By Dan Beaulieu
I find it amusing the similarities between Obama’s “Change” platform that won him the presidency versus Ron Paul’s noninterventionist ideology, and how they garner very different responses. The popular “Anti-War” platform, not dissimilar to George Bush Jr.’s winning platform in 2000, has been used for years. Presidential candidates often speak of a humble foreign policy and peaceful trade; ralling the people together on the notion of peace and ride the waves of praise all the way into the White House. This could only lead one to the conclusion: the people of the Unites States are tired of war and want real change.
I’ll never forget the images from the 2008 election during Obama’s acceptance speech of so many people crying and hugging, rejoicing in the prospect of “Change”. The idea of peace and trade even won Obama the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples", which has only become controversy since his election as our military presence has grown exponentially and our image around the world only desecrated. Notwithstanding, the American people obviously trusted that Obama would bring home the troops.
So curious is the distinct contrast in people’s reaction to these nearly identical messages, but why? Both of these men in suits champion a noble and humane ideology. However, when Dr. Ron Paul mentions the notion of “minding our own business”, a notion well understood by children on the playground, or “staying out of other countries affairs” he is dismissed as the crazy isolationist loon or Uncle Ronny.
Let’s establish now that he’s certainly not being discredited as Ron the“Crazy Uncle” due to his philosophy on economics, as it’s general knowledge that he predicted the housing bubble collapse of 2008 way back in 2001 (
see video) and has been warning us of a full economic collapse since the 1980’s (
see video) due to quantitative easing and inflation, not to mention he’s the only candidate with a strategy to actually fix the economy. Ron Paul has announced a plan to cut the deficit by $1 trillion dollars immediately, he understand the severity of the issues.
So one must ask the question, why exactly is he being discriminated with such a similar stance on war to Obama and Bush Jr.? Which such a superior economic understanding that ANY president we've had in probably the last century. Is there a dynamic that we are missing? I understand that there is more to it than meets the eye.
Part of this dynamic is that Dr. Paul isn’t just another “man in a suit”. Unlike the other nominees, when he speaks he speaks with substance, not simply campaign winning rhetoric and canned responses. As previously stated by Doug Wead, Ron Paul’s campaign advisor, Ron doesn’t rehearse responses, that are specifically designed to appeal to you, with coaches behind the scenes. He constructs his answers right there, in the hot seat, and in front of millions of people. Furthermore, unlike George Bush Jr. and Barrak Obama, Ron Paul’s rock solid and principled voting record that spans 30 years suggests that he would actually follow through and produce real, principled and logical transformations that would shake the establishment. Changes that the establishment simply will not have. But then, what exactly is the establishment and how does it alter the general public opinion? This is the other part of the dynamic.
The establishment is the federal government, large corporations, the military and “The Big 6”. To quote
www.freepress.net on the subject, “The U.S. media landscape is dominated by massive corporations that, through a history of mergers and acquisitions, have concentrated their control over what we see, hear and read.” What that actually means is that they are able to depict events, by a series of tiny manipulations or misrepresentations, to best suit their interests.
How this relates to “Crazy Uncle” Ron is very simple, let’s take General Electric for example. They own many things including mainstream news outlets like NBC, MSNBC, USA , CNBC, etc, etc. They produce many electronic devices such as explosion detection systems for the Military and aviation systems for the Navy. General Electric (NBC) also makes many of the engines for the Military fighters, helicopters and transports. But what they make the most money from is weapons and ammunition. You can’t have munitions sales without a war (preferably perpetual war) and you simply can’t have a war with Ron Paul as president.*
So even in championing the same anti-war message, Ron Paul, through many small manipulations and misrepresentations in data, becomes the “Crazy Uncle” whereas the obvious lapdog Obama becomes a Nobel Peace Prize winner for speaking essentially the same message, the difference was intent. Ron Paul intends on ending these wars. (Which may be why he gets more donations from the Military troops than all of the GOP candidates combined.)
Break the paradigm, seek alternative press and support Ron Paul in 2012.
*Ron Paul’s stance on war is that you don’t go to into needless wars. If war is necessary, however, you don’t go without a declaration and congressional approval. The declaration must also include the definition of the enemy so the war can actually be won unlike the war on terror, you can never win a war on an inanimate object. Once that’s established you get your troops in, you win and you come home. No nation building and No endless wars.
"I am an imperfect messenger, but the message is perfect" 