Copyright © 2011 by (Jeremy Lawson)
I want to pose a hypothetical question. Suppose it is near to Christmas, and you decide make a roast beef. So, you choose a butcher several weeks before the holiday. You examine the various butchers’ reviews on Yelp, and look at their websites in order to ascertain which one would best fit your needs. You ultimately go to Johnson’s Butchery, and order the roast several weeks in advance.
Along comes Christmastime. You go to Johnson’s to pick up your roast, and when you get home you discover that he has actually given you a section of ham. Your meal is ruined. You write a scathing review on Yelp, and promise yourself that you will never go back.
Next year, during the holidays, you once again survey Yelp. Despite your previous bad experience, there is still a temptation to order from Johnson’s butchery. After all, even though your order was filled incorrectly, they have a snazzy new website, and legions of positive customer reviews on Yelp, and the butcher was extremely consoling and apologetic when you didn’t get what you wanted last year. So this year, you decide to try Johnson’s again, ordering well in advance.
Once again, when Christmastime rolls around, you bring the package home, and find that you’ve been had. Your roast beef has turned into ham once again.
This may seem ridiculous, but this example serves a distinct purpose; it is analogous to the experience of the American voter. Politicians run on one platform, promising one thing, and then deliver something completely different once in power.
Take Newt Gingrich. Gingrich was part of the House Republican coalition that attempted to impeach Bill Clinton for hiding his affair with a government aid. At the same time, he was having an affair with a government aid. Gingrich flip-flopped on Libya, climate-change, healthcare, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (How strange that, at the same time Newt was excoriating these government-sponsored enterprises, he was under contract with Freddie, being paid $1.6 million to $1.8 million to help the company “strategize”.)
Or take Mitt Romney. He was for amnesty, before he was against it. He was for abortion rights, before he was against them. He was for gay marriage, before he was against it. The list goes on: stimulus, healthcare, immigration, the auto-bailout, gun-control... With this record, the promises he is making on the campaign trail are worth less than a Zimbabwean dollar.
Whether the hypocrisy is to be found in the candidate’s personal conduct, or in his waffling on policy decisions, it is still hypocrisy.
Flip-flop, hip-hop. In financial economics, real present value of an asset decreases as
expectations about its future performance become less certain. What is the current valuation of a Gingrich presidency, or a Romney presidency? Are we willing to vote for an unknown quantity over Obama? While it is true that Obama has enacted many policies with which I disagree, he is a known quantity. I’m familiar with the mix of progressive and Neoconservative interest groups for which Obama pulls, and can tolerate it. I cannot say the same of any of the Republican presidential candidates, save one.
Ron Paul is a known quantity. True, he does not have a fancy page on Yelp; he does not have at his disposal a plethora of soundbites for media consumption. He occasionally stumbles over words, because the ideas to which his muse speaks are complex. He is honest. He has been voting based upon philosophical underpinnings that have changed little over the course of his career. When he has changed a position, he has made clear the reasons underlying his ideological shift. Though I do not agree with Paul on all the issues, I know where he stands. And perhaps most importantly, I know what I am voting for, not what I am voting against.
