It’s great to see the attention Ron Paul is deservedly drawing.  When I lived in Texas he was my congressman—one of the most genuine politicians I have ever met.  When you ask him his “agenda,” reason for serving in Congress, or for running for President, he simply replies: “to defend the Constitution… to restore the republic.”

While at University I invited him to speak on campus, which he did, and then joined about fifteen students for late night pizza and beer, accompanied by a rousing discussion of economic theory.  Truly a great man.  Whether one agrees or not on his ultimate conclusions on matters, particularly the war, The Republican Party, and indeed the entire country, can only be benefited by the contribution he makes to national debate.  (We could have no doubt benefited from listening to him more often).  For those interested, his website is: http://www.RonPaul2008.com.

Dr. Paul was our Congressman back in the 80’s and my father was a strong supporter.  He currently represents part of my county and so speaks at the local Lincoln-Reagan day dinner.  He is a great fiscal and social conservative - but he is and has always been an isolationist.  The non-isolationsists may have made mistakes but I do not know how one escapes the fact that power abhors a vaccuum.  Anglo-Saxon hegemony since the battle of Waterloo (1815) has of course had its price in blood and treasure (and like Waterloo has at times been a close run thing) - but I fear the world would have been far scarier and poorer without it.

Respectfully, Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. Non-interventionists believe in active engagement with the rest of the world through peaceful, non-aggressive means such as trade, tourism, and communication. Isolationists on the other hand are the ‘America only’ crowd, wishing to implement anti-freemarket isolating trade barriers.

Ron Paul follows to the letter the just war theory—wars should only be waged in defense. While strong on defense, he stands against aggression—he is therefore consistently against the pre-emptive aggression of the Bush administration.

Ron Paul sees this as the only philosophically consistent Pro-Life position, and I must say that I agree with him. Ask yourself: is it okay to kill a fetus (or small baby) to save the lives of many adults through some medicinal therapy? Most pro-lifers would answer a deafening NO! If it is not okay to kill one person to save many others, then neither is it okay to bomb countries and kill many innocent civilians on the pretext that some members of that country may someday want to attack us. In my own view this is anything but pro-life.

As Jerod has already mentioned, kudos to Ron Paul for his principled stand. I pray that America is deserving of such a fine leader. Do check out more details at http://www.RonPaul2008.com

When you look at Ron Paul’s campaign website for what he intends to do about Muslim terror and Al Qaeda, you don’t find anything.  THe closest he gets to a position on fighting Al Qaeda is that we armed and trained them, and we’re paying the price.

I don’t think that that answers the mail.

A good question, Ed. Ron Paul believes in a strong defense. After September 11 he voted to authorize funds to enable President Bush to pursue the Al Qaeda and the perpetrators.

He is however against the current mideast policy. As a Jew who has lived in the Middle East, I must say that I agree with him—our actions there have not made the US or Israel safer countries. We have lost the propaganda war with the Arab population, and are engendering a whole new generation who hate everything we stand for. Our pre-emptive foreign policy is at best hypocritical, and at worst clearly self-serving. We trade with some egregious dictatorships (e.g., China), ignore the massacres propagated in others (e.g., Sudan), and invade others. We were not made to be rulers of the world, and we can’t force our way onto others while spending the savings of our grandchildren. Something has got to give.

He KNOWS economics. Well…many know economics, but he is not afraid to say in public what is really going on. Most people have not a clue. Most think that inflation is just ” things costing more”, when Paul will tell you, no…its that the Gov. is printing more money. Sure, with so much money in the system, people CAN raise prices. In other words, many things made or created cost LESS today to make, but cost us more——because of the governments printing of dollars.

But, he boggled the debates badly.

bl

Bob Lee wrote:
But, he boggled the debates badly.

Agreed. I cringed at times. Although a few months on the campaign trail has made him a far more eloquent speaker. As you mentioned, he always had substance, but his style is improving immensely.

For an example of both substance and style, I couldn’t recommend too highly watching the video of his visit to the Google Headquarters (before a predominately liberal audience). I’ve never heard a politician talk so eloquently and philosophically.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg&eurl=http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

No matter what you can say positive about Ron Paul, his detachment from reality on some matters is obvious. He’s been playing footsie with 9/11 Truthers lately, and consorting with a variety of anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers (nutjob radio host Alex Jones is a favorite interviewer of Paul’s). I’m not saying Paul is an anti-Semite or Holocaust denier, only that he seems completely clueless about the people he has allowed to latch on to his campaign, people who are attracted to him because of one or another of the extremist positions he takes on various issues. An organizer for the Paul campaign wrote to HQ a couple of weeks ago, and his e-mail says everything you need to know:

“We’re in a difficult position of working on a campaign that draws supporters from laterally opposing points of view, and we have the added bonus of attracting every wacko fringe group in the country….We absolutely must focus on Ron’s message only and put aside all other agendas, which anyone can save for the next ‘Star Trek’ convention or whatever.”

No matter what you can say positive about Ron Paul, his detachment from reality on some matters is obvious… extremist positions he takes on various issues

Respectfully, I’m curious as to his issues you consider extremist, since you didn’t care to enumerate. Could it be his stand for:

- less taxes and smaller government?
- the inviolable personhood of the unborn fetus?
- the belief that it is immoral to attack a country that has not attacked you?

These views don’t seem all that extreme to me, or to most other Americans.

Justinmartyr:
You are a great spokesman.  In 1980 my mother bundled me up -it was a cold november day - handed me a Ron Paul yard sign and I stood at the entrance of our neighborhood to remind folks to go vote on their way home.  In the 1982 Campaing Democrat Mike Andrews made hay on his defense votes (he was against the B-1 among other weopons systems).  Paul is a very good speaker - at the last Lincoln-Reagan dinner he was by far my favorite. There was loud applause on the domestic side - but politely quiet when he changed over to foreign policy.  He may be right that our foreign policy is not sustainable - but if our carriers no longer patrolled the Med and the South China sea - Israel and Taiwan would go quickly into the long night.  I do not think many Americans fully understand that the modern world was built by the Royal Navy as world policeman - and that we took over its beat after WWII. Were we to stop I do not know what would happen - I do not think anyone does. I would disagree that it is always immoral to attack a country that has not attacked you - England failed to go to war over the Czechs - as Churchill said Chamberlain had traded honor for peace - but having already lost his honor he would still have to later fight a war.

The extremist positions that come immediately to mind are:

1) Isolationism—Paul subscribes to the “Fortress America” idea of national defense. We should avoid alliances with other free nations, free trade agreements, or defending the defenseless. And his bases for this opposition is frequently out of the tinfoil hat set. This is how he explains his opposition to NAFTA:

“NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.”

2) His supposed “constitutionalism” sometimes takes very odd forms. For instance, he claims that the income tax is unconstitutional, despite the fact that it is specifically authorized by the 16th Amendment!

3) He would cut off all aid to Israel, and quite willingly throw our closest ally in the Middle East under the bus.

4) He opposes any federal effort to ban gay marriage.

Those come to mind right off hand. I’m sure there are plenty of others. That’s not to say Paul is wrong about everything; far from it. But it’s enough to get started.

By the way, to reinforce what I said above about his associates, he had this to say about the John Birch Society to Christopher Caldwell, writer of a piece for the New York Times Magazine:

“Asked about the John Birch Society Society by the author, Paul responds, “Is that BAD? I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They’re generally well-educated and they understand the Constitution. I don’t know how many positions they would have that I don’t agree with.”

chips, that’s a fascinating story. Thanks for sharing it with us.

Actually it was the 1978 campaign with the yard sign.  I watched the 1980 Presidential election returns at the Ron Paul HQ.

David

You’re leaving out the broader rationale for what you say are extremist positions:

1. Dr. Paul may indeed be opposed to Free Trade ideas, but he is a supporter of Fair Trade.  Free Trade has cost us a great deal with countries like China.  Fair Trade ensures a check and balance.

2. The question regarding the XVIth Amendment has long been a problem for libertarians.  They argue that it is not the legality of being able to pass it, but rather the manner in which it was ratified.  While the courts have universally rejected these arguments, there are still a small minority of people who believe this theory.

3. He would cut off aid to most, if not all, countries.  The idea is that we need to resolve internal issues before worrying about other countries internal issues.  Cutting off aid to Israel AND the Palestinian Authority would be much more detrimental to the PA.

4. Of course he opposes Federal effort.  He is a supporter of State’s rights.  He believes that the State should have the right to decide on issues like gay marriage (he is actually wrong as this is a Federal issue, but…)

Re # 15

I’m all for “broader context” (i.e., philosophical presuppositions). The problem, one which seems to afflict a lot of libertarians, comes in when political philosophy runs head on into political reality. Paul isn’t interested, for instance, in whether cutting off aid to Israel would be detrimental to US interests in the region—it’s the principle that matters. For Paul, philosophical consistency is the highest good (unless it effects his constituency—earlier this year he was asked about his willingness to feed at the earmark trough, he basically said that as long as that’s the system, he had to play by its rules, which is hardly his position with regard to most other issues).

I’m still waiting for someone to address my primary reason for getting in on this thread: RP’s appalling lack of judgment about associates and causes (e.g., 9/11 Trutherism) to support.

I’m still waiting for someone to address my primary reason for getting in on this thread: RP’s appalling lack of judgment about associates and causes (e.g., 9/11 Trutherism) to support.

You’re kidding? This is your magnum opus against Paul? Ever heard of “Guilt by Association”? It’s a logical fallacy named just for your little accusation. It goes like this:
Predicate 1:Proposition A is associated with undesirable entity B
ThereforeProposition A (or an inference on A) is invalid
But that’s neither here nor there.

The case you present is so compelling that we shouldn’t let logic get in the way. I agree with you, conspiracy theorists are such vile little people that we can’t have them voting. Suffrage obviously wasn’t intended for them. Or at the very least, a principled candidate should stand up and tell them that they’re wrong. (Oh, wait! He’s already disagreed with them publicly and even issued a press release to that effect—but you would know about that, since you’ve already quoted from it.) Perhaps he should TELL them that he doesn’t want their vote? To heck with coalition building and big-tent politics. I’m guessing that the politician you voted for in 2004 did just that or you would never have voted for him?

The smiley ate a piece of my corollary, but I don’t think it matters much… Throwing my swine before pearls, and all that.

Chips: you’re the seasoned political veteran, it seems. That’s incredible. I’m sure you have a ton of stories from your experiences.

He is however against the current mideast policy.

He doesn’t have a replacement for it, other than to cut off aid to all our allies in the region and trade with every state not openly making war on us.  Including the states covertly making war on us, c’est-a-dire Iran and Syria.

A serious man would, after stating his belief that the war on Iraq was a mistake, make some reference to how, as CinC, he would conduct the war that he voted for previously.  Dr. Paul has nothing to say on that.

The few times I’ve seen him on tv hasn’t impressed me that much.  I won’t vote for him in the primary.

He may be right that our foreign policy is not sustainable - but if our carriers no longer patrolled the Med and the South China sea - Israel and Taiwan would go quickly into the long night.  I do not think many Americans fully understand that the modern world was built by the Royal Navy as world policeman - and that we took over its beat after WWII. Were we to stop I do not know what would happen - I do not think anyone does.

chips,

That is Dr. Paul’s precise point:  the current policy is as unsustainable for us as it was for the British.  And some hard realities are already beginning to intrude on Taiwan:  Red China is one of our largest creditors.  We are not going to war with a major creditor over Taiwan.  Note that the only reason we are in this awkward scenario is because of the size of our government.

Israel is a harder call.  It would certainly nuke Mecca rather than be overrun and Islam would not survive such an attack, and I’m guessing the Arab governments know it and have no interest in a replay of the Six Day War.  Doubtless though, it will get lonely over there as a significant pan-Hispanic voting bloc takes shape in the US and the dollar continues to fall.

I’ve never heard that Israel was willling to nuke Mecca.  Tehran, perhaps, if attacked first, but not Mecca.

Actually, Reactionary, it’s your debtors you don’t want to go to war with.  Which is why the Chinese government will probably sit tight.

Nuking Mecca is an empty threat for an Israeli government that thinks to preserve Israel, because the supply of Muslim men willing in that event to walk towards Tel Aviv with AK47s, or even sharpened mop handles, is probably sufficient to overwhelm even the IDF.

Ed,

That is a Christian misunderstanding of the Muslim religion.  If there is no Mecca for a haj, then Allah has let a fundamental tenet of the Islamic faith be destroyed.  Islam would not survive the destruction of Mecca and the Israelis know it.

The US has made clear that it will just print more money to meet its unfunded liabilities, now totalling upwards of $20 trillion.  In order to expand the economy enough to avoid hyperinflation, the US will have to take in millions more immigrants and, consequently, millions more birthright citizens.  They don’t care about either Taiwan or Israel.

So, these are your options:  imperial collapse due to hyperinflation, or imperial collapse due to domestic Balkanization.  One way or another, US foreign policy will be humbled.