A constitutionalist

I never intended to make any entries to this blog that were so specific in one ideology as to spurn the opinions of anyone, desiring rather to only opine the most simple of principles to promote a healthier understanding of political discourse. Today however I am breaking, at least slightly, with that objective to fully endorse a candidate for president in this upcoming election. I feel so strongly about this candidate and his adherence to the constitution that I hope you will forgive this one exception.

George Washington once said that “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.”

I am beginning to get frustrated, on the verge of exasperation, with the half hearted constitutionalist among today’s conservatives. On a time I was under the impression that conservatives were pretty well aligned with a respect for that founding document of our republic. I believed that it was the politicians, who promised to respect the constitution while campaigning but dismissed it once in office, was our real problem. I understood the founders to be regarded by conservatives for their insight on the forgery of an experimental government which gave us the liberty of self governance. I thought that the foremost tenant of conservatism was to preserve that precious republic, handed down to us by those generations that came before and to pass it on to the future, as a shining example of what individual liberty can do for a nation. Today, I am not sure if any of this applies to what has become known as conservatism.

Today I find myself in a sea of self described conservatives, patriots, and lovers of freedom who can’t seem to see the glaringly evident signs of hypocrisy within their own lines of reason. I am alarmed to see those who would claim a respect and even reverence for the likes of Thomas Jefferson but turn around and dismiss his abundantly clear positions on foreign policy, as fringe and dangerous. It concerns me for the future of our nation, those who will claim adoration for the freedoms and rights declared in the constitution but will, for the sake of perceived safety, succumb to championing such legislation as the Patriot Act which denies specifically the rule of law outlined in the constitution. My heart aches, when my biggest detractors these days, are those whom I had counted as likeminded defenders of our constitution as late as a year ago, now seem to be an army of piece meal constitution followers, putting their emotions in place of consistency. The ignorance that spurs this changeability has dampened my hope for this country, a hope I believed was nearing a true revolution in our revere for our founding. When I saw the rise of the TEA party, I had hopes that the giant was finally stirring. When all forms of literature, regarding the founding of this country, seemed to leap up in sales and distribution, I reveled at the idea that we as a society were once again ready to embrace to the notions of liberty as stated by the likes of Washington, Hamilton, Franklin, and Jefferson. With a great many seats gained in our government this last cycle, by people who unabashedly cited the constitution and rallied to defend it, I was convinced that the revolution had begun. I was mistaken.

I was mistaken that such narrow path could really be chosen. I was mistaken that a true understanding of what it means to be a republic had been recovered. What has appears to be little more than lip service, to the principles of the constitution, has proven worse than an all out assault from our known ideological opposites. My biggest fear is that this rift, among conservatives, will spell the final doom of the United States of America. It will be ours to lose, as we have been given the option to change course if we would only listen. This choice was presented to us before and we ignored it. In 2008 Ron Paul was introduced to many Americans for the first time. Though he has served in the United States Congress for over thirty years, his voice and name was only known outside Washington to his few constituents in Texas and a handful of libertarians across the country. While he did run for president in 1988, it was on a third party ticket which as we all know did not really get much mention in any media circles, so in reality his national debut was arguable in late 2006 when he entered the republican primary.

What does the introduction of Ron Paul, have to do with the divide amongst conservatives, you may ask. Well it has everything to do with it. I write this today as an ardent and passionate supporter of what Ron Paul does and says. I am what many call, disparagingly, a Paulbot or a Paultard.  I am convinced that he is the only candidate that represents the true pillar of our republic, the constitution and I stand firmly in my insistence that no matter what, he will get my vote in 2012. For this ardent and unwavering support, I find myself at odds with the group I have long since felt a part of. The left gives me less grief for supporting this known constitutionalist.  More than once, and once too often, I have been convinced to vote for the lesser of two evils when casting the only meaningful voice I have in our system of government and I will honestly say that I regret those votes. Principles do not waiver, political parties do.  I am sick of being persuaded to vote republican on the promise that government will be constrained but instead it grows more. That termination dampens the conservative spirit and so a Democrat takes over the next time around and so on and so on. Restraint on government never happens. Well no more, I am drawing my line in the sand and I will at least hold onto my honor by voting for my conscience and the constitution.

For those of you touting the moniker of conservatism but dismiss Ron Paul, I beg you to consider your own logic. The entire field of GOP candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, is made up of these same kinds of Republicans that each time, talks the talk but when it comes to governing, are too weak to walk the walk. Ron Paul has been consistent, from his first day taking office, to defend the constitution. He has never allowed political pressure to sway his opinions and always returns to the constitution to defend his positions. The particulars of his policies may at times seem odd but I only ask that you consider it against the design of the structure of our government. When Ron Paul surmises that it is not within our authority to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapon, consider the words of Thomas Jefferson when he said “In defense of our persons and properties under actual violation, we took up arms. When that violence shall be removed, when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, hostilities shall cease on our part also.” When Ron Paul states that power must be returned to the states for social policies like marriage or welfare, return again to this admonishment given by our third president, "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people. To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." Are any of the other candidates ready to challenge the status quo of these social programs and polarizing issues? There are in my opinion really only two types of politicians; those who bend and sway with the wind basing their positions on the latest polls and those who hold their principles on something more rigid. The constitution is what births the rigidity in Ron Paul and I for one will stick with him. I will settle for nothing less.