Ron Paul Redux

In my last commentary on Ron Paul, I was twice invited by "anonymous" to read Ron Paul's site. They apparently thought I had not done this in the first place. I did go back and look again at his positions and came away with the same feeling I had before. Some of his ideas are solid, but a few would put the country in danger.

Smaller government that puts more freedom into the hands of the people represents a positive good. We definitely need to roll back liberal cuts in property and education rights. As far as domestic ideas on individual rights are concerned, Ron Paul has good ideas. Fortunately Fred Thompson and other Republican candidates share Paul's desire to protect property rights, gun rights, and the right of every unborn child to live.

Paul's foreign policy ideas are, however, disastrous. They run absolutely contrary to the actions of the Founding Fathers when they assumed the presidency. Paul believes that military force ought not be used without a direct declaration of war by Congress. Again, the Founders themselves did not believe that this was reasonable. George Washington launched three wars against the Shawnee Nation and after his presidency supported an undeclared war against France launched by John Adams. Washington's Farewell Address warning about entanglements referred to alliances with Europe and most likely was meant to be a short term warning. Washington's actions throughout his life reflected those of a man who was flexible and adaptive to changing situations, never dogmatic.

Congress did not declare war against the Barbary Pirates in either the Jefferson or Madison administration. Each one of these men supported military action without the direct assent of Congress. Madison and Washington wielded powerful influences over the creation of the Constitution. If any men understood what it meant, these would be two. Jefferson advocated a very limited role for the chief executive, but still sent the Navy and Marines into action to protect US interests.

Paul's position on Iraq has no basis in reality and shows an appalling lack of any kind of sense about geopolitics. References to creating more enemies simply do not hold water and do not reflect the shifting and complex nature of society and politics in the Middle East. National Security means that the US needs to be involved in regions throughout the world. If a grease fire started in your kitchen, would you put it out immediately, or wait until your entire home was threatened? "No win police actions" and other uses of the military that Paul disdains head off more dangerous conflicts down the road. If we had the same foreign policy in the 1930s that we do now, millions of lives and trillions of dollars would have been saved. Paul has forgotten the lessons of 9/11, much less Munich and Pearl Harbor.

As far as NAFTA is concerned, neither the Canadians nor the United States want a European Union style system. Canada very jealously guards its cultural and political independence from possible US encroachment. That being said the EU represents a powerful economic competitor as a unified economic zone. Paul points out that France has blocked sales of US products. So be it. The best way to react is through a coordinated response with our primary trade partners. The European Union already shows signs of strain due to its increasingly socialistic regulations and is no model to follow. When BMW shows that Spartanburg, South Carolina is a better place to manufacture cars that their own country, it demonstrates that our system works. That being said, it is right to remain vigilant to make sure that Eurosocialism does not creep into our methods of doing business.

When it is all said and done, Paul is an idealist. Ideally the world's nations conduct their affairs reasonably, each nation peacefully advancing their own interest. In such a world Paul's ideas on foreign policy would be fine. The world has never reflected such a state. In both warfare and trade, the rest of the world does not play by the rules we would like to follow. We must follow a variety of strategies to protect our economic and political interests. Paul's ideas do not reflect reality. It is hard to tell what is more of a threat, Paul's dangerously ineffective idealism, or Obama's absolute vacancy. Likely we will never find out in either case.

*************************************************************************

By the way, some over the years have bemoaned the fact that big money often exercises influence over politics. This is especially true in West Virginia. For the most part, convention delegates whether committed or uncommitted paid their own fees and travel expenses. The exception lies in Paul's delegates. As was reported by Gary Abernathy and Vic Sprouse, Ron Paul's campaign paid many of the delegate fees. Some of the travel expenses were also covered for Paul delegates. Imagine that, the outsider candidate trying to purchase a convention victory in West Virginia. They did nothing illegal, but it does explain why they hold a lead in "committeds." Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John McCain and others could not afford to send a bunch of folks on a paid junket to Charleston.

Paul's campaign may be one of outsiders, but they learned some inside tricks in West Virginia politics fairly quickly.