Election 2008 is no doubt a contest between overt Big Government Socialists and Marxists in the Democrat Party and several Big Government Liberals dressed up in Conservative clothing in the Republican Party.
There are a couple of stand-outs that have records of consistent Conservatism, but they are largely marginalized by the Big Government Elite Blue Bloods in the party and by the media that wants either a liberal or an anti-Bush candidate on the GOP ticket to run opposite of the crown they wish to bestow upon Hillary.
And then there is Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is the lone stand-out in the GOP. His mob followers argue that this is because he is the only true Conservative in the race, the rest of us would argue it is because he is clearly not a Conservative or Republican at all – but a typical Libertarian with more in common with the Anti-war Leftists than with Reagan Conservatives.
Of course the argument is that Ron Paul is closer to Reagan and the Constitution than any other candidate. I certainly do not agree with that assessment, notably because in the case of comparison between Paul and Reagan – Reagan NEVER, and I mean NEVER insinuated once that America was the cause of the problems in the world that Ron Paul has consistently charged us with.
Also, even though Ron Paul’s domestic ideas of returning to the Constitution are admiarable, he not only is off the mark on foreign policy, he is off his rocker if he thinks he can enact or enable any of his agenda as President outside of emasculating the military and retreating America from the world.
Bruce Walker posted an excellent observation in the American Thinker of where Ron Paul misses the mark in terms of addressing his “non-interventionist” (read Isolationist Pacifism) ideals.
Ron Paul holds the vain hope that American government would return to constitutional law anytime soon, even if he did win the presidency. Congress, the judiciary, legal education, and tradition have imparted momentum to the living constitution school of thought. Bring about an actual return to the Constitution requires more than a snap of the president’s fingers. Federal courts routinely “interpret” the Constitution in ways directly in conflict with the plain language of the document. At best, a president can only appoint judges the Senate will confirm and wait for natural turnover.
A lot of persuasion is necessary before Americans (including our elites and their institutions) change their way thinking. We in fact still need a crusade to change hearts and minds more than a candidacy.
This has been my main point of contention with the Ron Paul Mob Zombies from the get-go. The amount of virtual messiah-worship that Ron Paul is going to achieve all of these amazing things and save the country from itself is not only delusional, it’s dangerous. It has spawned a rabid fanatacism that one can easily compare with the Brownshirts of Germany in the 1930’s. No man is going to be able to do the things many of Ron Paul’s supporters are absolutely sure he can accomplish – mainly due to the limits the Constitution places on the Executive itself.
For all the love of the Constitution that Ron Paul stokes the masses to believe in, the big love is reserved for what they perceive to be the Constitution’s pacifism and ‘non-interventionism’. This is the one and only brick holding the various and bizarre ideologies of the Ron Paul brigades together.
But they miss the mark. Bruce Walker points this out:
And if we are going to return to first principles, remember that the Constitution is not the foundational document of our American experiment in individual liberty. It was preceded by the Articles of Confederation. Prior to the Articles of Confederation, which were adopted after independence, the Continental Congress acted as the original government of the United States and successfully waged a war against the great superpower on the planet with very little real authority. The fundamental principles of American government were established long the Constitution was adopted.
What does matter is the Declaration of Independence. The divine endowment of all people with liberty comes directly out of this document of 1776 and it is to this document that serious friends of liberty should look for inspiration and restoration. And what was the Declaration of Independence? It was, in effect, a declaration of war against the British Empire.
It was not an isolationist document but a universalist document. It speaks, pointedly, to the rest of the world. It talks about the reasons that governments are formed (not just our government.) It was bold, sweeping, and international. And it was seen by the rest of the world as just that: A revolutionary document for all peoples, even if it applied specifically only to thirteen embattled colonies in North American.
Ron Paul wants to return us to the Constitution, as if it were a sacred document which granted us freedom. Our spiritual lodestar should be the Declaration of Independence, which remains a much more dangerous, much more powerful, and much more relevant document to our times.
Those are indeed sobering points to meditate upon. The argument that ensues is that the Declaration of Independence is NOT LAW, which by doing so undercuts and grants the Socialists and Secularists the platforms upon which they stand to regulate and adminster liberty as they see fit.
The more worrisome attributes of applying strict Constitutional ideals to foreign policy without the grounding anchor of the Declaration and other fundamentals of liberty in a modern age – is the kind of backwards idealism that ignores reality for a theory that history has already shown to be impractical and endangering.
Paul also seems to doubt that people wish to do America harm because it is America, and that nuclear weapons change everything. Ever since H.G. Wells first used the term “atomic bomb” in his science fiction stories more than a century ago, it has become almost inevitable that true, horrific global war power was inevitable. Happily, America acquired fission weapons and then fusion weapons first. Happily also, America has had leaders willing to use that power to protect our nation and allies who would otherwise be unprotected.
And, as we learned from the Japanese in the Second World War and from radical Moslems today, the calculus of economic benefits and political rights which works very well in moderating and balancing the behavior of most people, simply does not work with everyone. Does anyone doubt that the Japanese would have used the atomic bomb on American cities or that radical Moslems will use thermonuclear bombs on America, if they can, even if it means massive casualties in our retaliation?
Liberty can no longer stand safely behind two vast oceans and decent men can no longer ignore their human brethren after Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
I think this mindset of Ron Paul is the most damning proof that he is unfit for the role of Commander In Chief. He has asserted that Iran poses no threat to anyone, not even to Israel. Ron Paul says that Iran has no navy, army or air force, which is complete ignorance on his part. He is of the clueless ideal that because Israel may have 300 nuclear weapons (which has never been confirmed or admitted to). Nobody would touch them. History has already proven him wrong since America has nuclear weapons, has USED nuclear weapons, and still we have been attacked by Jihadists. Ron paul also magically thinks that all the rhetoric coming from the Jihadists about annihilating Israel and America is just laughable – and that there is no possibility of harm from such entities.
I suppose if a person holds to the same ideas that many of the 9-11 Truthers that support Ron Paul hold; thinking we perpetrated 9-11 on ourselves – it is no wonder Ron Paul then so easily discounts what ragheads in the deserts of Afghansitan were able to carry out in killing 3,000 Americans in short order on September 11, 2001. Perhaps this is the reason he thinks only one submarine with ballistic nuclear weapons is all the military defense America really needs.
Bruce Walker concludes:
Liberty can no longer stand safely behind two vast oceans and decent men can no longer ignore their human brethren after Hitler, Stalin and Mao. ….Congressman Paul might recall the Gipper’s Cold War strategy: “How about this: We win; they lose?”
Ronald Reagan, like Abraham Lincoln, understood the supra-constitutional importance of liberty in the fulfillment of America, and liberty to them meant more than just the liberty of American citizens. ….
But the vision of America is much more than the Constitution. It is much more than Congressman Paul sees. What Ron Paul proposes is not bad or dishonest. It is simply no longer enough for liberty and decency to survive in America or in the world.
America does not exist in a vacuum. The world loathes the kind of liberty America represents, because it does not grant it to nobles, dictators and politburos. America is an anomoly in the world’s written history of the beastly empires of men. It seeks to return itself to that kind of rule that 500 years of Christian-led and inspired government has broken. Ron Paul considers fellow countrymen and our government the only single threat to liberty and assigns our involvement in the world as the cause of the enemies we have that are calling for and planning for our destruction.
That giant aspect of Ron Paul’s appeal is not only off the mark, but not even in the right direction of the target.