If you know anything about the current Republican presidential primaries you will know that they are completely ridiculous. Republicans are usually an odd lot, and were it not for their annoying habit of becoming some of the most important people in the world they would be a constant source of hilarity rather than the source of a mix of anger and fear. This years candidates have been a whole other level of bizarre though, I mean to the extent that you go "man that Richard Nixon was a pretty sane and reasonable guy".
In the running this year you have the guy who is trying so hard to be normal is actually kind of creepy, the sexual predator who sells pizzas, the man who divorced his wife right after her cancer surgery and preaches moral virtue, the woman who's so extreme that even Margret Thatcher is creeped out by her, This Guy, and a man who wants to abolish the US government.
That last candidate is one I want to focus on, because he's one of the strangest and most interesting politicians around: Ron Paul. Here is a picture of him.
Now I assume you are a person well aware of current events dear reader, but lets recap. That old man sitting alone in a bare room might win a contest tomorrow which is the first step on the road to becoming president of the United States. In fact at one point last week the horribly intelligent human calculator Nate Silver of the New York Times predicted that a Paul win in Iowa was more likely than not (though his odds have slipped slightly since then). Obviously the perennial popularity of a 76 year old obstetrician in the race for the world's most important job has elicited a lot of news articles and opinion pieces as journalists struggle to explain what the hell a libertarian is and why millions of Americans consider themselves to be one, but one thing that comes up again and again is that, much like Brutus, Ron Paul is an "honourable man".
The annoying thing is that even if you dislike Ron Paul and his policies (it's worth noting at this point that I would describe myself as a socialist so am unsurprisingly not a massive fan), his "honour" is something which is actually hard to disagree with. Unlike most of his fellow presidential hopefuls he is at least ideologically consistent, that is to say that he will support unpopular things if they are in keeping with his philosophy. So as someone who in essence wants to abolish the federal government (it is slightly more nuanced than that I'll admit, but basically that's what he wants) he was opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and wants to slash the defence budget whilst wanting to lead a party with an out of control military fetish. He wants to legalise drugs in a party that is probably a bit unsure about whether ending prohibition was such a good idea. Even if you don't agree with the man that sort of integrity and dedication to your principles in the face of constant opposition has to be considered admirable, and yes "honourable".
It is here that I am reminded of probably the greatest history book ever written 1066 and All That, also probably one of the funniest books ever written and something you should definitely read if you haven't already. Throughout there is an obsession with deciding if the various people and events of British history were good or bad. This leads to such lines as "Although a Good Man, James II was a Bad King". Perhaps much the same could be said of Ron Paul. This is because although honesty and integrity are obviously essential parts of being a Good Man, if the ideals which you hold are utterly insane and without merit then you cannot fail to be a Bad Thing.
So yes he opposes the war on drugs which is a Good Thing and is against military interventionism which is also mostly a Good Thing. But his "honourable" position also means he opposes the Civil Rights Act, which is clearly a Bad Thing and generally supports a lot of policies which would see most people starving and living in horrific poverty. If you are not familiar with the libertarian ideology then keep in mind that their perfect future is basically the movie Robocop, and if you think that sounds good you clearly didn't get the main point of the movie Robocop.
Of course this is on of the central jokes of 1066 and All That, defining things as good or bad is really an exercise in futility. Good and bad are totally subjective descriptions and honour is an especially grey term. I alluded earlier to Mark Antony's famous speech in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar where he tells the crowd of Caesar's assassination and says of the conspirators "They that have done this deed are honourable: What private griefs they have, alas, I know not, That made them do it: they are wise and honourable, And will, no doubt, with reasons answer you."
If Ron Paul ever had his way he would oversee the deprivation and most likely the deaths of millions and he would do so because he is an honourable man.
No comments:
Post a Comment