<< Fight Club! Reagarding McCain >>
Confessions of the Nintendo Generation
As regular readers of this blog know, I am a hardcore Ron Paul supporter who has been ranting and raving the gospel of Paul for about a year now. I would like to archive a few of my thoughts, and share them with my fellow revolutionaries.
If you are an all-or-nothing, no compromise, no negotiations type of person, what I have to say is going to displease you. The Jonesians will surely believe me to be an agent of the NWO. Rest assured, I am still waiting on my check from the ADL, and suspect it will never arrive.
As far as Ron Paul is concerned, it is my belief that his campaign will either end in a GOP convention fight, or a failed 3rd-party run for President. I will support him so long as he continues running, and I encourage all of you to do the same.
However, Dr. Paul is an old man. As a matter of fact, both Dr. Paul and McCain are older than Ronald Reagan was in 1980. In all likelihood, we are witnessing the “last run” of Dr. Ron Paul. If he decides to end this run in a convention negotiation, I will not begrudge him for a moment. If he fights tooth in nail until election day, I will cheer and support him every step of the way. In either event, he has spent his entire life fighting this fight; the time has come for us, the Nintendo Generation, to stand up and take over.
The Nintendo Generation is a broad group indeed, including both Generation X, Generation Y, and just about anyone else who has ever spent any significant time in a chat room. If you know what a “Nintendo” is, you are either a member of our group, or the proud parent or grandparent of a member. This is to say, the Nintendo Generation is not limited by age, but rather, an understanding of the future, as learned via bad 1980’s science fiction. If you have ever “been in cyberspace”, “hacked” something, or if you “saw this coming” years and years ago, you know exactly what I mean when I say: Nintendo Generation.
The Nintendo Generation is also quite varied politically; in this campaign we have largely divided between Barack Obama and Ron Paul, with both groups in total agreement: the time has come for a few fundamental changes. Opinions are fiercely divided in regards to the degree and nature of the pending changes, but all can agree that the status quo sucks. Better still: most of us are very angry, which makes said changes inevitable. Revolution is, and has always been, the domain of the outraged and dissatisfied.
I have witnessed an interesting split among my fellow Ron “Paulians” this past week; many have come to the same conclusions I have, and have begun wondering aloud if the time has come to support Obama against Hillary. The reaction to this suggestion is fiercely divided.
On the one hand are those who say; “Obama is better than Hillary”, “Obama was against the war” and “At least Obama might win.”
On the other hand are those who say; “Obama is CFR”, “Obama is anti-gun” and “Obama will bring about socialized healthcare- how could any Libertarian support him?”.
I believe that both groups make valid points. However, for precisely this reason, the revolution stands at a crossroads.
In short: how Libertarian are you? Not in theory, in real, day-to-day life?
If you live with family, or live at a school on your family’s dime, I contend that you are not yet a true Libertarian at all. Ours is the philosophy of personal responsibility. Until you are paying your own bills, you cannot begin to imagine what this means.
This may anger some younger readers, so let us assume you are “out in the real world”, or soon will be. The question remains, how Libertarian are you?
- Do you support public education?
- Do you support public libraries?
- Do you support public parks?
- Do you support public healthcare?
A true-blue, hardcore Libertarian would reject ALL of these institutions. They are ALL examples of socialism, or if you prefer, collectivism; in either case, they exist contrary to Libertarian ideals. Only a schizophrenic or attorney could hold both of these ideologies in tangent.
And this brings us back to the question at hand: how Libertarian are you?
There is no doubt in my mind that the Nintendo Generation is far more Libertarian than any generation that has existed before it. For example:
- Do you oppose war?
- Do you oppose the war on drugs?
- Do you believe that you should be free to do whatever you wish, so long as you do not infringe on the freedoms of others?
I would wager that most of you, Obama and Paul supporters alike, would answer “yes” to these questions.
Where am I going with this?
There is common ground between Obama and Paul, and a growing Libertarian ideology that has fueled both campaigns. However, as Obama has shown us, achieving plurality will require moderation. To put it simply: quite a large number of pot smokers approve of socialized healthcare.
Does this mean we should now “flip flop” on issues for the sake of popularity?
Not at all. I am not suggesting that anyone change a single opinion. Rather, I would like to see which portions of Ron Paul’s platform have gained mainstream acceptance, and which have not. Furthermore: is the popularity of these ideas the result of underexposure, misunderstanding, or genuine disapproval?
Many people within the Ron Paul camp are quick to blame “the media” for the ignorance of America. And, although I agree fully that “the media” is little more tha Government-sponsored propaganda, to blame them for our failures is a cop-out at best.
Believe it or not, there are people who understand Ron Paul’s position on abortion perfectly well- and disagree with it. I happen to be one of those people. To say that I don’t agree with Paul’s position because I have been “misinformed”, or due to “media censorship” is asinine. This is not to suggest that you should abandon your views of abortion, but rather, that we must begin scrutinizing the platform from a viewpoint of plurality.
As far as I am concerned, it doesn’t much matter where we disagree. To focus on disagreement is to allow ourselves to be divided and conquered by the powers of the status quo. Rather, by embracing common ground, and accepting dissent among our own ranks, we can begin to achieve plurality.
Consider this:
A candidate with-
Barack Obama’s charm
Reagan’s sense of humor
Hillary Clinton’s gender
This candidate has already overcome the three biggest challenges to the Ron Paul campaign; the fact that a modest old white guy lacks the sex appeal and “cool” factor of his competitors.
Our candidate-
Opposes War
Supports government transparency
Opposes drug prohibition
Opposes the current financial system (FIAT)
Believes racism is ignorant
Still with me? Paulians? Obama supporters? Can we still agree on this?
If so, what about:
Guns
Abortion
Immigration
Economics
And so we’ve returned to the great divisions of modern politics.
However, fighting amongst ourselves will not solve anything. Instead, we must ask ourselves: do they reject our position due to misinformation, or genuine disagreement? To accept the latter, you must first believe that the latter is possible. You must accept that not everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. The majority might be stupid, rather, the majority is stupid, but this ad hominem does not invalidate political opposition, rather, it invigorates it.
And to be clear: there are plenty of stupid Ron Paul supporters also. Such is life.
In summary, I retain a strong belief that a more moderate “Paulian” platform, guided by a charismatic public speaker, will soon sweep our nation. I also believe that certain elements of Ron Paul’s campaign will NOT survive into this future campaign. Like everything else, we must evolve, or perish.
The question now becomes: on which issues have we already achieved plurality? And, with education and information, on which issues can we achieve plurality? And, regardless of effort, which issues are simply too unpopular for majority approval?
So, as I asked earlier, how Libertarian are you? Where will this compromise take place? Can you accept socialized health care in exchange for abolishing the IRS? Which is more critical, the end of the Federal Reserve, or homosexual marriage? Which is more detrimental to you, the 2nd amendment, or a global military empire?
Where others see ideological incompatibility, I see the roots of compromise. That said, if you wish to reject all that I have suggested here, I do not begrudge you. If you insist that the platform is perfect, and that it is the American people who must change, I fear we might never see the inside of the oval office.
Or, to put it another way, would you rather dream of what might be, or, engage an imperfect system in hopes of the best possible solution?
Like it or not, it is up to us now. I say the time has come to wake up, stop dreaming, and get to work.
Hungry for more?
