Bonus Post 4: The Differences

     John Klein's book on the subject of establishment candidate Bill Clinton ran holistically counter to the decentralization of government that Ron Paul argues for. The former argued for increased government intervention, even if indirect through voucher systems, versus the latter's desire for complete and utter dismantlement of any government aid whatsoever. The first represents what is essentially the new form of mainstream government policy making: to reach a consensus in order to get much-needed reform past both houses in a bipartisan effort. In contrast, Dr. Paul insists on demolition of government, something that runs opposite to what the Clinton Administration did, favoring government intervention for most issues. While Clinton is a classic representation of today's establishment candidate, Paul is what is arguably the only representative of an anti-establishment group that has any significant sway nationally while still being vehemently opposed to any government involvement whatsoever. Clinton favored polling out options to such an extent that he even polled whether or not to tell the truth about the Lewinsky Scandal, a sensible if petty carefulness, while Paul refuses to budge on even the smallest of his policy ideas, something admirable though politically inadvisable in current times. Klein presents a very moderate position, giving credit where he believes it is due while also mercilessly attacking Clinton for the relatively few hiccups his campaign endured. The book written by Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a truly self-promoting piece of literature, one that defiantly and consistently boasts his way as the right way. To be fair Klein actually was somewhat outspoken on things like the fickleness of the public just like Clinton while Paul astutely appealed to it, but Klein never expressly states one position as superior to another, even when Clinton supported it. Paul's style speaks out in volumes to the one-track mindset that he expresses against conventional wisdom, and rightly so, as the book is after all Paul's go-to guide for his far more energetic supporters. What was synthesized was the political atmosphere is much more willing to come to agreement for common interests but loves to make a show of almost every other issue which there is not a mutual, profitable solution. Capitol Hill is not closed off to change, but understandably has it marked as a last resort in an environment in which stability has become valued above a purely pragmatic point of view. The lack of pragmatism is precisely what has given previous political outcasts such as Ron Paul the power to seriously challenge the establishment. The American People clearly want activism and are unnerved by the clearly reactionary Washington response to the unprecedented accountability and access to their lives that the Information Age affords. As an ironic backlash, the increased accountability has led to legislature which refuses to take risks against the conservatism that power holds, the very same power that actually helps to elect the legislature, the very same power the American People despise. That animosity and lack of trust has allowed a wide range of leaders with very different political ideologies to unite, even something as unfeasible as Ron Paul's virtual government shutdown, as long as the underlying motive is to bring much-wanted change and reform to Washington.