Declaring Independents

Ron Paul's candidacy is a refreshing change from GOP politics as usual. Joshua Holland lists the usual suspects who are supporting him: the disadvantaged, the disenfranchised, the people who live and think at the margins of our society. But I think that there is another reason for the passionate support that he is presently receiving, which is that he is the Republican anti-Bush.

Whereas, Bush piously spoke of his "compassionate conservativism," his actions revealed him as a big-money, big-corporation, big-government imperialist who was willing to talk cynically about freedom and democracy, while at the same time squandering our military forces by invading another country to steal its oil. Paul is none of the things that Bush is, and that, in itself, should endear him to all those who have hated what Bush has wrought during the past seven years.

Unfortunately, being the anti-Bush doesn't provide sufficient credentials to be elected president. Despite his obvious sincerity, Paul's positive positions on the issues does not speak to what most Americans believe. For instance, do most Americans believe that a fertilized egg is a person replete with all the rights of personhood? I don't think so. Those who do believe it do so on religious grounds alone. Do most Americans believe that we should abolish Social Security and the Department of Education? I don't think so. Social Security is what many elderly Americans depend on simply to survive; and we have seen recently, with students from other countries performing better at reading and math, that we need more government support of education, not less.

At the end of the day, we should give Ron Paul kudos for protesting the Iraq war and denouncing our imperialist aims; and then we should support someone who is not only anti-Bush, but who also wishes to use government to benefit all Americans. Someone like Dennis Kucinich.