September 3rd,2010

Rep. Ron Paul Responds to Sen. Lindsey Graham’s Accusation that he is Hijacking the Republican Party

Allison Bricker

At an October 12th town hall meeting in Greensboro, South Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham (R) accused Representative Ron Paul of ‘hijacking’ the Republican Party, stating:

 

“I’m going to grow this party. I’m not going to let it be hijacked by Ron Paul”,

Senator Lindsey Graham
October 12th, 2009

 

Orig. Town Hall Video
Unedited town hall footage
Video Courtesy: 33ItHappens

The Senator’s terse tone a result of hecklers in the meeting chastising the former supporter of John McCain’s abysmal failure of a presidential bid, for voting in support of banker bailouts via the TARP program, as well as his support for extending the PATRIOT Act and President Obama’s troop surge in Afghanistan.

However, my view differs greatly with that of Senator Graham’s. Where he sees a “hijacking”, I see liberation from a party occupied for far too long by insurgent Whigs, perhaps the 2.0 variety, but Whigs nonetheless.

After all, today’s so-called “mainstream republicans” are just are just as backwards with their perpetual warmongering, chicken hawk imperialism, banker bailout, torture-apologist agenda, as were their predecessors; Whigs 1.0 from the 19th century in their support of denying inherent liberties to African-Americans via the promulgation and expansion of slavery.

As such, never failing to parallel their political coverage to a style more befitting of a magazine show like “Extra”, (think Election Day holograms) CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and his merry panel of peanut-gallery talking heads invited Representative Ron Paul into ‘The Situation room” Wednesday evening. Practically salivating for an attempt to degrade the issue into a worthless petty verbal dispute, host Wolf Blitzer sophomorically began by asking Dr. Paul for his “reaction”.

Always the statesman more concerned with principle, Dr. Paul pulled the debate back between working to support the Constitution, or further allowing the status quo to persist with its utter disregard for one of our most cherished founding documents. In consequence to the tone set by Mr. Blitzer, the other commentator/old-media journalists could not seem to structure a question without first displaying a philosophical bias for government to intervene in as many areas of our lives as possible.

The only exception to the vacuous line of dribble was Arianna Huffington of The Huffington Post. So kudos to her for demonstrating some new-media moxy soliciting Representative Ron Paul’s opinion on the true issues at hand like the never-ending war in Afghanistan.

Video Courtesy: Ron Paul vs. Tyranny

America: A Nation of Narcissists

Joseph Marohl

Narcissism is a personality disorder characterized by grandiose posturing to disguise a weak self-esteem. Narcissists exhibit the following symptoms:

  • thinking they are superior to other people
  • assuming that others ought to automatically go along with their schemes
  • believing they are exceptions to rules
  • exaggerating their accomplishments and abilities
  • expecting approval, never accepting blame
  • failing in relationships
  • ignoring feelings, needs, and values other than their own
  • indulging in fantasies of their importance, power, and irresistibility
  • insulting those whom they think are inferior, but overly sensitive to others’ criticism
  • resenting others’ good fortune or success, but assuming that others envy them
  • setting impossible standards and goals
  • taking advantage of others’ good nature, weakness, or gullibility
  • wearing a mask of toughness, coolness, or emotional detachment


If these sound familiar, the reason is that we Americans are a nation of narcissists. Yes, this is me in my apocalyptic mode. Sorry.

Not that there’s anything wrong with healthy self-esteem. But narcissism has nothing to do with healthy self-esteem, which is generous, cooperative, egalitarian, and not easily threatened or insulted; in fact, the two conditions are opposites. Narcissism is the exaggerated pretense of self-esteem to hide insecurity, guilt, anxiety, inner conflict, and fear. Narcissism is a mental illness.

We Americans chant, “We’re Number One!” because we feel like number two, a feeling that has escalated since World War Two. Our victory over fascism was indeed cause for celebration—but the Holocaust is a painful reminder of how long we dawdled before reaching out to help other people in desperate circumstances (our allies, no less), and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a reminder that we created a weapon with the potential for global destruction and our responses to aggression are not always proportionate.

What is more, we perhaps sense that the racism, lust for power, and exaltation of the will we saw in our enemies cut close to the bone of our own disposition.

echo_and_narcissus

Especially after the first war with Iraq, we Americans demonize France because, as a people and a government, the French have not been prone to jump when we say jump. Also, America and France are a case of competing narcissisms. France, after all, gives us the word “chauvinism.” Each nation is attracted and repelled by what it sees in the mirror posed by the other.

We Americans are blasé about accusations that we practice torture, imperialism, and unfair competition because, in general, we do not feel bound by the same rules and standards by which we judge other nations and governments.

We Americans go around the world tooting our own horn and wonder why the world doesn’t still give us a six-gun salute for saving its ass in 1945.

We Americans break our pacts and treaties—with the Indians who were on this continent before there even was an “America,” and with the rest of the world, too: Kyoto, Geneva, Vienna, the Platt Amendment, and so on. We imagine that our breaches of trust are rationally, perhaps even humanitarianly motivated, but we seldom offer evidence to back up our assumption that America is and ought to be an exception to the rule—even to rules we strong-arm others to follow.

Our mass entertainments—spectacular epics patterned on those of pre-WW2 Italy and Germany, not to mention imperial Rome—reveal the splendor and decadence of our self-imagination. Their manic yet phony optimism—glamor, happy endings, superimposed laugh tracks, bling, breathless color commentary—belie a fragile ego propping itself up with fantasies of exaggerated muscle, control, and allure.

We are easily impressed with the fantastic and the pretentious. We tend to under-value simple realism in film, art, and literature, perhaps because we desperately want to escape reality.

Likewise, we under-value character in favor of image. Where once we spoke of renaissance and revival, we now speak of makeovers.

If all this sounds like unfair America-bashing, keep in mind that I’m an American too, likewise subject to the nation’s cultural flaws and neuroses. But I think it’s time we seek help. We can’t expect others to stage an intervention because, despite recent calamities, we are still dauntingly powerful and, besides, many of those in a position to diagnose our mental illness look forward to the entertaining spectacle of our imminent nervous collapse.

Already, it’s been a pretty fascinating show—what with Bush dressing up as cowboys and fighter pilots, Obama clinging (like Bush) to the unconstitutional notion that the Presidency is somehow exempt from the nation’s laws against surveillance without judicial oversight, throngs of thousands protesting not so much for the moral wellbeing of the nation but for their own piece of the pie, corporations deemed “too big to fail” receiving massive aid even while persisting in snuffing out the little guys (not excepting even their employees), and frightened and superstitious bigots demanding that rights and legal privileges be retained by them and those like them—all accompanied by maudlin tears, hymns to liberty and hope and democracy, state-of-the-art production value and special effects, the waving of flags, and the thumping of sacred texts.

America is a nation of narcissists—alienated in our cubicles, gated communities, and narrow beliefs and cocooned in our thousand-dollar entertainment systems and the reverberations of deafening ghetto blasters. As a people, we have been practicing “social distancing” long before H1N1.

Thus, we are less capable of seeing and defending the common good (what is generally good for everybody). Many of us (though, thankfully, not all, perhaps not even a majority) have lost the ability to make sacrifices for the good of the collective whole.

Many of us have lost the ability to argue an issue without stooping to ridicule, name-calling, emotional acting-out, even acts of violence. We respond to criticism as if it were an attack. We respond to lack of conformity as if it were criticism.

We teach our children pride and entitlement, but not math, science, history, arts, logic, manners, and languages (not even an adequate grasp of the one language they do know)—thus equipping them with plenty of self-esteem, but few tools for achieving actual excellence.

We claim to be moral and religious, but most of what we know and feel is simple human prejudices, some of which are not even addressed in our sacred texts. We condone torture but condemn cleavage on TV. What the fuck?

We are a sick culture, and we have, in our century of power, infected the world with our sickness. We are on the verge of collapse. Right now the collapse looks inevitable. If and when it comes, we will need to be a people strong in character and honest, healthy self-esteem. We have mismanaged our wealth and power and moral high ground—and now, with these lost or steeply declining, we appear ill equipped to face the challenges that lie before us.

Right now, our best hope seems to be that collapse will be an impetus for the growth of character, integrity, and human decency.

What do we say to the collapse, any minute now, of a 400-year-old culture built on genocide, slavery, and the polarization of wealth and sustained by hypocritical fanfare about rugged individualism?

To quote a recent notably arrogant and narcissistic world leader, “Bring it on.”

Join or Die: Unity on Working Towards Smaller Government

Allison Bricker

Recently, while perusing the blogosphere I stumbled across two recent posts on semi-prominent blogs* rehashing the year old controversy of the Ron Paul newsletters and the authorship thereof. Truth be told, when James Kirchick of “The New Republic” originally published his story on the day of the New Hampshire Primary1, it disappointed our family greatly.

However, after researching the story ad nauseam for approximately three months, two things occurred to me. One, Dr. Paul’s record, speeches, and interviews did and do not reflect the outrageously bigoted remarks splashed throughout the pages of the newsletters, and two, even if they were his sentiments, placing hurt feelings over the necessity of reaffirming the blessings of inherent liberty and saving the Republic is tantamount to a parrot victory and would border on narcissistic. In good conscience, I cannot place the collective agenda of the “people group” of which I am a demographic to, i.e. the LGBT community, over that of re-securing individual liberty and the republic.

Further, evidence now points to Doctor Paul’s former Congressional Chief of Staff and founder of the Mises Institute, Lew Rockwell as the main ghostwriter of the newsletters.2 Thus, the disdain I hold towards Mr. Rockwell stems not from the likelihood our families might never sit down to dinner together and sing koom-ba-ya, but that he remained largely silent on his culpability or lack thereof, thereby allowing Dr. Paul’s campaign to become mired in unnecessary controversy. Further I look towards Mr. Rockwell not for validation of our family’s morality, but for his philosophy on monetary policy.

My motivation to type this entry is not to dredge up and prolong disputation over thirty year old newsletters. It instead stems from the undeniable fact that even now we are letting differences, which are of much less consequence, divide us as the Republic continues to slide towards unabashed socialism. This is of course more easily written than practiced, as my own knee jerk prejudices make me guilty of this petty silliness far too frequently for my own liking. Whether it is debating the balance provided by a Constitutional Republic with those self ascribed anarchists or my tendency to lump all Christians in with the likes of John Hagee and Pat Robertson, it is of no use in beating back the growing personal and economic tyranny that is beginning to encompass a more prominent role in our daily lives.

Join or Die WoodcutIt is my sincere desire to welcome a vigorous discussion regarding the necessity of government by the consent of the governed, civil unions, et al, but should we not stand together to preserve our individual liberties first, the opportunity for there to be a discussion grows less and less likely. In the end, it all comes down to a matter of priorities.

We must do our best to be candid when reflecting upon the crisis we now face. While I am not absolutely certain that, the level of intolerable cruelty will rise to that of which the Founding Generation faced. It is most assuredly obvious, that our nation is as close to a tipping point as it has been since the Civil War. Thus in reflecting upon issues with the potential to forever alter our form of government it would be wise in my estimation to realize that even the Founding Generation were not of one unanimous mind in the application and meaning behind individual inherent liberties.

Mr. Jefferson, himself a slave owner, penned into his original draft of the Declaration of Independence an admonishment of the institution of slavery itself3 and laid the blame for its formation within the colonies at the feet of King George the III, writing:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere.”

1st Draft
Declaration of Independence

Yet this passage was believed to be too divisive to succeed in the Continental Congress by Dr. Benjamin Franklin, who was an ardent abolitionist. Moreover, Mr. John Adams of Massachusetts, one of the few Founding Fathers who never owned a slave solely out of principle and instead worked his farm with only the help of himself and his sons, found a way to work with the likes of Mr. Edward Ruteledge of South Carolina who was the chief proponent of removing the anti-slavery clause.4

molly_pitcherNor did Molly Pitcher, Nancy Hart, or Abigail Adams opt to put the exclusion of female delegates ahead of the more pressing tyranny. Instead, they each respectively commandeered the cannons, captured British soldiers, and influenced by proxy.

Theirs along with all the other individual sacrifices from the Founding Generation in pursuit of a more perfect union and the goal of establishing the individual as the standard-bearer of liberty is what by my analysis helped lead to an American victory in the Revolutionary war and the birth of our Republic.

As a result, the issues of slavery and women’s suffrage were rectified. Slavery was abolished, and we gained our admission to the body politic. While neither came as expediently or as peacefully as many might have hoped, neither would have been solved without first achieving independence.

In conclusion, let us ask only for acknowledgment that the current central authority has become too large and destructive for a free people, coupled with a desire to see it drastically scaled back. We shall only have the opportunity to debate the exact size, scope, and morality after we have excised the malignancy of its ever-encroaching tyranny into our personal and economic lives.

Or to put it much more succintly by borrowing a quip from Mr. Franklin:

…we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.

Benjamin Franklin5
In Reply to Mr. Hancock
Adoption of the Declaration of Independence
July 4th, 1776

 

Source(s): 1The New Republic “Angry White Man” by James Kirchick, published January 8th, 20082 ReasonOnline “Who Wrote Ron Paul’s Newsletters?” by Julian Sanchez and David Weigel, published January 16, 20083“The Writings of Thomas Jefferson : 1776-1781.” published by The Knickerbocker Press c18934“The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Omnibus”,page 46, published by by American Anti-Slavery Society, c2004 • 5“The Life of Benjamin Franklin”, By Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, William Temple Franklin, G. F. Storm, Joseph Andrews, page 406, published by WHITTEMORE, NILES, and HALL c1856

 

*Editor’s Note: Links to current blogs editorializing that Dr. Paul is a racist comparable to the likes of David Duke purposefully excluded so as to not drive additional traffic or authority to blogs publishing unsourced and unhinged character assasination.