If You Love Peace, Become a "Blue Republican" (Just for a Year)

By Robin Koerner

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html

The world lost its goodwill toward the USA when Americans voted for George W.
Bush the second time around.
I don't endorse the idea that American politics should be dictated by foreign
opinions but a reading of the foreign press over the last six years reveals that
the first election of President Bush Jr. was largely excused around the world
since no one could have known what this new president was going to do.
Moreover, America arguably didn't vote for him anyway in 2000.
However, the second election President Bush was not excused, because by 2004,
the modus operandi of the Bush administration was clear. He wanted to 1) conduct
wars against countries that did not threaten us (e.g. Iraq), 2) oversee large
financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were
close (e.g. Halliburton), 3) establish a legal framework for riding roughshod
over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g.
Patriot Act), and 4) establish a massive federal apparatus to carry out such
intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g.
domestic wiretapping, TSA etc... )
The more-or-less global delight upon Obama's election in 2008 followed largely
from the hope that Americans had realized what a mistake they had made with
Bush's second term and were therefore voting against the egregious actions of
the then Republican establishment.
When most Americans voted for "Hope" and "Change," the above four objectives
were at the top of their list of what they "hoped" would be "changed."
After two years, however, we now see that Obama 1) conducts wars against
countries that do not threaten us (e.g. Libya, Yemen etc.), 2) oversees large
financial benefits to companies with which those in his administration were
close (e.g. Goldman Sachs), 3) supports the legal framework for riding roughshod
over the liberties of private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g.
Patriot Act), and 4) is growing a massive federal apparatus to carry out such
intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g.
domestic wiretapping, TSA etc.. )
Put another way, when it comes to such things as the killing of innocent people,
taking from the common man to support cronies, and the elimination of the basic
values that make our lives worth living, we had the hope, but we haven't had the
change.
Just as in 2000, Bush hadn't shown his true colors, in 2008, Obama had not
either. A vote for either in those years was fair enough. But in 2012, if you
vote for the Democratic nominee for president, you better have a moral
justification that is SO good that it is a) worth killing innocent people who
don't threaten you, b) transferring wealth to the rich and well connected, and
c) the complete suspension of your right to privacy and such basic rights as
protecting your child from being touched by a government official with the full
force of the law behind him as he just follows his orders.
Do I labor the point? Good.
I don't believe that such a justification exists. I'm having difficulty seeing
how a Democrat who voted for Obama (whom I supported) for the right reasons in
2008 can in good conscience do so again given that there is another candidate
who has been consistent in his opposition to all of these things -- not just in
words but in deeds.
If you've read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if not, you
should also know that Ron Paul has voted to let states make their own laws on
abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals follow their own social
conscience -- even when he disagrees with them (as I disagree with him on some
of these issues). In other words, he is consistent in his beliefs in civil
liberty.
If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again "because you've
always been a Democrat" or because you think that some group with which you
identity will benefit more from Democrat programs than a Republican one, then
that is up to you, and I wish you well. But don't you dare pretend that you are
motivated primarily by peace, civil rights or a government that treats people
equally.
That Ron Paul, who has been standing up for these principles quietly for half a
lifetime, happens to be a member of the Republican party is a lot less important
than the principles that we should be voting on. The fact that he is not a party
guy should be obvious from his extensive differences in policy from his party
and the fact that many think, given his views, he should not run as a Republican
at all.
As Dr. Paul often points out, however, we live in a country with a corrupt
political party duopoly... and the system is stacked against anyone who would
run outside the two party system. So he's doing what he has to do. And so should
we as Americans who love peace and freedom. It really isn't complicated.
Now, I know that the Republican party stinks to many Democrats and Independents
who care about social justice and civil rights, but we all need to be smart and
play the system to get the political outcomes we seek: you don't have to like a
party or even identify with it to sign up as a Republican for a year to help
make sure that the Republican primaries are won by the one representative who
has always been for peace, has always voted against bailouts, and has always
opposed the reach of government into your bedroom, your relationships and your
person.
And if you are a Democrat or socially progressive Independent, you can't tell me
you weren't hoping for all that from Obama.
Perhaps you see too much small-mindedness, or mean spirit or religious craziness
in the Republican party. Sure you do. You can find all of them in spades. But
since you can't change the Democrat ticket for 2012, why not act where you can
make a positive change -- by telling the Republican party where you really want
it to go... in the direction of peace and civil liberty (both of which, if you
go back just a little way, can be found in the traditions of republicanism).
Just in case you need to make it absolutely clear for your friends at work that
you have not gone to the dark side, I offer you a special moniker to set
yourselves apart and give yourself a way back once you've done what needs to be
done -- the "Blue Republican" -- to signify, of course, your liberal
sensibilities and perhaps even your history as a Democratic voter. (Or why not
just tell your friends that Bill Maher and Jon Stewart seem to have already
gotten the message?)
I am aware that the main objection to Ron Paul from the left concerns his belief
that private charities and individuals are more effective in maintaining social
welfare than the government. To this I ask one question. Do you believe so much
in the effectiveness of our current centralized delivery of social welfare that
it is worth the war making and the abrogation of civil rights supported by both
Bush and Obama's administrations? Moreover, while Ron Paul would look to
transition out of the huge federally run welfare programs in the long-run,
that's not where he wants to start: his immediate fight would be to bring our
forces back to the USA and to re-implement the Bill of Rights.
Ron Paul's electoral weakness is not a difficulty in winning a presidential
election. It is in winning a primary in a party with a Conservative constituency
that includes the religious right and neo-cons. An influx of peace and
freedom-loving independents and Democrats would change the math on the
Republican side and potentially the future of America by setting up a
presidential contest with a pro peace, pro-civil rights candidate (who could
outflank Obama on those issues, at least, from the left).
Again, this isn't an endorsement of the Republican party or a claim that the
Republican record is better than the Democrat on any of the issues discussed in
this article. (It isn't.) It is not even a statement that Dr. Paul is some kind
of panacea of American politics. Rather, it is to recognize simply that the one
potential Presidential candidate who wishes to stop killing innocent people in
foreign wars and stop transferring the wealth of poor and working Americans to
the corporate elites happens to be -- this time around -- a Republican.

It is also to recognize that any other political choice is for a status quo in
which all the issues that really matter (war and peace, civil rights) are
settled for the military industrial complex and the interests of the State over
the individual.
So what'll it be -- same old team allegiance or new, Blue Republicans?

Read the entire article at -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html

Find Ron Paul Democrats/Blue r's at -
http://www.facebook.com/bluerepublican?ref=ts#!/bluerepublican?sk=info