A reader asked me why I have such a low opinion of Rep. Ron Paul and his fan base. I gave him a rather lengthy answer, but my opposition to the candidate himself is summed up well enough in this reference from Rep. Allen West, who has a much better grasp of the way the real world works.
Paul’s “hand’s off” philosophy if implemented after World War II, would have gleefully let Russia pile nuclear missile batteries in Cuba, and expand in Central and South America unopposed. It would have let the Iron Curtain extend fully over Western Europe, Africa, and the Korean peninsula. It would have certainly led to our decline as a world power, and quite possibly would have plunged free populations into tyranny, or even a third World War.
Simply put, Paul’s beliefs, if implemented as policy, would constitute a clear danger to this nation’s very existence.
My second objection to Paul is the cult-like followers he has attracted. That are every bit as zealous as the Obamites, and their constant screaming and yelling at events is off-putting (to put it mildly). I’ve seen enough of cult-leaders with destructive policy agendas. No more.
I’m not a lawyer, but let me play the devil’s advocate for a moment.
Missile silos are apparently being built right now in Venuszuala for Iranian IRBM’s which will likely be armed with nuclear warheads. Soviet submarines could have lobbed low trajectory shots at us as easily as they could have from Cuba and without sattleite warnings about fueling etc.
Virtually all of Europe, a significant part of Latin America and the biggest nation in Asia are all socialist today. American money from the Marshal Plan was used by the Labor party in England to jump start the nanny state there.
We claimed victory in the cold war when the USSR changed it’s flag and it’s name, and withdrew into Russia, but they didn’t change much else. That allowed Bush the first and Clinton to downsize the military by what? Something like ten divisions? We could use those ten divisions now. Besides, there were always three big players in the cold war, China simply changed tactics, and today, I think it can be argued, they are winning the cold war, not us.
In WWII, Korea, and Vietnam a large number of Americans were killed fighting socialism. . . now one sits in the White House.
So, how different would the world be had we been more isolationist after WWII? Well, other than being about a decade behind where they are industrially because of no Marshal plan, and the fact that Africa would be one big game preserve with no human population left, I think it would look very similar to today.
But we wouldn’t be the world’s rent-a-cop, the world’s meals on wheels, and we wouldn’t be broke.
In my humble opinion, we need to fish or cut bait, if we are going to try to be a dominate power in the world we need to dominate (which we will never do), or, we need to stay at home behind a well honed, verifiable nuclear deterrent, and be determined to use it.
Frankly, as my son trudges through Afghanistan helping people who don’t want our help, propping up a government that calls us, “occupiers”, I wish the hell we had been isolationist since WWII. I think Washington knew exactly what he was talking about and it’s still applicable today.
I break with Paul on border security, on his numbskull approach to Iran etc. because we can’t just flip a switch to isolationism, we can’t just admit we would have been better off to leave the rest of the world to it’s own devices. But we should start tacking closer to that course.
@JustAl:
In my opinion, Paul goes to the extreme on foreign policy. I would support a much smaller U.S. military footprint worldwide, from getting out of the UN, to lessening our NATO involvement.
Thing is though, you’re reaching back into history and arguing that Paul would have held the same opinion of the Communist threat as he does of (say) Iran. There are plenty of people who think we did the right thing in countering the USSR, but that the threat posed by our current enemies is basically trivial in comparison and therefore doesn’t justify our level of expenditure. Paul in his speeches rather explicitly tries to contrast the threat of the USSR and its thousands of ICBMs with that of Iran, so I expect that he is in this camp (much like the John Birch Society, I believe). Remember, Paul backed Reagan in 1976 (one of only four Congressmen to do so at that time). I doubt he would have done so if he were against fighting Communism. So it seems to me like you have to argue that he’s wrong about the threats of today; the Cold War was a different situation.
Out of curiosity, have you found a candidate to favor yet? Rick Perry is now the second Republican in the race with military experience, which historically has been a big help in securing the nomination; but I can think of various reasons why someone might not like him (besides my own). Bachmann and Romney look like the other main contenders and as I recall you were not a Romney fan… and of course there are still a lot of others running.
I’m still hoping for Sarah Palin if for no other reason than to watch the the lefties to go apeshit crazy.
John,
I completely agree about getting out of the UN and NATO. I also would like to end all foreign aid and “humanitarian” missions carried out by the military.
Bart,
You are right, alternative history is fun, but very flawed. In my opinion the threat from islam is much worse that the USSR was. The USSR never seriously contemplated suicide or purposely bringing about the end of the world, as for example, the nut in Iran has. We could count on the communists to do what was in their self interests, not so with the current enemy. There is no “dead ender” like a religious fanatic. Remember, the Japanese prior to their defeat in WWII held the emperor to be a god as part of their national “religion”. That made extreme measures necessary to beat them. A lesson we need to remember.
Of all the candidates and potential candidates out there, my current pecking order is: Col. West, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, (insert long gap here), Gordon Cain, Who ever the Libertarians pick.
I’ve lived in Texas for over twenty years, and all of the old timer conservatives I know are suspicious of Perry. He talks a good game on social security, medicare, tort reform and global warming, but his actions vis a vie the trans Texas corridor, the HPV vaccine, and instate tuition for illegals are black marks in my book. I also consider anyone who talks about wanting small government with a strong 10th amendment and then proposes amendments to make homosexuality and abortion federal issues to be inconsistent at best, a big government panderer in limited government costume at worst.
I make no secret of being an atheist, but not the sort of “reverse-evangelical” atheists that permeate the left. If someone finds comfort in religion good for them. But from my perspective it shouldn’t be a reason to vote for someone. And frankly, I found Perry’s prayer meeting to be transparent political theater and in very poor taste.
But still, IF he sticks to his guns on social security, medicare, global warming, natural resource development and establishes common sense positions on “nation building”, the UN, and foreign aid, I will be tempted to vote for him.
IT must excruciating for the voters to lean on one of the candidate and find
that candidat is a human with imperfections,
so the answer would tell the supporter to analyse that imperfection and establish in it’s own judgement if it would be destructive for their country to have her or him as the
TOP COMMANDER IN CHIEF ALSO AS THE MULTIPLE POWER GIVEN TO THE PRESIDENT, GIVING HIM THE FREE WILL TO HELP OR DESTROY THE SUPER POWER WHICH IS AMERICA,
IN A FLICK OF A BICK,
we have some living patterns to decide from as we speak now,
we have allowed that power in the wrong hands, and now soon we better get it right,
and demolish it. WE OWE IT TO THE BRAVEST AWAY FIGHTING WARS AND FOR TOO MANY TO NEVER COME BACK TO PRAISE THEIR BELOVED AMERICA,
WE BETTER MOVE OUR BUTTS AND DO THE RIGHT THING TO CHANGE WHAT THIS GOVERNMENT HAS CHANGED
WILLINGLY TO DESTROY THE FREEDOM OF AMERICAN AND
IMPOSING THEM TO A RIGID POWER OF COMMUNIST SOCIALISTIC REGIME SURE TO FAIL TAKING WITH IT THE LIVES OF THE BEST THERE IS LEFT IN AMERICA.
ilovebees,
As usual, you speak the truth and make a great point. The key to our survival isn’t in finding the right President to wield power, we need to find one who will yield power back to the congress, the people, and ultimately the states by spearheading a move to repeal the 17th amendment.
When asked what kind of government the framers gave us, Franklin said, “a Republic. . . if you can keep it”. We lost the Republic when the 17th was passed and need to get it back.
PurpleDragon I too am hoping against hope that Sarah gets in. Doncha love cat fights? How bout the thought of Paul and Sarah going at it?
For that matter how bout the two Texans Perry and Paul debating the place for religion in our govt. PRICELESS.
With all that going on little time to question Mitt and he cruises to nom.
rich wheeler,
you mix the REPUBLICAN SIDE INCLUDING CONSERVATIVES TEA PARTY
ALL MIX IN YOU’RE MIND WITH THE DEMOCRATS,
there will not be cat fight like your democrats are doing among each other, and
among AMERICANS OF DIFFERENT RELIGION, OR COLOR OR WEALTH OR POOR,
THAT’S WHO THEY ARE AND YOU SUPPORT THEM,
but the REPUBLICAN side is more classy than LETTING that kind of behavior to be happening,
THEY ARE NOT THE THUGS YOU’RE USED TO, AND WILL SETTLE THEIR DIFFERENCE MORE CIVIL,
AND RESPECT, WHICH YOU’RE NOT USING AS A LIB