought about when I read your question. I will duly consider anything that someone asks me to consider and I considered your question. I asked myself if the social programs/public funds for civil/cultural/etc. projects were worth war. It was a sobering thing to ponder because I don’t generally support war (I say generally because I’m not sure that nonviolence is entirely feasible even though I hope it is). So…I just considered if I would go to war for the social programs/public funds that we have. I work in social services for a private, nonprofit, DV agency so I know how flawed social services can be. We couldn’t survive without referring our clients to public social services and so I know how frustrating they can be. We also, frequently, refer clients to private nonprofits (though unlike the public ones) we only use some of these because they’re are some horrendous things happening with too many private nonprofits/charities. Still, at the end of the day, I asked myself if I would go to war for the portion of funds that it would take to maintain the public funded social services that my agency and so many people rely on. I asked myself whether, if I refrained from war, if patience and waiting for private nonprofits to catch up would fill the void of public social services. I was pretty sure that I wouldn’t go to war for social services any more than I would go to war for anything else, but also that private nonprofits/charities wouldn’t catch up to fill the void left by public funds being cut. Rather than be disheartened by this, I concluded that I wouldn’t have to “go to war” or “declare war” or any other silly thing that people in power/with money do. We would be at war. The biggest argument for ending social service funding is that there would be an automatic, unstoppable backlash (perhaps in the form of union activity) that would force private employers to pay more to compensate. I can’t help but admit that this could be a good thing. But then…I know of all the reasons that social services came about to begin with, why unions weren’t enough….there are people that are disabled and can’t work. Or, they can’t work full-time. Or, they can’t work without some disability advocacy,which generally just proves to their employer that they are well worth their paycheck with minimal accommodation. Or that they can’t leave their abusive partner, take care of the kids, and maintain a full-time job. Or that they are females doing traditionally female work and that the market doesn’t value what they do or expects them to be martyrs and work for less because they became teachers/social workers/day care employees because they are altruistic and; meanwhile, couldn’t possibly expect a livable wage for that. Or, if they do make a livable wage (mostly through government jobs (private schools and nonprofits pay much less on average) that they should never expect to be “rich” off such a profession…that seems counter to everyone. And meanwhile, everyone just goes to war, consents to fight, because the social service programs don’t have the funds to give better alternatives. You can stay home on welfare OR you can go to war. So…well, I think your question has been answered. The people vote – go to war.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s