Paul’s Foreign Policy Focus
One doesn’t have to agree with all of Ron Paul’s libertarian views to admire his principled anti-interventionism and opposition to America’s eternal wars: clearly his foreign policy positions intersect at the point where character meets ideology. In this interview with USA Today, he responds to the ever popular if-only-Paul-would-moderate-his-’isolationism’ meme:
“His poll status has attracted fire from his Republican opponents, who have criticized his views on Iran — he opposes a U.S. strike to stop their nuclear ambitions — and Israel, which he says no longer needs U.S. foreign aid. They’ve called Paul ‘outside the mainstream’ for those and for calling for the speedy removal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.
“Paul cares little for calls that he ‘go more moderate’ on foreign policy. He is who he is. ‘That would be the last thing I’m going to do … water down my beliefs.‘
“‘Others have argued ‘Oh yeah, if Ron Paul would just go more moderate on this foreign policy all of the sudden he would get a broader audience’ and that’s isn’t it,” he said. ‘The more I’ve been talking about what I’ve been saying for a long time, the more people we have joining us.‘”
This is the same argument I make in my Friday column on the subject of “Ron Paul and the Future of American Foreign Policy” — that Paul’s success has changed the discourse inside the GOP and the conservative movement, and transformed the political landscape. His Iowa surprise debunks the myth of a monolithic militaristic “conservatism,” which hasn’t been the case since the implosion of the Soviet empire — and really never was the case, since libertarians dissented early on from their conservative cousins’ enthusiasm for nuclear war with the commies.
What has charmed millions about Paul is his purity, and I don’t just mean ideologically. It’s his insistance on emphasizing precisely what is supposedly “controversial” about his candidacy — because he recognizes its moral importance as well as its centrality to his own worldview. How unlike a politician can you get?
Ben C
December 30th, 2011 at 2:06 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzGZ3v-74Ro&fe…
@MarkStoval
December 30th, 2011 at 4:00 am
Great point Justin. We might not be able to hope for a libertarian GOP but a movement back toward the "Taft Republicanism" of old sure would be a start.
liveload
December 30th, 2011 at 4:19 am
Dr. Paul know that Foreign Policy falling into line is simply going to be a byproduct of killing the Fed and taking away their printing presses. Without the money, nothing moves. Not one can of beans, not one box of bullets, not a single band-aid. Anyone who wants to take out the Fed will see a huge gain in world happiness right afterward. It will be a cascading domino effect unlike any other witnessed in history. So yeah, he's all for non intervention. Social policies be damned, we can sort that crap out for ourselves once we've stopped the war machine.
Curious observer
December 30th, 2011 at 4:24 am
Here's the problem. I've paid — I think — moderately close attention to this campaign… and not one time have I heard Ron Paul say "You can't have limited government at home and a military sprawling across two-thirds of the world's nations at the same time"… or words to that effect. Something to put a bug in the rear end of the garden-variety "conservative" to at least get them thinking and to knock his opponents off-base: Really, how could they plausibly respond to something like that?
Maybe that's a lost cause. But it seems worth trying.
Jeremiah
December 30th, 2011 at 8:44 am
"His Iowa surprise debunks the myth of a monolithic militaristic 'conservatism' . . . . "
Excellent point, Mr. Raimondo. I've heard a number of people in my own rural Kentucky community—and, like me, they're just regular folk—express their astonishment that anyone should want another Middle Eastern war. Of course, I'm sure there are plenty of redneck jingoes about, too—but the bloodthirstiness of rural and middle America has most certainly been exaggerated.
It seems Ron Paul is bringing a lot of this "dovishness" latent in American conservatism to the surface. The establishment, in a desperate attempt to put these newly rebellious, peace-loving peasants in their place, is chanting old mantras, old lies, with renewed vigor: "Conservatives love war!" "Only leftists are antiwar!" "To support the wars is to support the troops!"
But it's not working—not well, at any rate. And even if Ron Paul doesn't get the nomination—and he's not out of the game yet—, his impact on American conservatism, and on the American political scene in general, will have been far-reaching and likely permanent. Thanks to Paul and his supporters, the Old Right—and the ancient ideas of peace and liberty for which all such movements are only vessels—live again.
Curious
December 30th, 2011 at 10:40 am
I agree Jeremiah!
I've been wondering if all this leftest talk means that the Old Right is now on the left side of the political divide and the Social Democrats are on the right.
Orville H. Larson
December 30th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Doctor Paul is a noninterventionist, not an isolationist. The latter is neither possible nor desirable. The former certainly is.
His opponents Gingrich . . . Santorum . . . Perry . . . Romney . . . Huntsman . . . Bachmann . . . are all chickenhawk, warmongering scumbags. Piss on the lot of 'em.
If you value freedom–and why wouldn't you?!–support Doctor Paul.
David
December 30th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Paul is the only real conservative in the race, the only one who seems to believe that the first responsibility of the American government is to look after the interests of the American people, not those in other countries. There is nothing remotely conservative about any of the other candidates, nor are any of them really interested in small government.
antiwar7
December 31st, 2011 at 11:01 am
In 2008, his campaign's TV ads never seemed to mention his foreign policy views. That was a mistake that cost him potential support. I hope his current campaign staff have learned this lesson.
antiwar7
December 31st, 2011 at 11:06 am
Left and right are labels that divide the people and help the current duopoly stay in power. Don't help by trying to keep them current.
I think some more meaningful terms include "antiwar" (the majority of people) and "prowar" (the majority of federal politicians and national pundits).
tonisaman
January 1st, 2012 at 7:52 am
Bravo! Great tell the truth for a change Journalism….Not that you Mr. Raimondo, don't always tell the truth, but rather most journalists are jaded in their thinking. Even when they are supposed to be non-biased. I just saw an interview where George Stephanopolous was so disrespectful to Dr. Paul in an interview. I wrote George today on his website and told him what I thought of him. We 99% may be slow on the uptake but once we are made aware of the corrupt MSM we are no longer able to be put back under the ether.
JP
January 3rd, 2012 at 3:36 pm
Ron Paul has the guts that is needed to be a great president. I think it is this quality that will help him succeed where Obama has failed.
Attack the System » Blog Archive » The Ron Paul Precedent
January 6th, 2012 at 3:32 am
[...] icing on this cake is that the candidate made no attempt to downplay or hide his supposedly “controversial” foreign policy views: indeed, [...]
Roberto
April 10th, 2012 at 8:47 am
You may choose to like Incurable audio in held on to clearly exploring who courses. Criminal history check create a man's playlist as well as insert extra those Damaging tunes for that playlist free of charge.
Android Instagram
Angel
June 28th, 2012 at 8:13 am
I really don't know why people practice dishonesty.
What do they get from it? It is fame, money, etc?
Well, still.. God is just looking from above.
Angel
from pot catalytique
Elvie Zhang
August 15th, 2012 at 10:05 pm
which hasn’t been the case since the implosion of the Soviet empire — and really never was the case, since libertarians dissented early on from their conservative cousins’ enthusiasm for nuclear war with the commies.