USA Guest Blog – A Tribute to Ron Paul

By Megan Moore

Last Wednesday Ron Paul gave his farewell speech to Congress, having represented Texas’ 14th Congressional district for thirty-six years. ‘My goals in 1976,’ he said, ‘were the same as they are today: promote peace and prosperity by a strict adherence to the principles of individual liberty.’

Paul’s unwavering commitment to these goals has certainly cost him allies and standing within his party: during the Bush years, he was one of just six Republicans who voted against military action against Iraq 2002, and one of just three Republicans who voted against the PATRIOT Act. Staunchly pro-life, he has stuck to his principle that this is a matter for state legislatures, opposing not only federal funding of abortion but the federal criminalization of sex-selective terminations as ‘unconstitutional’.

Because of this, as he acknowledged in his speech, his career has not been a success in the conventional sense. Nevertheless, Paul’s effect on Republican politics has been considerable. His long-standing advocacy of the gold standard and opposition to the Federal Reserve have been instrumental in edging these ideas closer to the mainstream of political discourse, while the recent election was notable for the success of ‘Ron Paul Republicans’, those candidates endorsed by Paul or the Young Americans for Liberty PAC. Continue reading

What’s Missing from the US Presidential Election? – Guest Blog by Dr John Shosky

By Dr John Shosky

Days away from the American election the race remains a toss-up.  The pundits are in over-drive trying to explain the close races in states like Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Colorado, and elsewhere.  After Hurricane Sandy, the candidates have resumed speaking and travelling non-stop.  Words, words, words.  We are drowning in words that do nothing.

The election should not even be close.  The economy is in serious trouble.  The bailout didn’t revive the economy.  Barack Obama has no agenda for a second term, only platitudes about creating an equal society.  He has looked un-presidential in the debates and his campaign speeches.  Mitt Romney has not provided persuasive ideological alternatives like Ronald Reagan did thirty years ago.  Romney in jeans and rolled-up shirts has looked un-presidential himself.  There is an intellectual void, a barren and discouraging rhetorical emptiness.  Nothing … nothing …  nothing … that has been said has a lasting impact.  Some voters are left with visceral feelings of anger, frustration about having to choose between the lesser of two evils, and hollow dejection about the future of the economy and the country.  This election should have a tone of optimism and nostalgia for the future.  Sadly, it doesn’t.  Look at the lack of excitement as many politicians and campaign workers simply go through the motions.

A key reason for this close race is the absence of rhetorical impact, the missing words and ideas that create separation between candidates.  Candidates want to use language to bond with an audience and heal division.  But they also must use language to define difference between those running for office.  Speechwriters and veteran political observers instantly look for those words.  Voters need them.  Their absence is obvious, speech after speech.  After millions of words in thousands of speeches this election is defined more by what is missing than by what has been said.  The close races are a primarily a product of mind-numbing, vacuous, or weak word choices that fail to have any lasting impact with voters.  That’s right.  In swing states the issue is not primarily party.  Undecided and independent voters are looking and listening.  Most are not finding what they need to make a distinctive choice. Yes, we have heard about Bain Capital, tax payments, personal wealth, and other comments by Obama about Romney.  And we have heard from Obama about killing bin Laden, saving Detroit, and federal compulsory health care (Obamacare).  And Romney has discussed high taxes, over-regulation, a do-nothing administration, and expanding government.  Where are the profound, unforgettable words that define voting issues?  Where are the words that go for the jugular?  This election has produced some of the most infantile, dead-on-arrival, and embarrassing rhetoric in the history of presidential elections.  For example, there was no lasting traction with Obama’s use of “Romnesia,” “the war on women,” ”47 percent,” or other efforts to taint Romney, making him the issue.  In turn, Romney has produced no classic, icon descriptions of the last four years, even though middle class income is down by forty percent, unemployment is struck at eight percent, and American foreign policy is in retrenchment.  After billions of dollars, years of preparation, and opportunities galore, is this the best they can do?  Obama’s excellent White House speechwriters are prohibited by law from participating in political events.  So they are out.  Where is a rhetorical genius like Ted Sorensen, Richard Goodwin, Michael Gerson, or even the earlier version of David Plouffe?  Where is a veteran, cut-through-the-crap person like Pat Buchanan, Lee Atwater, James Carville, Alastair Campbell, or Eric Pickles?  Where is the savvy guidance of a Geoffrey Howe or David Gergen?   What about using the trans-Atlantic wisdom of a Peter Botting (the master) or Shane Greer (who may know more about American politics than most American politicians)?  Not all words are equal.  Words are weapons.  Every battle is a battle of ideas.  Where is the literary passion and visionary inspiration of a Peggy Noonan or Phil Collins (the Blair speechwriter)? Continue reading

YBF visit the Ronald Reagan Ranch

Thanks to the kindness of the Young America’s Foundation, YBF was able to visit the Ronald Reagan Ranch outside of Santa Barbara in California. Ronald and Nancy Reagan used it as an oasis of calm far away from the politics of Washington D.C. during his time in office.

It was once said by former First Lady Nancy Reagan, to truly know Ronald Reagan the man, you must go to the Ranch. The peaceful, tranquil surroundings are truly awe inspiring. Wild horses roam the grounds untroubled in a place he called Rancho Del Cielo, the ‘Ranch in the Sky.’

Ronald Reagan himself described it like this:

“From the first day we saw it, Rancho Del Cielo cast a spell over us. No place before or since has ever given Nancy and me the joy and serenity it does.”

Set in 600 acres of land, the centrepiece is the house itself, a humble abode restored to its original state. During his time there, Reagan personally built most of the Ranch himself, including the fence made out of old telephone polls that surrounds the house.

Reagan loved the Ranch so much he often invited world leaders and friends to visit him there. In 1993 Margaret Thatcher finally got the chance to visit Ronald and Nancy’s beloved presidential retreat. Their special relationship allowed them to achieve much during their time in power on both sides of the Atlantic. Lady Thatcher said a final goodbye with a heartfelt, emotional eulogy at his funeral in 2004. Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh also visited in 1983. Despite the winding road and treacherous weather, the Queen insisted on making the journey. Continue reading