What has Ron Paul accomplished? redux

I knew it. It was so incredibly predictable.

But before I continue, I do need to congratulate the Paulaholics. They are very well organized, and they are phenomenally passionate. Those are two outstanding qualities in politics. (Too bad their guy is a kook.) O.K., back to the post.

After posting my "what has Ron Paul accomplished" question two days ago, I received an anonymous comment a little over six hours later from a Paulaholic. And it followed the typical Paulaholic response. Let's break it down, shall we?

You are asking the wrong question of Paul supporters. If we wanted an activist government to go out and achieve things, we'd support Socialists like Hilary and Rudy.

Oh so clever. Anonymous equates government achievement with Socialism. And then (correctly) lists Mrs. Clinton and (incorrectly) Rudy as examples of Socialism.

Yes, we do want government and our government's employees and representatives to actually achieve things, like . . . oh, I don't know . . . ending the Cold War or keeping our taxes low in order to fuel economic growth. To a certain degree, I agree with the Paulaholics that government is too big and that it does to much and way more than is constitutionally mandated. But it has to DO something. It has to get something done. There is a minimum threshold of achievement that must be met. Remember this phrase?

...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity...

Those are some basics that our government needs to achieve. If it doesn't get some of those correct, we have no nation, and all of our discourse will be for naught.

Continuing with the Paulaholic comment.

I'd say in general, Ron Paul supporters hope that he will bring the size of government down in line with its present level of effectiveness, and the cost of that government down in line with that size.

O.K. That's nice. I'd like for every elected representative to pursue that goal. But what has he done that shows us he's capable of (here's that nasty word again) accomplishing that goal? Let's read on.

What Ron Paul did in his career was to stand firm for the philosophy of limited government as his own party stampeded away from it the moment they took power. By definition, the voice in the wilderness is not the leader of the pack. But if we ever find ourselves in a country where a politician can say, "Government is not the solution to the problem, government *is* the problem," without being derided as a racist kook, Ron Paul will be remembered as a great keeper of that flame.

"STAND FIRM." That's all they can come up with! No accomplishment. No record of getting something done. Nothing in history that will give us a clue as to what might actually occur, besides a whole bunch of speaking and standing firm.

And then...

And then...my dear anonymous commenter displays his/her ignorance of true accomplishment. For Anonymous misquotes the Great Accomplisher himself. Here's the correct quote:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden.

Ronald Reagan, in his first inaugural address, spoke of true conservatism when he said this. And, dear Anonymous, Ron Paul is most certainly not a keeper of the Reagan flame.

Predictably, the question remains unanswered; what has Ron Paul accomplished?