Ron Paul Polarization

I've seen passionate pro-Ron Paul and passionate anti-Ron Paul stories from liberals, and I've written a few myself.

I have talked with some intelligent, thoughtful Ron Paul supporters who say, "Yes, I disagree with him on abortion, etc; but we need a voice in the arena speaking about reigning in executive power, ending the war, and restoring civil rights." What worries me is the uncritical zealotry of so many of the Ron Paul supporters: "If you are for freedom, you are for Ron Paul; if you are against Ron Paul, you are against freedom!" Polarization kills brain cells. Uncritical support of ANYBODY is always dangerous.

Polarization against -- unconditional enmity -- also kills brain cells. Most of Ron Paul's supporters and most of Ron Paul's critics share common concerns. Instead of attacking Ron Paul, I think we should be presenting alternatives to accomplish the same goals: stop the war, reign in executive power, restore civil liberties.

Personally, I don't think that ANYBODY can "make you free." If individual citizens take more responsibility for our civic life, participate in our local government, get involved in our neighborhoods, we will make ourselves free. A President can only make that easier, or make it harder -- not do it for us. Bush made it harder. I think Ron Paul would make it harder, too -- and anybody else acting on Ron Paul's agenda. Kucinich, Gravel, Obama or Edwards would make it easier.

But NONE of them can do it for us. Yelling for a demagogue who will "make us free" is how countries get dictators.

And dictatorship is only helped by intellectuals who sneer at the "mob" and don't understand the desperation that drives them.