Please tell me I am not the only one who has a fear that this new movement is a little to big for comfort. Not that it is not a great thing, but I do see similar happenings around America that resemble a trigger for fascism, and how the CFL can be played into them by mindless followers of a movement they no nothing about: Disgust with the ineffectiveness of partisan bickering, a way to "unify" America, economic disaster underway, insane nationalism( which is one concern about the CFL being hijacked by nutty conservatives ) hatred of immigrants( legal or illegal ) Ignorance of economics and the natural American strain against socialism and disappointment with capitalism leading to a "middle way", huge public displays( another concern of CFL being hijacked ) of Obama, and now a movement for the different third parties to compromise and come together to "get things done", national service movement and America's national image being tarnished after a war that leaves us outcast in the world.
I know some people will call me insane, but it can happen here, it already has! Maybe I'm just a disgruntled idealist, but even the most righteous people can be mislead. The amount of angry mindless posts I get may prove my point.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
Why did you post this as a question? It's a discussion, not a question.
As to the meat of the post, Americans are so, American-centric. It's small mindedness and the belief (overt or not) in American excellence, and that the heavenly bodies revolve around apple pie and baseball that is so annoying.
The CFL is already neutering itself. It's the only good fallout of the Bob Barr implosion.
Think of the CFL as a Mises Institute for non-economist, layman political newbies.
Yes, a lot of Ron Paul supporters are emotionally and intellectually stunted, which is why they need a CFL to get them from hating immigrants, to understanding the welfare state. To understand that being anti-war is not necessarily anti-violence, but pro-liberty.
Ron Paul didn't encourage third parties to form a coalition, but for people to either not vote, or vote for a third party rather than reinforcing the status quo. The absolute genius of his press conference is that he got left socialists like Nader and McKinney to agree that the FED and debt are 2 of the 4 big evils facing America today. I think liberty-oriented folk overlook just how many people listen to and follow Nader. If you believe that left-socialists are more likely libertarians than rightists (which I don't) then you have to applaud Paul's move to attract members of the left to libertarian thought and philosphy.
It probably cost him less than $10,000 to do that press conference, and he might attract another 1,000 people to libertarian thought. To Mises, Rothbard and Bastiat. Pretty good bang for the buck. Those 1,000 leftists will be almost exclusively political activists, which makes them high quality recruits.
The best comment I saw on the CFL site was from Don Rasmussen yesterday I think. Someone was asking who Ron Paul wanted everyone to vote for, and he wrote that Paul wanted everyone to start thinking for themselves. Excellent.
I must also admit that this was another one of the few things RP got right. However, one of the main points in this press conference was also just as important- his call for a League of Non-Voters:RP: "Since a principled non-voter sends a message, we must count them and recognize the message they are sending as well. The non-voters need to hold their own 'election' by starting a 'League of Non-voters' and explain their principled reasons for opting out of this charade of the presidential elective process. They just might get a bigger membership than anyone would guess."[quote: http://breakthematrix.com/node/19876] As for the others present at the press conference, I think Brad Spangler got it right when he commented that this may mark the sign of a new political realignment: http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/1048.I also agree Rasmussen's comment was particularly clever (instead of a long-winded paragraph, etc.).
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Sorry didn't know there was an option for ? or discussion
I understand how you feel, and don't completely disagree. However, saying that the C4L is a supporting mindlessness is a bit extreme. For purpose of comparison, did the government push us into war after 9/11 while patriotism was rampant? Yes. Did the government attack its own citizens so it could go to war? No. This is a jump in logic. Does the C4L have many emotional supporters who mindlessly gobble up anything that comes from Ron Paul or his affiliates? Yes. Does the C4L promote this mindlessness? No. In fact they actively oppose it. Look at the three essays Paul wrote on the gold standard. He doesn't want people mindlessly promoting the gold standard. He wants them to properly understand it so there passion can turn into a positive argument with anyone who challenges them! Heck, two days ago the campaign made a post called "Education is our greatest weapon". Was it facetious by only including empty rhetoric like both parties do? No, the material posted was filled with challenging literary pieces that have all been highly influential through out all of history! I had never read "the Law" by Frederic Bastiat before that post, and it blew me away. Is the C4L as economic heavy as mises.org? No, but it tries really hard to point people in the right direction.I do share some of your concerns about the country and our movement though. I dislike the thoughtless anti-immigration sentiments by a lot of RP followers, and when I talk to an Obama or McCain supporter, I feel like I’m talking to Boxer about Napoleon.I think what I’m trying to say is that the C4L is a good movement because, while there are many mindless supporters, the C4L is promoting people to read and think for themselves.