Does Ron Paul's status as a near perfect candidate for libertarians and small government conservatives mean that everyone else is awful and unworthy of support? According to Lew Rockwell the answer to that question is "yes".
Rockwell is right to criticize Amit Singh or any other candidate for bad policy positions or questionable associations in their past, but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water here. Looking for ideological purity from every person expressing a political opinion is not an achievable goal, nor is it a desirable one. Rockwell, whom I generally agree with, wouldn't even hold up to a purity test himself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I read an article recently about Singh and the fake quote that Ellmore used against him.
I remember looking into Singh and not liking his position on the Iraq war, which did not call for immediate withdrawal.
Everyone has their issues that "make or break" a candidate for them. If someone doesn't agree with me on the things I feel are vitally important (and being anti-war is chief among those), I won't support them.
But I agree that looking for ideological purity is a mistake. It is disappointing to me that there is only one Ron Paul, but since we already know that, we can't reject everyone else for not being him.
It's logical that when someone claims to be a Ron Paulian, we automatically hold them up to high standards; like holding your own kids up to higher standards than your neighbors kids. But if your kids are basically good you shouldn't punish them severely because they screw up now and again.
If someone is close to Ron Paul on the major issues, I will probably vote for them.
Post a Comment