I Want My Authenticity (Look at them yoyos)

[Originally written on 24 June 2007]

There are few truly "authentic" politicians remaining. The last great one was probably Barry Goldwater, who expressed his staunchly libertarian views without reservation and offered, in an era characterized by a steady expansion of government power, a contrasting vision for the nation and a vision of government that differed greatly from the prevailing view of his time. Of course, rather than provoking a philosophical debate about the direction of this country, it prompted an utterly ruthless evisceration that inhibited the ability of the country to witness a true contest of two very different philosophies.

It may seem odd for a left-leaning moderate with populist tendencies to be invoking the name of Barry Goldwater, but I do so because the last forty years have produced inauthentic, self-serving political hacks who tell people what they want to hear instead of offering their own vision for the country.

The attraction to Congressman Ron Paul, I believe, is attributable to the longing for authenticity that has persisted for so long, aggravated by the scandalous and embarrassing ordeals of the last twenty years in particular.

I'll admit that I am envious of those who follow Ron Paul because they have found a candidate in line (generally) with their philosophy who practices what he preaches and maintains, for a politician anyway, a remarkable level of consistency. This man is the real thing.

I don't have one of those. Bill Richardson comes close, but listening to him speak and trying to discern the meaning of his words is not a task easily achieved.

Liberals have spent thirty years cowering in the corner, convinced that their ideology is cancerous and instead co-opting so many ideas directly contrary to their central philosophy. The conservative side is guilty of this, but to a far lesser degree. People are conservative in principle and liberal in practice. Contemporary political history demonstrates this. The result of this dynamic, and the quest for steady power regardless of how much intellectual and philosophical integrity must be discarded, is the situation we now face that compels so many to complain of the difficulty of making a distinction between the two parties. The irony here is appallingly tragic in that in attempting to imitate each other in order to placate the people, the opposite effect has emerged and persisted.

People respect guts and admire conviction, provided that it is rooted in fact and arrived at through contemplation. This is why Harry S. Truman, who in 1953 had approval ratings in the high-20s, is today regarded as one of the greatest presidents. But today, the risks to the maintenance of power are far too great to act boldly.

I don't know if the political system itself has produced this dynamic, or the voters, or perhaps both. It would be convenient to fault the politicians entirely for this, but in the end they cater to us. If they are corrupt, it is because we tolerate it. If poverty persists, it is because we haven't the will to stop it. Conversely, if government grows out of control, it is because we permit it.

So many chastise Jimmy Carter and regard him as a terrible president, but few know anything about his record as president.

I met a guy recently who informed me that Hillary Clinton wanted to shut down all military academies. This shocked the hell out of me, but upon intensive research I could not find one single source supporting this claim. Not one.

Bill Clinton was a terrible president, apparently, because he suffered from BJM (Bad Johnson Management).

Lyndon Johnson was a poor president because he "started" the Vietnam War (a blatant falsehood, but hey, what does that matter?)

The politicians are no prize, but we voters aren't much of a bargain either.

And before one accuses me of arrogance, let me just say that I have nothing against those who know nothing about politics and (contrary to popular opinion) I can converse with them about stuff other than politics. What I do resent are those who are clearly uninformed yet pretend to be. Pretentiousness irritates me to no end, and the voters do it and their elected officials do it. I just can't figure out who is following whose lead.

There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know." No one has an answer for everything.

The point of this long-winded blog is this: I want my Ron Paul.

I want a liberal who is unafraid of saying he (or she) is a liberal.

I want a moderate who can embrace moderation without setting up shop on the proverbial fence.

I want a candidate who seeks to serve not the parochial interest but the national interest.

I want an authentic candidate. Perhaps I should take out an ad in the personals section?

The most tragic thing about today's political system is that the men and women in it, by and large, are good. They either become corrupted along the way, or they engage in the self-censorship necessary for political survival. The result is the mediocrity and gridlock that has become so fashionable to complain about.

I just look forward to the day when poverty receives a little more attention than boys kissing.