Ron Paul vs. Steven Searle

Introduction:

Just to show how little has changed:

I had originally posted the following essay on Nov. 21, 2007:

Ron Paul vs. Steven Searle for President in 2008

That was months before the 2008 primary season kicked into high gear. However, just to show how little has really changed (in spite of “Change you can believe in”), I decided to repost this piece. I am convinced that Ron Paul will seek the GOP presidential nomination this time around. But the points I made (below) are as true now as they were in 2007. I address these points to the legions of frustrated idealists out there who feel in their hearts that there just has to be some way, some how for an enlightened politics to emerge.

I feel (still feel) that there is. So before I commence with my past post, I want to give you my battle cry for the 2012 election cycle (no, I don’t have the heart to call it a “slogan”):

A New American Revolution:

Declare your independence by

Voting for independents

More on this later. Meanwhile, enjoy this blast from the past:

Ron Paul has at least one glaring flaw: He wants to be the next president but says absolutely nothing about our biggest problem: The evils of the Two Party System.

Steven Searle realizes that profound and vital change can be fully realized in America, but only with a Congress composed of independents.

Ron says nothing about throwing the [Dem/Pub] rascals out Congress. He apparently thinks his election as president will set things right. Or maybe he's such a gentleman of the Old School (who would never say anything negative about a colleague) that he thinks they'll help him out of the goodness of their hearts by passing the necessary laws.

Steve knows that any serious challenge to the established order and its ingrained policies cannot be accomplished by one man. Only new blood – independent Congressmen who haven't been bought and sold – can be counted on to pool their wisdom (rather than trade their favors) in order to implement the reforms necessary for our survival. [I am not such a gentleman of the Old School.]

Ron believes in the U.S. Constitution and wishes to reinforce our sovereignty.

Steven believes the Constitution has to be scrapped and totally rewritten, and has no use for the antiquated concept of national sovereignty (one of the greatest causes of human misery on the planet).

Ron Paul believes in dismantling a majority of government agencies.

Steve Searle realizes that a gradual and systematic approach to reducing the size of government is necessary due (at least) to the shock to the economy of throwing such a large number of civil servants out of work. Any reduction in government, including elimination of Paul's much-berated IRS and Federal Reserve, must be carefully arranged by a Congress of Independents.

Ron Paul is in favor of backing the U.S. dollar with gold or silver.

Steven Searle is in favor of rethinking the entire foundation of our monetary system. And this rethinking can best be done by an honest Congress consisting of independents. ["I've never been able to figure out why I should give someone $800 of my hard-earned money for a single ounce of yellow metal. Should I do it cuz it's so purty? Cuz everyone else is doing it? I can't help but think: There's got to be a better way." - Steve.]

Ron Paul is running for president as a Republican because he "knows" that third parties don't work. Just ask Ross Perot, who had received 19% of the popular vote in the 1992 election yet failed to receive even one vote in the Almighty Electoral College. Or just ask Ron Paul himself: "Ron, you're running for the GOP nomination now, because running as a Libertarian Party candidate back in 1988 didn't work, right?"

Maybe we'd all be a lot better off if Ron Paul had "stayed the course" since 1988 by fiercely denouncing the Dem-Pubs and trying to make a viable third party out of the Libertarians. But, no: It was easier to re-enter the GOP fold. Or maybe there's a simpler explanation: Ron Paul is an elderly gentleman who's set in his ways. No crime in that, but that won't get done what needs getting done.

An urge to work within the established structure of the Two Party System is not unique to Ron Paul. For instance, the Tikkun Magazine-affiliated NSP sent me an e-mail urging:

"The Network of Spiritual Progressives (NSP) is proposing that we begin building an alternative presence within the parties [my emphasis - Steve], one that is committed to a new bottom line of love and caring, kindness and generosity, ethical and ecological sensitivity, the ability to experience other people as embodiments of the sacred and to respond to the universe with awe, wonder, and radical amazement."

Hear me loud and clear on this:

"Only by supporting a third party can the Dem/Pubs be motivated to change their evil ways (or become extinct because they won't). That would be the outcome of good old-fashioned competition. But not just any third party will do. Only The Best Party Available* can beat the Machine. BPA* is a concept party which will serve as a rallying point for independent candidates running for office on the basis of offering a contract to the voters. I am taking the lead in this by offering my own contract as the basis of my run for the presidency."

Letting Off Steam

Remember Howard Dean? Remember MoveOn and the thrill of raising huge sums of campaign cash? Remember what it felt like to believe you were making a difference and genuinely impacting the political process? Ron Paul falls into the same category as Dean, MoveOn and Perot, which is: Safety Valve. According to conventional wisdom, the voters need an outlet to vent their anger or else. ["Or else" things might get ugly, to the point of having to call out the troops to quell domestic rebellion.]

You, the voters, are expected to stop acting silly and behave yourselves after you've let off your steam. That means, support whatever the Dem-Pubs care to ram down your throat after you've had your temper tantrum. [You gave the Dems majorities in Congress in the '06 elections with a mandate to get us out of Iraq but ... we're still there. Anyone out there still think the Two Party system is responsive to the will of the people?]

The Two Party strategists know that voters get riled once in a while, but then they settle back down into their predictable patterns. They "know" you wouldn't consider an option as unlikely as The Best Party Available*, which exists only as a concept - not even having members, officers, bank accounts, and a street address. They "know" you will spend enough during the Christmas Buying Season to restore confidence to Wall Street. They also "know" you would never support anything as un-American and revolutionary as an economic boycott to force Bush and Cheney to resign.

I can only pray that they don't "know" you as well as they think they do.

Steven Searle for US President in 2008 [and 2012]

"Ron Paul makes good copy; Steven Searle would make a good president."

 * The Best Party Available was the name of what I now call The Independent Contractors’ Party - Steve

Contact me at: bpa_cinc@yahoo.com