What do history's most notorious despots have in common with many of the flag-waving, patriotic politicians of our day? Both groups rise to power through the exploitation of fear, which has become a societal plague. There have been widespread casualties. We need an antidote. Feardom offers its readers a much-needed immunization.
photo credit: tom westbrook
There has been a good amount of debate amongst Ron Paul supporters regarding what would happen if Paul loses in the primaries and decides not to run as a third party candidate. Would the “revolution” continue? Would another leader rise to pick up the torch in a subsequent election? Would the ripple effect of an awakened citizenry spill over into other elections, organizations, and causes?
While there surely has been a positive, secondary side effect from Ron Paul’s campaign—that of an active, informed group of citizens fighting for individual liberty against a bloated, quasi-tyrannical government—I believe that this revolution will be unparalleled by any future campaign or cause.
Ron Paul is a man thirty years in the making. You can’t grow a new leader in a couple years, for time is required to prove a man in all things. Having a spotless record and consistently voting on principle necessitates time “in the trenches” to fight for liberty before rising to the top to spread its message to others.
I believe that there are others, some of whom are unknown to most, that will rise in future elections to fight for liberty, defend the Constitution, and raise awareness amongst the electorate. But Ron Paul is a unique individual, three decades in the making, and we will not see his equal for a long time, if at all.
Some argue that if Paul loses, his supporters will continue to fight the cause on their own. Perhaps Paul would use his large database of supporters to continue the fight through alternative avenues. But I believe that every revolution requires a rallying point, and should Paul lose, any other initiatives would be relatively fruitless.
A cause needs a leader around which the people can coalesce. Scattered groups of individuals united under a large banner cannot realize their goals as effectively as a single body can. One need only look at the progress made by the Constitutional conservative movement in recent decades—while at times it has slowed the growth of government or defeated a bill, the Leviathan barrels onward toward a fascist-socialist state.
This revolution has also produced a unique opportunity for the message itself. In a day when most are opposed to the Iraq war, Paul proclaims his anti-war stance that has never changed. In a day when the dollar is being heavily debased, Paul proudly proselytes the sound money issue he has advocated throughout his service. When individuals grow tired of invasive government, Paul defiantly demands that the scope of government be limited to what is authorized in the Constitution.
It seems that the people are starved for Paul’s message, and the time is right for its delivery. His is not a single issue campaign, but instead covers nearly every facet of government existence, allowing him to appeal to a broad set of supporters.
The man is necessary for the revolution, and should he lose, the cause will suffer a major defeat. It may continue with an inferior leader, or press onward in the form of smaller pockets of people, but Ron Paul is to the Revolution what a hand is to a glove. Without one, the other is largely irrelevant.