The interview covers his new book, The New Road to Serfdom: A Letter of Warning to America. Hannon is a friend of freedom with the experience and perspective of a Brit. His historical knowledge of America and limited government lend much credence to his words.
His warning is one we should heed.
Here are a few samples from the interview:
"In the mid-1990s, Republicans reintroduced Americans to an idea that had been almost totally forgotten, namely that politicians can keep their promises. "
"In all but one of these countries, people wanted spending cuts rather than tax rises. In other words, the desire for tax cuts is not peculiar to the U.S. But the belief that you can do something about it through your democratic mechanisms is a fairly unusual one."
"I had also become disillusioned with the GOP. The longer the Republicans stayed in office, the less Republican they seemed."
"Most of you [Americans] have no idea of how lucky you are."
All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Any compromise on mere fundamentals is a surrender. For it is all give and no take. Gandhi
I've wanted for some time to post something on principle and compromise. This was originally an In Real Time post, and probably should stay there, but its content is worthy of a Chalk Talk. Why is it that in every other aspect of life "compromise" is a bad thing? If you compromise your health, your ill. If you compromise your integrity, you're an ethical cur. If you compromise your marriage vows, you're a despicable reprobate. But, oddly, if one compromises his or her principles inside the halls of Congress or in the Oval Office, they are applauded for exhibiting moderation, practicality, and a desire for "get things done" for the public. What gives?
In this CNN interview with Anderson Cooper, Ron Paul brings out the vital lessons to be learned about this primary season: Real change and reform for freedom is effected from the upward pressure of the grassroots."The grassroots knows that government fails." (Do the party establishments know this?)
Cooper asks the poignant question that's on everyone's mind: Would it have been better to get a moderate, Democrat-Lite (my words, not his) like Castle on the ticket, and "is there room" for moderates like Castle in the GOP. (As if constitutional conservatives actually set the agenda inside the RNC.)
Paul uses the question to get to the heart of the issue. He also gives an excellent response to Cooper's (unsurprising) assertion @3:45 that "there are those who say..." we have to "get things done" in Washington and brings up the reflexively sacrosanct need to compromise. (Compromise with whom and on what, by the way? Those specifics are rarely attached with the question. Paul zeroes in and clarifies the issue.)
Finally! A politician who knows and articulates the difference between compromise and coalitions, and where principle stands with both. If you stand for liberty and anti-liberty policies bends to your position, that's a good compromise. If the anti-liberty policy makers set the agenda and you simply soften the degree to which they further restrict freedom and vote along with them, that's really not a good thing. Have them compromise with us!:
"Always compromise with people in your goals which is to me perfecting liberty, increasing individual liberty, and the free market place. When you compromise moving in that direction and working with coalitions, that quite a bit of difference." [Emphasis added.]
Yes, quite a bit!
The center of politics in Washington has for decades been the redistributive welfare state from which most legislation and policy emanates out into our lives. The public discontent results from this arrangement--crushing deficits and erosion of liberties--and has become intense enough that it is making an impact on the primary elections of one of the political parties that has had a hand in this process.
Whether that hand was passive in compromising principles or active in initiating new levels of federal spending and increasing the size of government (prescription D entitlement, a wasteful education bill that nationalizes education standards, and soaring deficit spending during the Republican Congress and presidency of Bush II are some examples that come to mind), the only viable choice for reforming government has become obvious: from the ground up. We've seen where party establishment leadership has taken us, and we don't care for it.
No one can seriously contend that all our fiscal and political woes began after the inauguration of President Obama. He and his Democrat majorities in Congress have greatly accelerated matters, for sure, but the table was set for him before he ever walked down Pennsylvania Avenue.
This sorry scenario is the end result of decades of "compromise" and "getting things done" in Washington. The time has come to make the "things done" in Washington friendly to freedom, to reorient the almighty center of politics around liberty and that whole, what's it called?, Constitution thing that limits the power of government.
That truly would be a revolution, one worth having the other side compromise on.
I found this interview very interesting. What is striking is the first cartoon, a map of America filled in with hundreds of the word, "Hope."
In what, exactly, did so many Americans place their hope? Was it Obama himself? Was it a set of ideas and principles he articulated in the campaign?
Few will forget the tremendous lack of anything Obama offered in the way of ideas, principles, or even a voting record in the US and Illinois senate. He simply threw out there a vacuous notion of "Hope" and "Change," and the public voraciously ate it up. We placed all our hope in one charming, articulate, well-groomed person who could swoon masses with speeches about nothing, who offered few hints as to the policies he would pursue, and about whom we knew very little.
We placed our hope, not in ourselves as a free people, but in a finely-marketed set of non-ideas articulately refracted back upon us from two teleprompters. We bought it, hook, line, and sinker.
Contrariwise, it is fascinating to retrace the grassroots explosion of the Ron Paul Republican primary campaign of 2008. What was the attraction? Why all the buzz? How did Paul's campaign raise $4 million dollars in one day, uncoordinated by the campaign itself?
Is Paul a smoothly packaged, charming speaker? Hardly. I've seen him speak twice. He rambles around at times, has an irregular voice, lacks the rhythm and cadence needed to effectively drive home a point, and seems greatly out of place behind the microphone he often grasps out of nervousness. By his own admission he has a difficult time in debates because of the time restraints. He does has an avuncular aspect to him, but sweet older uncles are not known to draw the raucous admiration of thronging crowds.
So why all the enthusiastic followers, a good portion of which are under the age of thirty? What's the attraction?
People gravitate to the message, not the messenger. Ron Paul articulates a consistent and clear message of liberty and constitutional government. His book, The Revolution: A Manifesto, could not be more to the point and principled. Americans are hard-wired for such a messaged---it is part of who we are. Being we have been starved, for so long, not only of politicians who mean what they say and say what they mean, but politicians that say a lot about freedom and how far we have drifted from living within the constitutional restraints required to preserve that freedom.
And because Ron Paul is the messenger and not the message, it does not matter if he will run for president in 2012. The freedom movement is about freedom, not about blindly following some charismatic speaker into the misty future of his making. Dr. Paul, I think, would say so much.
We seem poised to again put our hope in freedom, constitutionally-restrained government, and fiscal sanity.
Maybe soon cartoonists will fill up an outline of America with "Freedom."
, could not be more to the point and principled. Americans are hard-wired for such a messaged---