the revolution of political fundamentalism

I read Ron Paul's book yesterday. I have to say, I love Ron Paul. I didn't vote for him--I've spent too many years not voting or voting write-ins, and I wanted to vote for someone who had a chance of winning, for a change--but I love him. He's right about a lot of things. And it's so refreshing how reframes the questions--reminds me of Jesus, actually. Jesus often replied to questions by shifting the whole frame of reference the question was based one: the one about taxes, for example, or the one about marriage in heaven. And in a similar way, Ron Paul cuts through so many of our modern political debates with his simple appeal to the Constitution.

Not to be too heretical by comparing Ron Paul to Jesus. But you get the idea.

Take the income tax, for instance. Most people are not aware that the Constitution specifically forbids taxing workers' incomes. The amendment that made the income tax possible is a little hazy--to the point that some people have refused to pay income tax based on their Constitutional rights, and some have even won court battles over it. So there's definitely a movement, albeit a small one, to get rid of the income tax and replace it with a sales tax (the Fair Tax) or a flat tax. I thought Ron Paul was an advocate of the Fair Tax, which I am in favor of, but I found out I was wrong. Ron Paul is an advocate of--get this--abolishing the income tax. Period. He wants to get rid of the income tax and replace it with...nothing.

Huh?!? What kind of political heresy is that?

He does point out that losing the income tax would scale the federal government's budget back by 40%, which was the budget level in 1997. Of course, he neglects to mention in that context--although he discusses it elsewhere in the book--how much of that was budgetary increase and how much inflation. Then again, that's a question no one can really answer outside of the Federal Reserve themselves, because--as Paul also informs us in the book--the CPI inflation numbers have for years now left out the most important measures of living cost, energy and food, so nobody actually knows how much our currency is inflating.

And speaking of currency, I think Paul is spot-on in his discussion of currency. Since we aren't aware of how much the Fed is inflating our currency, Americans don't really realize how valueless the dollar is becoming. The last real currency collapse in he U.S. was in Revolutionary times, and we Americans are terrible for remembering anything that didn't happen in our lifetimes (and we tend to forget a lot that DID happen in our lifetimes, too). But the truth is that the dollar is in terrible shape, and getting worse every day. Ron Paul blames it on our having left the gold standard--an action that the founding fathers spoke adamantly against--and offers the short-term solution of allowing Americans to use gold and silver as currency. Right now, the federal government is well aware of the danger the dollar is in, and their attempt to protect it includes destroying alternative methods of commerce. Local currencies will probably not be far behind.

But, of course, Ron Paul has very little to say about the environment, which is the real reason I didn't vote for him. I was surprised and pleased, however, by the suggestion in his book that environmental pollution ought to be thought of as a property rights issue and treated as such. Would you fine a thief who broke into your house and stole from you? he asks. Of course not--you'd throw him in jail. So although Ron Paul has consistently voted against economic props to help environmental issues, apparently he'd be perfectly happy with the government taking legal action against polluters. Actually, I like that a lot better anyway. Why bother with incentives and subsidies when it's an ethical issue that's backed up by the full force of the law?

I still don't know how Ron Paul managed to have so many vocal supporters online and in groups and yet win so few votes at the polls. Many of his supporters blamed it on a media conspiracy to shut him out of debates, but I think that's a little silly. Most people watching debates can't understand half of what he's talking about anyway.

But it would have been too much to expect for someone like Ron Paul to have a significant showing at the polls. His book is titled The Revolution: A Manifesto because he still believes the American people are capable of revolution. He thinks that if enough people are informed of their Constitutional rights and how they are being exploited by an ever-encroaching federal government, they will rally together and take back those rights. They will stop thinking of the Constitution as a document that evolves over time and go back to demanding that it be respected and understood in the way its framers intended. He's a fundamentalist for the Constitution. But fundamentalism doesn't play well in most of modern society; not in religion, and even less so in politics. There's a danger inherent in any written document--from the Constitution to the Bible--in interpreting it too strictly or too loosely. Most politicians today prefer to think of the Constitution as a living document that can be reinvented and re-imagined with changing times. It is Ron Paul's insistence on the literal and simplistic interpretation of the Constitution that makes him so revolutionary.

As a general principle, I think the issue is one that requires caution, no matter what document it is you're reading. I have a lot more respect for the Bible than for the Constitution. But literal interpretations of the Bible have often led people astray--into bigotry, warmongering, hatred, racism, and slavery, to name a few. The Constitution, being a less powerful document, and one whose writers are a lot closer to us culturally and whom we can understand a lot better, probably offers less dangerous scope for the imaginative. And it allows for the useful possibility of amendment, so that even the most literal understanding offers leeway for change. But ultimately, the reason I like Ron Paul is not because I agree with his political philosophy but because I like his ideas. There are a great many things that I believe a government ought to do for a free people; I believe strongly that a moral society ought to take care of its poor, its sick, and its disadvantaged. Unlike Ron Paul, I believe in social programs. But like Ron Paul, I think that such social programs ought to be organized by people who understand the local issues, not by far-away bureaucrats. In an ideal society, those programs would be organized by local, not federal, governments--governments that are small enough and close enough to truly be governments "by the people," not strangers 500 miles away.

I don't believe that any system of government is any more ethical or Christian than another. But I agree with G.K. Chesterton that democracy is a system that could only have arisen under Christian ideals and Christian thought. And I do believe strongly that it is my responsibility as a Christian to help and serve those around me, and in a democracy, government is one of the means of doing that. At least it ought to be. And the smaller the government, the better means it becomes. Hence my affinity for Ron Paul and his insistence that the federal government do less so that state and local governments can do more.

Viva la revolucion!