I was surprised to read on ThisCanadian’s blog that the Wonkette said that evil Canadians (h/t While the Earth Burns) are to blame (h/t Le Revue Gauche) for the increasing interest in Ron Paul’s run at leadership of the Republican Party. Today I found this article at the Raw Story describing the recent Colbert/Ron Paul interview,
“And though Colbert was respectful, he did not let Paul get away as easily as fellow liberals Stewart and Maher have,” Ryce continues. “Instead, he pointed out the differences between Paul’s far-right ideology and that held by the left. Stephen’s audience obviously wanted to cheer for Paul, but seemed thoroughly confused after they realized that the enemy of your enemy isn’t always your friend.”
You can view the Colbert/Paul interview at youtube.
I don’t agree that Stewart and Maher let him off easy, rather they were probably just as blown away as I was that a Republican could articulate a common sense foreign policy agenda. Stewart and Maher (video) gave the American public a chance to hear the stark differences between Ron Paul’s views and all of the other Republican candidates. In my opinion, Paul is the only Republican candidate running whose foreign policy ideas/plans are not completely wacked and terrifying to the average world citizen. I also think Maher’s political views are actually much closer to Paul’s than Stewart’s or Colbert’s.
I strongly agree with Paul’s ideas on foreign policy, but I think Colbert is wise to point out the “devil in the details” with Ron Paul. Climate change is only one of many reasons (e.g. no taxes, no gun control, no controls on pollution/greenhouse gas emissions) why we cannot always put our “individual” liberty over the greater good of the group (i.e community/country/world). Sometimes government must intervene to help circumvent humanities worst habits/problems (e.g. energy guzzling lifestyles, industry pollution/poisoning our environment/food/water supply, gun violence in schools/against women, etc).
I think it is important that government try its level/transparent “best” to ensure that the financial pain of fighting climate change is spread equally among both individuals and industry. Why should the poor/middle class pay the highest price (e.g. increasing gas prices, forcing the poor to buy newer vehicles because their older vehicles won’t meet emission standards) while industry gets off scott-free? When government’s refuse to distribute the pain fairly (e.g. a carbon tax/caps) or when they choose to do nothing, people start to get angry. The oil/energy industry is making billions in profits and fat cat energy industry execs and CEO’s receive double-digit million dollar paychecks/bonuses.
I also find it very curious that even though our Conservative government is unpopular and tanking in the polls, it can still afford to waste buckets of money each season on misleading, untimely advertising against the Liberals, their main opponents. It’s getting hard not to notice the big, freewheeling spending by this party even though an election may not be called for years.