The Constitution Party is Scary: Why Did Ron Paul Support Them?

By Daniel Miessler on October 10th, 2008: Tagged as Politics

constitution_party

I was at a local political event recently and was approached by someone from the Constitution Party. I got the regular two-minute pitch, and was given some literature. I was unpleasantly surprised–especially since this is the party that Ron Paul just endorsed (shudder).

The party was exactly what I expected in most respects: getting back to the Constitution, stop sending money abroad, dislike of big government, etc., but their stance on religion (and how they think that stance should affect policy) was staggering to me. Here are a few examples.

First off, when the very first thing they have to say is…

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

…you know you might have a problem. But it gets much, much worse.

Free Speech

We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

So they are all for freedom of speech, as long as it doesn’t “distort or destroy”. Oh, and they get to decide what does that. So, could an alternative perspective to an important issue (like abortion) be considered “distortion”? Yes, and that’s the problem.

While we believe in the responsibility of the individual and corporate entities to regulate themselves, we also believe that our collective representative body we call government plays a vital role in establishing and maintaining the highest level of decency in our community standards.

This, by the way, is taken from their Pornography section. OMFG. Government is going to keep us safe from indecency now? I bet Sarah Palin loves these guys.

Marriage and Family

The law of our Creator defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman. The marriage covenant is the foundation of the family, and the family is fundamental in the maintenance of a stable, healthy and prosperous social order. No government may legitimately authorize or define marriage or family relations contrary to what God has instituted.

Holy crap. That’s the standard–the conversation stops as soon as you recommend something that goes against God. Oh, by the way, we get to tell you what God wants. Neat, that.

Summary

This isn’t a Constitution party; this is a party based on building a Puritan-like theocracy with a focus on small government. At the core of the movement is the premise that the United States is, fundamentally, a deeply Christian country, and that our government needs to keep that in mind when handling social matters.

They basically think freedom of religion is the freedom of everyone to be good Christians like the Constitution said we should. If you doubt that, read the Preamble again.

This is seriously scary, and even more disturbing is the fact that Ron Paul supports this group. But looking back at Ron Paul’s flaws, which I’ve written about before and have always scared the crap out of me, this is precisely the type of outfit you’d expect him to get behind. Here’s what he said about the Founding Fathers and religion:

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance.

I think Ron Paul is genius when it comes to economic theory and foreign policy, and I agree with my friends that it’s great he’d promised to keep his religious feelings out of the government. But I don’t believe it would ever stay out–not for a second. Especially when he’s supporting a party that has the kind of language we see above.

When people think they know the will of the Creator of the Universe, and they think that creator is in charge of the country (”Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States”), bad things will follow.

And as much as I still respect Ron Paul, it is this type of extremism (along with denying evolution and wanting to overturn Roe v. Wade, etc.) that has always frightened me about him. His supporting of this so-called “Constitution” party has further emphasized his serious flaws in my mind, and I unfortunately see him now as highly flawed–but with some great Libertarian ideals–rather than a great candidate with a few flaws.

Bottom line–The Constitution Party is precisely the wrong way to go with America, and Ron Paul has, in my mind, exposed his own extreme weaknesses by giving them his support. Some may say, “Who cares about Ron Paul anymore?” I do. It disheartens me to find such serious flaws in someone I once revered. It just emphasizes a critical point: every choice–especially in politics–is about compromise. The question is simply one of priorities.:

Links

[ The Constitution Party Platform | constitutionparty.com ]
[ Ron Paul is Seriously Flawed as a Candidate: We're Just So In Love With Him That We Aren't Paying Attention | dmiessler.com ]
[ Ron Paul's Flaws as Seen by One Die-Hard Supporter | dmiessler.com ]

  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • description
  • Google
  • del.icio.us
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook
  • MySpace
  • E-mail this story to a friend!
  • Print this article!

Viewing 14 Comments

    • ^
    • v

    How far is his support for the Constitution Party? I also heard him mention Ralph Nader as a possible candidate to vote for in stead of Obama/McCain. I am really sure that Ron Paul does not actually support Nader's policies, but in this instance was only listing him to support third-party candidates. Could this be the same thing for his support of the Constitution Party, or do you think he really supports that platform of this party.

    • ^
    • v

    Yes, he supports the platform. He wouldn't formally endorse a specific group out of many third-party options unless he did. Keep in mind the religious similarities I mentioned. That's most likely why he went with them over the Libertarians.

    • ^
    • v

    Daniel,


    Nothing here is in contradiction with the original intent of the constitution. The real tragedy is how Lincoln ran over the constitution during his war on the South. As a result, we now we have a NATIONAL government which demands adoration, extracts tribute, starts wars, sends our children into harm's way to protect empire. You folks want to use this same power to run over folks at home and force them to embrace you ungodly life style. Some worship Christ as King, you worship the state!


    Consider this portion of an exchange between Robert E. Lee and Lord Acton, November 4, 1866, Lord Acton writes to Lee:


    "I saw in States' rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo."


    December 15, 1866, Lee responds:


    "While I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only are essential to adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it."


    All of this can be read in "The Real Lincoln," Thomas DiLorenzo.


    You folks just make it up as you go, no consideration of history, all about how you feel! Or how "non-inclusive" policy/statements might make someone feel.


    Brian.
    Magnolia, TX
    "the heart of FLY-OVER country"

    • ^
    • v

    Where did you get that he supports the party? As far as I've ever heard, he only endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, and mainly because Bob Barr stiffed him at that press conference. Don't forget that Ron Paul has for a long time and continues to be a member of the Libertarian Party.

    • ^
    • v

    He formally endorsed the Constitution Party, Dan. And he's not a member of the Libertarian party; he's a Republican, and has been for years.

    • ^
    • v

    Daniel - I just did a search and can only find where he supported Chuck Baldwin. Can you point me to the link of his official support of the party? When we talked about this yesterday I took it for granted that the people who approached you where right. But maybe they took the Baldwin endorsement as an endorsement of the party.

    • ^
    • v

    Ken, I think you're right, when people give endorsements it is to a person, not to a party. But there's little difference to me. According to the Washington Post, Baldwin is a Baptist pastor and former officer in Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority.


    I don't think Paul would be supporting the Presidential candidate of a party when he doesn't support the platform.

    • ^
    • v

    Just a little more evidence:


    "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers." -- Ron Paul

    • ^
    • v

    Dont' be an idiot. Ron Paul is all about the Constitution.


    You are going to find that 'christians' are the ones most willing to preserve your rights even if you don't agree with religion.


    They have always been great here in NH.


    And you have never heard Ron speak in religious terms and neither have I in my many personal dealings with him.


    There is just not basis for your fear.

    • ^
    • v

    The intent of the Founder's was never to remove the church (or religion) from the state, but to remove the state from the church.

    • ^
    • v

    “When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” - Sinclair Lewis


    How fitting!

    • ^
    • v

    Being a former member of Jerry Falwell should not be held against him given his consistent critical critique of the Religious Right. Paul endorsed the man, not the party. Paul is a life long member of the Libertarian Party. Go Dr. Baldwin.

    • ^
    • v

    Part of the problem here is we have strayed so far from the intent of the Constitution and the dreams of our fore fathers that when we here their intent it sounds radical. Our Government is so out of control our fore fathers would not recognized this country any longer. One should step back and re-read the Deceleration of Independence. It might scare you to find out how far our country has slipped backwards in the freedom and liberty departments. We need a major shift to get the ship back on track or she is going down with all the patriots... Wasting your vote on a Dem or Rep is not the answer...it is the problem.

    • ^
    • v

    Could it just be that Ron Paul is just another wingnut with discredited views?

 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

My Twitter Microblog

    Discovered Content


    About dmiessler.com

    This site is an avatar for my own self-assigned life purpose--an attempt to model the world in the most accurate way possible, and to do so without bias or fear of unpleasant truth. I desire to develop, articulate, and perpetually improve models of how things work, and then to use that understanding to increase happiness and reduce suffering. I seek those on similar paths and thrive on sharing an appreciation of the interesting and beautiful with others.



    Blog
    Study
    Writing
    Infosec
    Technology
    Politics

            

    Top Original Content


    Security & Technology

    Philosophy & Science

    Culture & Society

    Blog Archives