I have been watching with interest the candidacy of Libertarian Ron Paul. Like many, I’ve been wondering what the heck is is doing in this race in the first place. Let’s face it, even in the GOP field of candidates he doesn’t fit in well. Naturally, he is a whipping boy for the GOP establishment… well, maybe just a laughing stock, would be more accurate. But, there is real substance to Mr. Paul, a substance that is all too easy to gloss over by focussing on his quirks. And he does serve a very important purpose; he helps bring the debate to the right. A necessary pull with Mitt the Malleable and Rudy the lefty in the race.
Being of a libertarian bent myself, I see a lot of merit in Mr. Paul’s focus on taking government out of things as opposed to trying to find new and expansive (not to mention expensive) ways for government to meddle in our lives. His voice is a welcome change in this direction.
However, his chief flaw is his overly simplistic approach to the war — and this is the single most important issue of our day. This is the main reason he is uncredible as a possible president one who, should he be elected, would have to deal far more with foreign threats and diplomacy than that of other, past presidents.
Last Sunday’s debate was a prime example of the unsuitability of his candidacy for our times. From his constant and easily ridiculed use of the word “Neocons” in practically every answer he gave, to his policy suggestion that we “just leave” Iraq as if it were merely a bad movie we could walk out on with no consequences, made him look… well… off his nut.
Like I said, I agree with much of Mr. Paul’s ideas on government. But his claim that we should “just leave” Iraq is entirely empty of any thought whatsoever. If he were the president in charge of the original decision, he could have been heeded and let the chips fall where they may. However, he would be a president that would inherit this situation already developed. This being true there is no serious option to “just leave” and be done with it without causing irreparable damage to all parties concerned. Well, all parties but al Qaeda that is.
In fact, during the debate he mentioned that we should also have “just left” Vietnam but didn’t seem to recognize the many millions that communism murdered after we did, ultimately, just leave. Additionally, his denial that the “domino theory” is discredited was so wrong it is laughable. The theory that communism would over take every small nation in its path was absolutely true. The only reason they are not all still communist (even as some still are) today is because the Soviet’s communism failed to sustain itself. This ultimate failure does not discredit the domino theory and the fact that more countries didn’t turn to communism is expressly because we fought communism via the Cold War. It was not mere happenstance as Paul seems to contend.
Still, I disagree with people that say his ideas of isolationism are not “conservative” ideas, of course. In fact, his stay-out-of-it attitude is one of the oldest conservative policy ideas since day one of any conservative movement in America. Since the turn of the century the GOP had the stay-out-of-it mode of thinking and this idea persisted as a common GOP attitude until recently. This included being skeptical of the 1900s “American Empire” as well as wishing to stay out of both World Wars, Korea and Vietnam. This particular idea is based on a somewhat mistaken belief in language contained in Washington’s Final Address to the nation upon his retirement. Many conservatives feel George Washington warned against foreign entanglements in that address. This, however, is based on an incomplete knowledge of what was already going on in Washington D.C. (and had been for decades before Washington retired) between the US government and foreign nations and what Washington really meant. A closer reading of history would support that, at the time of his retirement, Washington thought the USA was not militarily ready for such entanglements, and could not back up whatever position the country would take, not that the USA should never get in them in the future. Regardless of its beginning, though, Republicans have usually leaned toward a trade-with-them but stay-out-of-it ideal.
In this Paul is living up to the more prevalent GOP inclination. And I cannot say he is wholly wrong in this inclination on an average day, in a relatively safe and stable world.
But we are not in average times. Al Qaeda would love us to fall back to old GOP isolationism so that they could roam the world unopposed doing their level best to murder and steal their way to power. There is no material difference between the threat that Islamofascism offers us and that which Hitler’s empire building offered in the 1930’s. The only real difference is that Islamofascism is not all rolled up in the personage of one man who controls one militant state as did Hitler.
But, this difference makes their efforts at the same time more resilient and far more dangerous than was Hitler. And this is a point that Ron Paul’s overly simplistic policy of “just go home” cannot contend with.
Abandoning the battlefield will neither make us safe, nor solve the Islamofacist problem. Nor would our “just leaving” turn Islamofascism from “our” problem to “their” problem by virtue of our barricading ourselves within our own borders, leaving the problem to Europe and others to contend with. It would not be safely left “over there” should we just abandon the whole enterprise of the War on Terror. Not only is this a craven action against our allies by abandoning them in a time of great need, but it will not, in the end, make us any safer at all for the simple fact that it will merely follow us home from Iraq.
By the terrorist’s own words and deeds, Iraq is the central front for the Jihadist movements. If we turn tail and run, this will not mollify them but will embolden them to gather strength and follow us home, here , to our very shores.
Ron Paul has some great ideas about limited government. I like a lot of what he says. But Ron Paul is not the man we need to lead us in these dangerous times.
22 users commented in " What IS Wrong With Ron Paul? "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackI completely agree with you about Ron Paul. When he was a guest on Bill Maher recently he said we should close the CIA among other insane suggestions. The guy makes himself sound like a whack job and he is pretty much nothing more than the Republican Party’s Dennis Kucinich.
“I completely agree with you about Ron Paul. When he was a guest on Bill Maher recently he said we should close the CIA among other insane suggestions. The guy makes himself sound like a whack job and he is pretty much nothing more than the Republican Party’s Dennis Kucinich.”
Because the CIA has been so right on? This organization has been a mess from the start and apparently their failed intelligence got us 9/11 AND Iraq, so I don’t think creating the DHS was the answer. And with the “just leave” portion, do you mean to tell me that we actually care about the Iraqi people? I mean if we leave wouldn’t there just be bloodshed between the two tribes, which would be killing off all of these terrorists? Isn’t this a reason why we are really in the Middle East, because they are having 10 times as many births as Americans, which in 2 generations will have them outnumbering us by millions and millions of Muslims, err people?
If we can adopt a non-interventionist policy we won’t have to worry about the Arabs storming our beaches, because despite all of the lies you hear they don’t hate us for our freedoms, they hate us because we believe we have the freedom to march around their land try to make it into the next big free-market.
He’s an actually most Conservative Republican, not a “neo con”.
He believes the most import job of any one in public office is to protect the Constitution. Plain and simple.
Any one who tries to attack Ron Paul on issues, better go and read the Constitution first and foremost.
Ron Paul 2008.
The rEVOLution will be Youtubed!
The CIA, and blackwater security = the palace guards. Only Congress is supposed to be able to provide for a mercenary force. How do you feel about Hillary Clinton having executive authority to hire thousands of Highly trained mercenaries through the CIA and order them to do whatever, wherever without any oversite ?
During WWII there was no CIA, It was established in 1947, and made secret and unaccountable in 1949. Shortly thereafter we started not having congress declare wars, and not winning wars. Spying should be done through Department of state, and through department of defense, and should be accountable to congress.
Oh will you guys drop the follow us home bit already? If the terrorists wanted to hit us, they could easily walk across the US Mexico border and wreck chaos. The founding fathers knew you make your own home safe, not worry about everyone elses. Trade is good, helping is good if needed. But this modern Neo Imperialism is not the type of foreighn policy they would have supported. Just leaving Iraq is the shortest path to to loosing no more troops there. Spin it all you like, but most people realize it. Not all agree, and I myself feel a little responsiblity for the mess our country created. But we are only making it worse, Washington has failed to devlier, and the Iraqi’s don’t seem to want us there. Well, our puppet goverment does, because they will fall like a house of cards.
The hard truth is that the average Iraqi didn’t want out brand of democracy. So it’s not much of a suprise they aren’t willing to fight to keep it. And despite civilian casualties they aren’t going to side with what they justifiably see as the occuping force of invaders. Just think of our own country. Many don’t like the current president. Even calling for impeachement. But do you seriously think we would support say China if they attacked and deposed him? Hell no, we would be fighting from every rooftop and forest. Assuming the facist leaning idiot has left us any guns to fight with by then. =)
I support Ron, and Ames proved the conspiracy of a few online hackers is bull. Of course most reasonble folks already knew that. As I see it, we won’t have as many hostile threats to deal with once he is elected. As far as foreighn relations, Canada, Britian, Germany, and France all have groups of citizens that support Paul. They can’t vote, but how many other canidates can say they are popular in other countrys? A policy of a millitarly strong non interventionst country will help repair our world respect.
Al Qaeda can not be defeated by a conventional war, for they are not a conventional enemy. The foe is a multinational terror group, and should be attacked surgicaly. Air strikes, missle strikes, and special ops raids. We are by no means the only country, let others work towards this while we put our constitution back together. Might we get bombed? Won’t be the first time. But now everyone is terrifed of the ideal because of fear mongering. Good think the soviets didn’t car bomb us and bring our country crashing down. Come on folks, we faced down 40,000 nucular weapons and a massive soviet army for about 60 years. I think we can survive a group of terrorists.
What you call over simplified forgin pollicy I call the TRUTH and anyone who says we need to proceed slowly in Iraq (leaving) is full of S#it. If we do not “just go home” as Dr. Paul recomends we will be there forever. If we pull out slow it will endanger those left behind and if we wait untill the Iraq “Government” get their act together then we will be there forever or we will just train and arm those who will turn aginst us later (just like Osama and Sadam did). (After all we can not even stop violence or protect our boarders at home so…. How will we do it for another country?)
The Democrats that lied saying they were going to end the war and did not, will not and do not know how and the Republicans that would rather see that Iraq has schools and health care over us so they can start pumping that oil are all fu9ked in the head. It will take a man of courage like Ron Paul to admit we made a mess and let Iraq heal it self on its own terms and save our economy. So…. Those of you who want to hear a big long complex plan for getting out of Iraq you might as well be honest with your self. You are a nation builder, you think Governemnt is the answer to our problems and not the cause of them. You can’t wait for the day the first Wal Mart is built in Iraq and don’t care if our economy goes in the crapper in the process.
Times are not any more dangerous than they were in the 1960s stop listening to the fearmongering!
We have to stop encouraging terrorists by killing their families in forgin lands acting like we own the world then we have to make sure every American is looking for terrorists (and other criminals) at home and that their 2nd amendment rights will be protected so that they can protect their family. Imagine if some ex millitary guy or the airline could have had a gun on the planes on 911 (thank you FAA for protecting us from our self). For Chris above…. What Dr. Paul means is ……
If our FBI was doing its job we would not need a CIA, if we we really had a Department of Defence and a true National Gaurd, rather than Dept of Offence with our National Gaurd in Iraq, why would we need Homeland Security Department? Insanity is taking the word of the same idiots who lied to us to get us in to war about what would happen if we came home. Insanity is thinking that terrorists are more dangerous than countries with Air Power and thousands of Nukes so you give up your liberty and vote for the guy you think is going to protect you. Guess what. They failed to protect you on 911 and their actions overseas are the reason the much of the world hates us. Wake up and smell the freedom!
So many people want to mischaracterize Ron Paul, you have to wonder — WHY?.
Why are people afraid of FREEDOM? Why are people afraid of reducing federal govt down to its Constitutionally authorized purpose? Why are people so afraid to be responsible for themselves instead of depending on the govt to take care of their every need?
It’s not like the govt is doing a good job; it’s doing a horrid job, actually! With the supposedly superior intelligence of the CIA, the advanced military, being the ONLY superpower in the world, having a full arsenal of nuclear weapons — we still could not prevent 911?! And look at the mess of Katrina, as another non-terrorist-related example. We are so weakened militarily, our borders are wide open, we wouldn’t even be able to protect ourselves in another attack.
Why is it people still want to allow the federal govt to have so much control, so much input into their lives, when the govt has failed so miserably?
Ron Paul represents an acknowledgment of the failure of our federal govt to provide the people what they claim they will provide (and charging us an arm & a leg while they’re at it, along with the cost of our liberties & God-given civil rights).
That’s what scares people – having to admit that our govt HAS ALREADY FAILED US. The average person will not believe that until there is a huge stock market crash & the economy collapses in a big, undeniable way, and we become the type of prisoners in our land as say the Russians were under the Soviet Union. People don’t want to believe it now, because that means they would HAVE TO take action.
I support Ron Paul not because I believe in every stance he takes, but because if we keep living under the neo-con leadership (Democrat or Republican) I know I will no longer have the freedom to protest any of the issues I care about. I will lose my civil rights further & further, big corporations will continue to gain power, and the people will be living like serfs no different that in the old days of Europe.
If Ron Paul becomes president, at least these issues would be in the public arena so more Americans could open their eyes to see the fascist state we are becoming.
If Ron Paul becomes president, we have a chance at reversing this trend and returning to a free, secure and prosperous America.
Peace.
What a mess!!
Just give the “peaceful” Kurds $10 billion dollars and a lot of weapons so they can defend themselves from the Turks and Iranians. Tell them if they attack Iran or Turkey they will get no more money.
And support anyone else in Iraq who just wants to defend themselves and not attack others. Good luck finding them! But at least try.
We also need to allow immigration to all in Iraq who helped us. They are in for a BAD time when we leave or lose.
And we should just come home. Now as soon as we can arrange it.
Stick a fork in it. We are done. America screwed up. We can NOT fix Iraq without killing more people than will be killed anyway when we leave. And we really can fix it by doing what the Russians did when they subjugated Moslem countries early in the 20th century, which is by being incredibly brutal and ruthless. And threatening to kill 50% of the males in a village and actually killing entire villages. Word gets out. People will quit shooting at you. Hitler knew how to do it by killing every tenth man in villages with freedom fighters. It will work. At least on the surface for a few generations. Become Saddam Hussein and you will be ruthless enough to control Iraq and bring “peace”. I do not want to be part of this evil against God. I do not want America to do it either, no matter how much we sugar coat it that we are “saving” Iraq and fighting the Islamic fascists. What idiocy. How easily we are manipulated!
We are the good guys. We do not do that sort of thing. (Or did not used to anyway!) We also did not threaten preemptive wars and look for excuses to go to war, well maybe we did but we did not brag about it and deny it or change the story when caught in a lie about WMDs. (Well maybe Gulf of Tonkin.)
I know some folks want to believe that Vietnam was a good war but ask 10 old guys in person about the Vietnam War. The majority will tell you the truth about what really happened and how much Vietnam wanted to be saved for democracy. And more importantly how well the same tactics we are using NOW in Iraq worked in Vietnam. We have learned NOTHING. I take that back. The old guys in the military know exactly what the problems were in Vietnam and how they relate to Iraq.
Their commander-in-chief has given them a job, and as they should do; they are attempting to do it. (But when they get in the voting booth or the run up to it, Ron Paul is the leading recipient of military contributions out of ALL the Presidential candidates now running in both parties. What does that tell you?)
Just come home.
I am tired of the killing and the 5 year old girls being deliberately killed because they happen to be in a house with the #2 bad guy in Iraq. Necessary collateral damage? She and her mother did not deserve to die. I do not want to be part of the killing. How would you like it, if it were your 5 year old daughter, sister, niece, or grand daughter? Oh it’s OK! It is just collateral damage in an unwinnable war. Again more sarcasm.
I am ashamed of America.
I want Osama Bin Laden and George Bush in jail together for war crimes. Osama can not get to Bush and Bush can not kill Osama. So they both think it is OK to kill a lot of other innocent people who just want to live in peace without suffering.
Ron Paul is right:
“Just come home.” ……. “Just come home.”
And let’s get a new President AND let’s catch Osama bin Laden.
Why are people scared of freedom and Ron Paul? Because with freedom comes responsibility, and people don’t want to be responsible anymore. Because with Ron Paul comes the truth, and people don’t want the truth. As a nation we’ve become too fat, dumb, egotisctical, and distracted by entertainment and its gizmos to pay attention to serious important stuff anymore. The corporatists who control the means of becoming fat, dumb, and distracted, and addicted to those things, want it that way because it makes them money.
Meanwhile our own nation’s infrastructure is crumbling, one bridge at a time. Our education system is failing to keep up with even the basics (52% illiteracy rate in Los Angeles Unified Public Schools alone!). Our soils are being depleted and crops failing from it in the name of GMOs and corporate profit from non-sustainable petroagriculture, so we get garbage-quality foods loaded with addictive chemicals like MSG to hide the bad taste and quality and make us obese. We’ve sacrificed far too much at the altar of technology and so-called “advancement”. Pollution and avoidable diseases are running like rampant, especially obesity and addiction (from both legal and illegal drugs!).
It’s time to get back to basics!
Skip the enertainment. Educate the kids. Rebuild the infrastructure. Restore the heartland. Let people be free and responsible for themselves instead of slaving away for The Corporate Man and The Government Man.
How does Ron Paul fit into that? He represents those very ideals. He wants to get the federal government back to its basics to free up the people and resources to do all the other basics at the state and local level. We don’t NEED a federal nanny. The whole premise of the vertical checks and balances that used to exist in the Constitution (before 1913) were to have the states and people handcuff the federal government from getting out of control. Since then the states have lost their voice to the 17th Amendment, the debit economy has been taken hostage by the Federal Reserve and mutated into a credit economy, and the people have lost their voice by the 16th Amendment, the Patriot Act, and a slew of other legislation that has sucked away the Bill of Rights like water down a power-flush toilet. Ron Paul represents what worked then and that it can work again IF WE HELP HIM GET THERE! He wants to help us, but to help us, we need to help him. In the end, by helping him, we really do help ourselves.
If you disagree with Ron Paul’s platform, then fine, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say his ideas about Iraq are not well thought out. I suggest you read Ron Paul’s book on foreign policy, A Foreign Policy of Freedom, if you want a better explanation as to his motivations for withdrawal as well as the consequences.
“This is the main reason he is uncredible as a possible president one who, should he be elected, would have to deal far more with foreign threats and diplomacy than that of other, past presidents.”
If this is the case, then why are Ron Paul meetup groups sprouting spontaneously *around the world*?
Mr. Paul is not a Libertarian. He is a Republican and hopefull they will keep him. His conservative views on moral issues are not libertarian. Voting for federal restrictions on abortion is neither federalism nor libertarian. His opposition to separation of church and state is not libertarian. His use of earmarks is not libertarians. His poor voting record, when it comes to voting for anti-port legislation, is not libertarian. His wacko banking conspiracy nonsense is not libertarian. His anti-immigration stand is not libertarian. Building a wall costing billions in taxes and which will use eminent domain is not libertarian.
I think that is a pretty fair analysis, though I don’t agree entirely, i’m going to assume you are 100% correct.
So please take this a step further and analzye the monetary costs of our foreign policy. The dollar has fallen sharply since 2002, the federal budget has balooned from $1.7 trillion to $2.8 since 2000. Funding our “empire” costs nearly half a trillion a year now for the military.
At the same time, unfunded government liabilities are nearly $60 trillion – $500,000 per household.
I do believe that radical fundamentalist movements are very dangerous. But they simply CAN’T defeat us through a traditional military conflict. I think a much greater threat is that we ignore financial concerns and continue marching around the globe fighting “terror.” The single greatest victory for those bent on destroying America would be to help cause a collapse of the dollar or the economy in general, likely leading to a global financial crisis. Just as Hitler rose to power in a post WWI economically depressed Germany, this would create the type of environment rich for Bin Ladin types to move out of caves and into state power positions.
So, assuming you’re right and folks who have said this could be a century long battle against fundamentalism are also correct, wouldn’t 4-8 years of true fiscal conservatism better prepare us for this struggle? Wouldn’t a return to fiscal sanity be our best long-term defense of the American economy?
We are supposedly the richest nation in the world, yet we borrow over $2 billion PER DAY from foreign investors (mostly Chinese) to fund our domestic spending and foreign policy. I prefer not to underestimate my enemies – they understand they can’t win a traditional military fight with us – But they are resilient, driven by emotion and irrationalities. If their long term plans involve breaking the American economy by baiting us into war after war, they’re doing a good job at it.
The sad truth is that most people wouldn’t know what to do with the amount of freedom Ron Paul wants us to have. That’s why they are scared: they can’t imagine a country doesn’t provide them with cradle to grave entitlements and nannying. Better to have to face this now, through a peaceful revolution, rather than through a bloody battle like the War of Independence, after it gets much worse.
Dangerous times? The only danger in these times comes from the US itself…
Get some perspective. More people drown in their bathtubs than die from terrorism. Get a grip and don’t buy into the fear you’ve been fed.
I like Ron. I relaly do, and I would be fully supporting him in a normal world…
BUT!
This is a post 9/11 world and while his domestic economic stances are 110% in tune with what I want to see I think he misunderestamates the severity of the war on terror and how vital it is to the survival of our country and all peace loving (or peace desiring) people!
Why must people pull out the 9/11 bogeyman? If the terrorists were able to attack us they would have easily done so through the sieve that is our borders years ago. Don’t pretend to think the alphabet soup that is our “homeland defense” is any great protection.
I would rather have a 9/11 attack every day of the week than give up my liberties. 3000 people died – should 300 million cower in fear?
We use to do battles with some of the worlds most powerful armies… Now we run from unknown bad guys…. My WW2 surviving grandfather would be appalled to see what we have become. The war on Terror will be just like the war on drugs, never ending, spend money, and losted freedoms.
This world is not magically more dangerous than it was six years ago, or twelve years ago, or one hundred years ago. Hell, I’d say Madison was President in a far more dangerous time. At least we don’t need to worry about the world’s superpower invading our eastern shore. Madison had to deal with British cannons; Paul would not have to deal with Iranian bombs or Syrian missiles or North Korean naval vessels. He’d have to deal with a nasty brand of domestic violence, which any leader in any time must be prepared to deal with.
Some people, including some Muslims, utilized the tactic of terrorism against the US before 2000 and before 1992 and before 1988, etc. Osama bin Laden was a real and credible threat when Bush was running for office, yet he seemed to get a lot of support for his “no nation building” rhetoric. To say that we need a stronger executive to combat these “dangerous times” is, in the end, to support the loss of our civil liberties. Although, granted, you spoke about the war and not the anti-terrorism tactics used domestically.
And seriously, how can anyone say “they’ll follow us home”? Who is going to follow us home? The band of al Qaeda in Iraq? They’ll be wiped out by Iraqis long before they can get their Air Iraq boarding passes. The bulk of the fighting in Iraq is by insurgents, whose goal is to create an Iraq in their own image. They have no qualm with the people of the United States, and no ambitions to overthrow or damage the US. They want their country, not ours.
Lastly, I find your comment about the domino effect and Hitler ridiculous. The benefit of having such oppressive governments: political movements are crushed quite quickly. And hey, if “Islamofascists” do gain control of a MidEast state, we can declare war and crush them, should they pose a threat to us.
So you are basically saying that these Car Bombs are going to somehow threaten our national Security? You do realize that if Iraq was indeed a threat to the USA they would have to pose a threat by Air or Sea first. They don’t have that technology and flying an airplane into anything won’t ever work again.
By the way all, Terrorism is done without motive. Motive for 911, our intervening foreign policy. We stay out of the affairs of the middle east, we stay out of war for foreign countries protection.
We are not a world police and we will not lose the blood of one more single American if that loss is not for the life of another American. Bottom Line!
We don’t need big brother. If an infiltration of Enemies were to step foot on American Soil, we have that Right to Militia. Stop allowing our government to raise protected pussies. We need to stand for something and be brave.
Without Ron Paul we will continue to lose the value of our dollar and our jobs will continue to be outsourced.
911 was not terrorism or Hate of OUR FREEDOM! It was revenge for the loss of Islamic lives. You people need to realize that our illegal allies are in dire need of protection. Infiltrating our government was the first step to that protection.
How’s that Hope and Change working out?
Don’t blame me… I wrote-in Ron Paul!
Leave A Reply