CHANGE
As I write this on the day of the New Hampshire Primary, all of the Democratic Candidates and the prominent Republicans are attepting to sell themselves as "the candidate of change." The reason for this is simple, a majority of the voting public and a overwhelming majority of the American public are disgusted with the current state of politics, and the candidates are attempting to cash in on this. These sales pitches range from the ridiculous (Hillary Clinton and John McCain and their combined 50 years in Washington), to those portraying themselves as able to effect change through more efficient government (Mitt Romney, Barack Obama and soon to include Mike Bloomberg), to the demagogue who will set fire to various Corporate Headquarters, construct a guilliotine and redistribute land to the peasants (John Edwards).
As I write this on the day of the New Hampshire Primary, all of the Democratic Candidates and the prominent Republicans are attepting to sell themselves as "the candidate of change." The reason for this is simple, a majority of the voting public and a overwhelming majority of the American public are disgusted with the current state of politics, and the candidates are attempting to cash in on this. These sales pitches range from the ridiculous (Hillary Clinton and John McCain and their combined 50 years in Washington), to those portraying themselves as able to effect change through more efficient government (Mitt Romney, Barack Obama and soon to include Mike Bloomberg), to the demagogue who will set fire to various Corporate Headquarters, construct a guilliotine and redistribute land to the peasants (John Edwards).
It is with those who claim that meaningful change in this country can be effected by better, more efficient government with whom I wish to deal. Insanity has been defined as repeatedly taking the same action while expecting a different result. I feel that this is what voters will be doing if they seriously believe that meaningful change can be accomplished by a better, more efficient government. To me, "efficient government" is a contradiction in terms, like "Sober Zavada"
I strongly believe that by its very nature, government is inherently inefficient - so much so that even its best intentioned actions can have negative consequences. In coming days and weeks I plan to offer concrete examples to support this belief, so stay tuned.
But to those who recognize the manifest negative effects of a powerful centralized government, i.e. wasted tax money, disastrously aggressive foriegn policy, inflation in the price of the necessities of life, I submit to you that it is not change we need, but rather R3VOLUTION.
The change that Ron Paul has advocated during his career in public service has been indeed revolutionary, which is a return to the limited Federal Government mandated by the Constitution and a reversal of the one hundred year trend away from personal liberty and responsibility, attributes which foster a dynamic, prosperous society.
Other candidates want to use the Federal Goverment to change things in one way or another. Ron Paul believes that if the Federal Government were to stop interfering in our lives, the people themselves will be able to change things. Who do you trust more, yourself or the government?
Again, this is only a brief introduction, please stay tuned to the site as I offer support for and expand on the ideas presented above. Please feel free to learn more by searching for "Ron Paul" on Youtube or Google, or by visiting his campaign homepage at www.ronpaul2008.com.
Sincerely,
Brian B. Zona
No comments:
Post a Comment