The Revolution: A Review

College education for the proletariat masses arguably is the most destructive trend that has hit American society over the past several decades.  That contrarian contention demands an explanation, especially since I am a member of the proletariat masses with a college education.  The explanation can be given by an analogy.  Infants are immunized against deadly diseases by inoculating them with traces of the viruses that cause them.  The infants’ bodies then produce antibodies against those viral traces so that, later, they will have the weapons necessary to fight off a much large viral army.  Do you remember all those late-night debates and wide-ranging discussions you had with your roommate, the classmate down the hall, or your boyfriend or girlfriend (who may be the first person, i.e. now your spouse, with whom you share this Viewpoint)?  Do you recall the one or two or perhaps three professors who actually were engaging?  Unbeknownst to you, you were being immunized against that most deadly of diseases: independent thinking.  Those debates and discussions, those challenging professors, acted as traces of viruses scientists call curiosity and enlightenment.  Anyway, that’s my explanation for why arguably the most educated country in the history of the world successfully and continually fights off all attempts to introduce real debate, serious discussion, of matters affecting culture, governance, statesmanship, economics, etc.

Don’t believe this is the case?  Just study the recent presidential candidacy of Congressman Ron Paul.  Not his primary results.  Look at how the Establishment treated him.  How the media dismissed him.  How his party shunned him.  First, for most of 2007, he was ignored.  Later, when that tactic proved ineffective, he and his supporters became the subject of ad hominem remarks.  I think the word “kook” was the pejorative du jour.

          But the prolific Dr. Paul has not left the political stage quietly, apologetically, as the other losing mainstream candidates have done or as the Establishment would wish him to do.  Instead, he has written a book, The Revolution: A Manifesto, http://www.amazon.com/Revolution-Manifesto-Ron-Paul/dp/0446537519, that outlines the fundamental issues that this November’s presidential election is all about, even though neither Senator McCain nor Senator Obama will address them seriously.  Dr. Paul speaks of a revolution of freedom, of restoring the American Republic, and of other good and wholesome things that “will persist long after my retirement from politics.”

          But I think his book has a greater chance of achieving a more modest goal.  The Revolution is divided into seven readable chapters, chapters 2 through 6 dealing with substantive matters like America’s current foreign policy; the status of her most basic law, the Constitution; economic freedom; civil liberties and personal freedoms; and the thing with which perhaps most citizens are concerned, money.  Chapters 1 and 7 give the readers a thematic introduction and summary, respectively.

          In the chapter on “The Foreign Policy of the Founding Fathers,” Dr. Paul writes honestly of the “history of American interventionism in the twentieth century …” and of the “blowback” (that’s a CIA term) effect of that history not only on terrorists’ motivations but also on the government’s budget (i.e. deficit spending), the collapsing dollar, and increasing financial insecurity for both our government and ourselves, not to mention the human costs of war in terms of service personnel and civilians killed and maimed.  “Now it would be a great step forward, “ he contends, “if we could even debate the foreign policy we have now, a policy that (with a few minor differences) is shared by the establishment of both major parties.”  He continues, “If we even have such a debate, some Americans may conclude that the increased risk of terrorism is a price they are willing to pay in order to continue our government’s interventionist policy…  However it came out, at least we would have had the debate…  Meanwhile our lack of debate has had terrible consequences for our republic.”

          Likewise, in the chapter headed “Money: The Forbidden Issue in American Politics,” Dr. Paul laments that “it’s long past time to put the money issue back on the table as a subject for genuine discussion.”  This lament naturally follows his “straight talk” review of the Founders’ well-considered attitude toward paper money unsupported by gold or silver; of the process by which the world’s central bankers manipulate interest rates by creating money and credit “out of thin air,” thereby distorting prices and incentives that drive business and consumer decisions; of how this manipulation benefits the Establishment at the expense of the poor and middle classes; of how it eventually can erode national sovereignty; and of the real threat of hyperinflation.  One undeniable fact: the Federal Reserve Bank was created in 1913, ostensibly, to preserve the value of the dollar, yet “an item that cost $100 in 1913 … would cost $2,014.81 in 2006.  An item that cost $100 in 2006 would have cost $4.96 in 1913.”  In contrast, the “people’s money increased in value under the gold standard … An item that cost $100 in 1820 would have cost only $63.02 in 1913.”

          The same theme applies to all the other fundamental issues outlined in his book: “Where is the robust exchange of ideas that we should expect in a free society?”  Certainly in the 2008 Republican and Democratic primaries, despite the many televised “debates,” no such exchange of ideas was heard.  Not on the Constitutionally correct approach, for example, to abortion, narcotics, pollution, and other vices.  Inspired by the Founders and leading intellectual lights, among whom he counts Frederic Bastiat, Frank Chodorov, and Friedrich von Hayek (as well as the principled positions of “Mr. Republican” himself, Senator Robert Taft), Dr. Paul ends on a hopeful note.  “Ours is not a fated existence, for nowhere is our destiny etched in stone.  In the final analysis, the last line of defense in support of freedom and the Constitution consists of the people themselves…  If freedom is what we want, it is ours for the taking.”  But before the people can defend their freedoms and the Constitution, they will have to go back to their college days; bravely, they will have to expose themselves once again, in larger quantities than ever, to those intellectual viruses, curiosity and enlightenment, and to that social menace, independent thinking.  The Revolution: A Manifesto is an excellent, concise way to do just that.  The book’s last line is a grand exhortation, “Let the revolution begin.”  What Dr. Paul means, or what I think he means, is, “Let the debates begin!”

Jeff Turner is a Dallas lawyer and a fellow in constitutional studies at the College of St. Thomas More in Fort Worth.

Comments (3)

Comment	smaller | bigger
Name
Write the displayed characters
Subscribe via email (Registered users only) I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.
	Add Comment