Posted on 02/14/2003 12:11:28 PM PST by Pay now bill Clinton
An Anti-War Republican!
An Interview with Congressman Ron Paul
BY JAKE BERNSTEIN
ff the main hall at the Republican State Convention in Dallas last June, among all the booths pushing cherished right-wing causes from tort reform to gun ownership, one stood out in popularity. Stationed first as delegates stepped off the floor, the Republican Liberty Caucus of Texas consistently held the largest crowds. The RLC represents the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Its standard bearer is U.S. Congressman Ron Paul. By the end of the convention, most delegates proudly sported a sticker that proclaimed, "Im a Ron Paul Republican."
Paul, who once ran for president as a Libertarian, has been ridiculed by opponents over the years for his role as an ideological gadfly. Challengers for his seat have accused him of holding positions so far out that they place him in outer space. Indeed many of the planks particularly repellent to progressives that Republicans adopted for their Texas platform mirror Pauls positions. They include abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, eliminating the Department of Education, prohibiting abortion, and doing away with most environmental laws.
Remarkably though, Pauls principled stance also makes him and his true followers natural allies on certain issues progressives hold dear. He has lobbied his fellow members to end the embargo of Cuba. Paul has also been a vocal leader fighting in Congress against a war in Iraq. In doing so he has spoken truth to power with an honesty and courage progressives wish more Democratic leaders exhibited. Paul has also been a leader in warning the American public about the dangers of the police state the Bush administration is rapidly buildingwhat the ACLU has taken to calling our "surveillance society." Its a place where five-count felon John Poindexter (who escaped on a technicality) runs databases out of the Pentagon that hold all of our personal informationfrom how we spend our money to where we go on the Internet.
As an ever-growing number of Americans become concerned about the direction Republican leaders are taking the country, a coalition between left and right that extends from the halls of Congress to the Texas statehouse has begun to form on some of these issues. An example of this incipient movement is a libertarian rally scheduled in Austin at the University of Texas on February 17th. The two featured speakers are Congressman Paul and Texas ACLU Executive Director Will Harrell.
The Texas Observer visited with Ron Paul at his district office in Freeport on the Gulf Coast in late December. We wanted to question Paul more closely on the areas where he and progressives might coincide. Here are some of the results of that conversation.
I believe thats the way we should treat people like Saddam Hussein too. China should not be considered the perfect nation either, yet we have done everything [for China] all the way back to Nixon. Now they literally receive more export-import money than anybody else. Its like $3 to $4 billion a year of special subsidies they get. At the same time we hear this stuff about North Korea and how bad they are. "They have weapons." Well, we should talk to them. Yet we cant talk to Saddam Hussein.
We have already made mistakes. Why make more? Why go over there and bomb Iraq under the name of fighting 9/11 in order to get another millionaire furious at us? If we dont make the proper assessmentthe real reason why they come after us versus the story that they give us that [terrorists] hate us because we are free and prosperouswe dont have much chance of winning this war, this fight against terrorism. As long as everybody believes that, I am very pessimistic that we will get to a reasonable foreign policy.
I understand that the anti-war movement is a lot stronger than anybody would realize by watching television; that it is stronger compared to where we were when we moved into Vietnam. Then they were killing for five years before the campuses exploded. Now the campuses are sound asleep and there is a strong anti-war movement in the suburbs. Its out there.
The part that [also] really bothers me was the process. We did not even have real access to the bill[s] before the vote. I have a general rule, since Im not a so-called loyalist. As a member of the party, I feel like there is some allegiance that I have to give. So I give it on the procedural votes, the parliamentary votes. Two times I went against the Republican Party on procedural votes: They were the PATRIOT Act and Homeland Security.
I would not support the rule because I thought the method was so atrocious. The bills were not available. Things were switched around. They kept the House open until 5:00 a.m. in order to avoid a two-thirds vote. I dont think we ever really had the final version of the PATRIOT Act before the bill was debated. And the other one became available two hours before. Then the difficulty in reading it was overwhelming. We had passed it once in the House. It was 52 pages. When it came back it was 484 pages. It was very hard to read, written in a lot of legalese. It was just a matter of making technical changes in the code and changing the Privacy Act. If somebody tells you Oh, I had the bill, I just read it, and it doesnt sound that badthey wouldnt know what they had read! They took it out of the realm of real debate and serious thought, and just politicized it.
If he wants more authority, if they want a TIPS program, even though they say, "we backed off on that," it doesnt make me comfortable one bit. I think [when it comes to] the spying-on-your-neighbor type information, they can and will do it. There wont be too much resistance because the people are scared. They want something done. Until the people are annoyed, Congress wont wake up.
So yes, the foreign policy that I talk about is very attractive to Democrats. Especially Democrats who are hacked off at people like Gephardt and Lieberman and Daschle for going along with the President. Democrats who bowed down and did exactly what [Bush] said. And people ask me, "why do you think that happens?" Democrats have generally been the anti-war party. The only thing that I can think of is that although the left is anti-war, now they feel they have to toe the line. They figure that they will get hit by the conservatives: "If you dont support this war you are unpatriotic." [So they say] "I am running for president. I have to appeal to the center so I need to wimp out on my beliefs."
There are some Democrats and Republicans who can come together on some of these issues. I like the privacy issue as a demonstration of that. The war issue isnt as good but we did get six Republicans to vote against the war which was tough. There were a lot more who agreed with us but they were chicken to vote the right way.
Even if true, who cares? I care about having a CONSERVATIVE in office -- you know, someone who cares about the Constitution and is opposed to taxes. I guess it matters more to you that the person may have 15 years ago run under the banner of a party other than Republican. I suppose you write regular checks to Olympia Snowe and the other pro-tax socialist Republicans? Party is the ONLY thing that matters, right? Give me a break. You are laughable.
I certainly understand the emotional feelings many Americans have toward nations such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Cuba....
Khameni, Saddam, Ghadaffi, Castro and Ron Paul. Quite the crowd.
You don't understand the statement at all, do you>
Yeah, Ron Paul: yearly recipient of "Taxpayer's Best Friend" award, regular "NO" vote on Congressional pork, and the most Constitutionalist member of Congress. There's a real communist for you. Dude: are you nuts?
Spare me your pronouncements that Paul is a conservative.
BTW.. Rep. Ron Paul has been a Keynote Speaker at both State and National Meetings of the Constitution Party... does that make him a CP member for life also?
You show me anywhere Ron Paul had a kind word for Saddam or Khadaffi.
Yeah: someone who introduces legislation to end income tax, someone who NEVER votes for Congressional pork, someone who is "Taxpayer's Best Friend" EVERY YEAR, someone who is extreme free-trade, someone who introduced legislation to end taxation on social security, someone who EVERY TERM introduces the Liberty Amendmdent. That's a real liberal for you! Dude: can you even read? Do you know what you are saying?
Yeah, no one you identify as "conservative" would make the below statement on the floor of Congress:
End the Income Tax- Pass the Liberty Amendment
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 30, 2003
End the Income Tax- Pass the Liberty Amendment
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Liberty Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, thus paving the way for real change in the way government collects and spends the peoples hard-earned money. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly forbids the federal government from performing any action not explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.
The 16th Amendment gives the federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.
Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the federal government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life. Thanks to the income tax, today the federal government routinely invades our privacy, and penalizes our every endeavor.
The Founding Fathers realized that the power to tax is the power to destroy, which is why they did not give the federal government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the federal government.
Income taxes not only diminish liberty, they retard economic growth by discouraging work and production. Our current tax system also forces Americans to waste valuable time and money on complacence with an ever-more complex tax code. The increased interest in flat-tax and national sales tax proposals, as well as the increasing number of small businesses that questioning the Internal Revenue Services (IRS) withholding system provides further proof that America is tired of the labyrinthine tax code. Americans are also increasingly fed up with an IRS that continues to ride roughshod over their civil liberties, despite recent pro-taxpayer reforms.
Mr. Speaker, America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax, and with a federal government that generally adhered to strictly constitutional functions, operating with modest excise revenues. The income tax opened the door to the era (and errors) of Big Government. I hope my colleagues will help close that door by cosponsoring the Liberty Amendment.
Actually, it is you pro-embargo people who keep Fidel in power. Has your method worked in the past 40 years? Is Fidel one bit weaker because of your approach? Didn't think so. History proves you wrong. Again: your types are the ones who are keeping him in power.
Have you ever read the Communist Manifesto on the subject of Education? If not, do so. Then read the policy of the DOE, and the No Child Left Behind that Pres. Bush supported. After you do so, please come back and tell us how Pres. Bush is 1) a conservative 2) not a communist(or at least acting as one) and last but not least, not acting in an illegal manner against the Law of the Land.. aka the Constitution and the Bill of Rights... Thank You
The two groups approach this end from polar opposites, the result is the same.
Libertines would reduce government to a nuetered nonentity that would result in anarchy.
Liberals (the left) would control the populace to the nth degree, resulting in a variant of marxism.
While the currant crop of republican power elite in DC is not perfect, the ideals of that party are closer to the original intent of the framers. IMO
One thing is certain, Mr Paul only became republican to gain office, he should have stuck to the libertine label he originally affixed himself.
Wanting to trade with everyone (and Cuba) doesn't exactly make you someone who is aware to reality or US interests :).
In fact, it sounds as deluded as being a Catholic with a Lenin fetish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.