-By Warner Todd Huston
I have been watching with interest the candidacy of Libertarian Ron Paul. Like many, I’ve been wondering what the heck he 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 focusing 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 presents to us and that which Adolph Hitler’s empire building presented 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 much of what he says. But Ron Paul is not the man we need to lead us in these dangerous times. In fact, he’s just the wrong one.
Update: 8/9/07
Brit Hume is reporting that Ron Paul is responsible for grabbing $400 million worth of earmarks for Texas this year.
Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul — who is campaigning as a critic of congressional overspending — has revealed that he is requesting $400 million worth of earmarks this year.
The Wall Street Journal reports Paul’s office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.
A spokesman says, “Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it’s not by accident.”
OK, what is the deal with Mr. Constitution here?
Now, I have lost even more respect for him. Though, granted, in this age it is awful hard to exist as a politician without participating in such theft, still it is amazing that Mr. Constitution did it considering his vehement and vociferous declamations against others.
I guess Mr. Constitution is not so staunch a believer as he claims?
____________
Warner Todd Huston’s thoughtful commentary, sometimes irreverent often historically based, is featured on many websites such as newsbusters.org, townhall.com, men’snewsdaily.com and americandaily.com among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a guest on several radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture” which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of publiusforum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions : EMAIL Warner Todd Huston
It seems like you think that leaving Viet Nam was the wrong decision and now should not leave Iraq.
You say you’re a Libertarian, so that means that you (in all likelyhood) read 1984.
“War is Peace”
“Freedom is Slavery”
“Ignorance is Strength”
Pretty eerie how spot on he was compared to today’s political climate.
“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.”
I think you hit the nail on the head right there. I love Ron Paul’s stance on just about every other issue, but when it comes to the war he seems to just want to bail out and let hell break loose.
“Brit Hume is reporting that Ron Paul is responsible for grabbing $400 million worth of earmarks for Texas this year.”
This is true, but misleading. The earmarks were for monies already appropriated, they added no additional spending, they did not increase taxes. As a Congressman who feels that the government shouldn’t have taken the money to begin with, why wouldn’t he ask for it back on behalf of his constituents?
response for Update:
All Ron Paul does is forward the requests of his constituents to the committee that’s in charge of the bill his constituents want it attached to. And then votes against the bills that he’s submitted earmarks to.
It was mentioned on http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17200494/site/newsweek/
as i see it, we have 2 choices, vote for anyone else and have the same ol same ol or vote for ron paul and hope that he will be able to change the direction of the country. all this other stuff is over and done with.
That is one of the most mistake-laden article I’ve ever read.
First of all: the old Republican party was not isolationist, it was non-interventionist. It was American intervention on WW1, which was the prize the Jews gave to Great Britian in exchange for the Balfour Declaration, which created the conditions that allowed a Hitler to come to power in WW2. Interventionism is disastorous.
Second of all: Ron Paul has received more contributions from active military personel than any other presidential candidate. This is because people serving in the military know the real issues facing America and know Ron Paul is fighting the right right. This is also because all soldiers swear oath to protect the constitution, and Ron Paul is the only statesman to work to defend the constitution.
Third: America’s economy is being challenged by other powers, because is America is being bogged down. This is the greatest issue facing American national security.
And you have the unmitigated gall to use our founding fathers portrait as a portion of the title page of this rag! You consider yourself historically accurate? A farce indeed Sir! Dr. Paul’s stance on the war is dead on. Ron Paul isn’t merely looking at the past ten years of middle eastern policy to formulate his opinion about the proper course America should pursue. It takes balls of steel to take the principled positions that Dr. Paul has taken and stand behind them with facts and evidence to support those positions. He understands completely why they hate us, it is very obvious to people who are not afraid to delve into history and see events unfolding that point to the real reasons. The turning point for this country is the Wilson presidency, who by his own admission (according to Wilson’s grandson’s book)that he has unwittingly destroyed his government by allowing it to be hijacked by the NEO-Conservative factions within the government.
In order to remain objective you must first try to decide for yourself the true reasoning for the hatred directed towards the United States. If you believe in your heart that they hate us for our freedoms or our debauched lifestyle and that is the driving force for their hatred towards America, then there will be no convincing you otherwise. But, perhaps you should take a look at the information you used in order to formulate that opinion to see if you performed your due diligence. How did you come to know what you know? Did you base your opinion on facts through research? Or are you simply restating someone else’s beliefs because you are either unwilling or too lazy to do the research yourself! I think that if you did perform just a couple hours of research into our history you would be surprised to learn how our government has toppled elected governments throughout the world in order to place a puppet regime that would be sympathetic to their neo-con agenda. Our forefathers were great historians, and were so for good cause. They wanted to discover why other civilizations failed and to improve upon the positive attributes and avoid the negative ones. Dr. Paul is doing the very same thing by researching the ROOT CAUSES of the problems we face in the Middle East and not simply what ass puppets like Hannity, O’liely, Limbaugh, or Beck tells us. Please share with the rest of the class the type of research that you have performed about the positions of Dr. Ron Paul on the Illegal occupation in Iraq? How exactly did you come to the conclusion that Dr. Paul is wrong and that your view is correct? Surely you must be able to write an article describing the ways that you researched these very important issues in order to arrive at the beliefs that you espouse. Please Sir, I’d be very anxious to learn the lengths with which you have taken in order to write such an ill reasoned piece.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stephen Dupont
New Bedford, Massachusetts
… dontcha just LOVE the replies that are one giant paragraph where the commenter scolds everyone else about how stupid they are?
Ron Paul can not be a president for simple reason. He is not an ASS HOLE