Paul’s bold stands can lead to bold solutions

Whether you love him or hate him, one thing you can’t criticize Ron Paul for is his history of backing up his message with a consistent voting record on the issues he believes are central to the country.

Before you make the assumption that this is another column seeking to persuade you Ron Paul should be President , think again.

While I strongly agree with some of Paul’s economic stances, I am by no means in the Ron Paul camp. Nevertheless, Congressman Paul has exhibited a type of ethical character that is absent from both sides of the aisle in Washington. It’s because of this, among other reasons, that I have a huge amount of admiration for the congressman.

Ron Paul is one of the few politicians who backs his words with actions.

Too often from Washington, Americans hear hollow platitudes about how they are going to change this or do that. Sadly, though, when push comes to shove, it goes right back to the partisan gridlock on the most important issues.

Self-interest and winning elections have seemingly become more important than fulfilling our government’s original intent: Serving the American people.

Both parties have a strong tendency to reward elected officials who toe the party line with caucus leadership positions and punish those who go against the grain with political exile.

These party-favoring tactics have never stopped Ron Paul from voting against his party when they take a stance he doesn’t believe in. A perfect example is when he was one of only a few Republicans to boldly vote against the war in Iraq.

Whether he gets called the "crazy uncle in the attic" or the "libertarian loon," Congressman Paul has proven time and again that he will not sacrifice his beliefs for political or personal gain.

Had Ron Paul critiqued some of his less popular political stances, he could have at the very least become a much bigger factor in the Republican primary, maybe even beyond that. Would it have really been that big a deal, considering the amount of flip-flopping that occurs in Washington? Did the criticism of his strict adherence to the Constitution ever once faze Ron Paul? Not one bit. The current Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has flip-flopped on several issues he once took an opposite stance on. It’s pretty safe to guess this was at least partially due to political pressure from the Republican Party to appeal to more of the voting base. The other side is also by no means immune from the same type of political flip-flopping. To a varying degree, President Obama has done the same.

Ron Paul’s stances may not necessarily be the solution to many of the questions facing America’s future.

What would be an answer to many of these questions, though, is men and women who share his unshakable devotion to the American people.

Don’t get me wrong. There’s a time and a place to take a stand on the particular issues you find important. We need intense debate when we don’t agree with the other party or our own. What we don’t need, however, is the dysfunctional kind of blame game that infects all parts of Washington.

It’s been shown time and again when the parties find a way to come together in the interests of the people that things do get accomplished. With the absence of leadership in Washington on both sides of the aisle, Americans are stuck with a dysfunctional government.

This is the underlying reason Congress, now more than ever, needs the unwavering moral ethic of Paul to battle some of the biggest challenges our country has faced in generations – maybe ever.