My friend Squashed has written on the predicament now faced by Ron Paul supporters. It’s fairly clear that he won’t be winning the GOP nomination. It’s also quite clear that he won’t decide to be a third party candidate this go-round. His son Rand, a Senator from Kentucky, has a bright future in the GOP and I doubt Ron wants to damage his son’s political future.
So what are professed Paul supporters, myself included, supposed to do in his absence? As I stated months ago, I can’t support Mitt Romney. He appears a competent political leader and a decent man but, like Obama, his foreign policy is a deal breaker for me. I cannot in good faith vote for a man who prefers security to liberty. Perhaps that’s too high a standard for the leader of the free world, but it’s one I feel no shame in presenting. Until a presidential candidate has the courage to support drawing back the American Empire, he or she won’t be receiving my vote. Basic rights are far more important than nationalism or international prestige.
What’s more, any guilt over such a choice fades when we consider the minimal distinctions in domestic policy between the two major parties. Despite the flowery rhetoric, the GOP has yet to actually scale back major parts of the government. Symbolic cuts like ending earmarks don’t count. They’re trifles at best and callous distractions at worst.
But that doesn’t require voters to abstain from the ballot. The real action’s in Congress. Control the House and you can change the scope of the welfare state. Take back the Senate and you dictate nominees to the cabinet and Supreme Court. Having control of Congress makes feasible the idea of pushing back against the imperial presidency.
So I can’t speak for other supporters of Dr. Paul, but it’s quite unlikely I’ll vote for President in November. If I do, Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party has the best chance of earning said vote.
Let’s hear it, Paulites. Who do you support in the absence of Paul?