This week's post is about Ron Paul's curtailing to different races, specifically the Latino vote. This interview on Al Punto demonstrates Paul's consistency. He does not believe in curtailing his policy based on who he is talking to. For example, even though he knows opposing birthright-citizenship will hurt his acceptance by the Latino community, he does not try to cover up that fact or stray away from the question. He explains his positions clearly and directly, hoping people will understand that he is not trying to apply his political beliefs in, what he sees as, the most objective way possible. His concept of objectivity may be different from others for if he truly prized liberty and freedom, wouldn’t he support full citizenship and easier immigration reform? Some would say that Paul’s stance on immigration is just playing towards his large base of states’ rights and Tea Party activists while other’s would say that he is protecting the liberty Americans enjoy and his interpretation of the Constitution. However, Paul stance shows a clear emphasize on legal action and individual rights. He simply wants to uphold the law and allow those who have lived in and become part of the US to legally assimilate.
Paul’s statement that he will not kowtow for the Latino vote speaks volumes in today’s political arena. We often see politicians targeting specific groups in their speeches and in a sense, favoring these groups in an attempt to gain their support in an election. Paul, on the other hand, has the same message for every group because he does not categorize people. By categorizing people, he believes true and equal individual liberty could not exist. If the government and politicians truly treated all people equally, would there be a classification of races and an active attempt to appeal to minority groups? Or is the existence and promotion of race a social fact which one cannot escape?
I feel like Ron Paul is straight and to the point and often very logical. I agree with your comment on how Paul doesn't seem to target specific groups. This is refreshing to see and I feel like it shows his respect for politics. However, it is an unfortunate fact, but it will probably come back to hurt Paul. It will be interesting to see how Paul reacts as the election date comes closer and closer.
ReplyDeletePaul's refusal to bow to popular policies is refreshing and will both help and harm him. I believe his courting of the Latino vote runs a lot deeper than what most people think. On one hand, he doesn't believe that the federal government should provide for illegal immigrants (healthcare, education, etc) but this is hardly discriminatory since he does not believe that the federal government should provide those things for anyone, and that those things should be provided for at the state level. On the other hand, he does not believe that we should build a fence keeping out the Mexicans, because he sees it as a fence that is also keeping Americans in. This second point is harder to relate to in a time and country when people can fly out of their state or out of the country at a whim, but it is certainly a perspective that no other candidate has ever given, and it happens to be true.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree. While I do agree that a candidate should not have different messages for different subsets of voters, Ron Paul's statement seems to imply that he is disregarding the issues that are important to Hispanic voters altogether because he does not want to "favor" one group. I think this is a dangerous (not only politically, but morally) strategy. Paul claims to be treating all groups equally, but he is actually alienating the groups which already have the least access to our political system. Having presidential candidates who try to appeal to minority groups is important in ensuring that the needs of these groups can be represented at the federal level.
ReplyDeleteIt is also interesting that Paul commends the Tea Party for being different than the corrupt Republican and Democratic politicians who have been in power. Then, when asked whether or not the Tea Party is anti-immigrant, he ends by describing the disorganization of the movement as a whole.
I have a lot of respect for the way that Paul handles himself on the political stage. However, his disregard for "playing the game" brings about points like Anne-Marie's, that without addressing individual groups, he doesn't care for individual groups. Unfortunately, caring for the nation as a whole just doesn't cut it these days and it will be impossible for Paul to get ahead without playing the game. That being said I greatly respect him for never having stopped doing what he's doing, because he understands the principle of at least trying to change the game and saying that he's trying. The man has never stopped trying to make a difference, even though just about everyone can assume that he won't win.
ReplyDelete