Posted on 05/19/2007 5:22:40 PM PDT by jdm
It's a fine line between quixotic and committed, and just where Ron Paul falls is an open question as the Texas congressman pursues the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.
The case for quixotic: It's a unique conceit to run as an anti-Iraq-war candidate in a generally pro-war party; to vow to eliminate myriad federal agencies, including the CIA, the IRS and the Federal Reserve; and to oppose every act of the federal government not specifically approved in the Constitution (including niceties such as congressional gold medals for such people as Mother Teresa, Rosa Parks and Pope John Paul II).
"I've advocated over the years the elimination of most big-government things I can't find in the Constitution," Paul said in an interview.
Trying to explain that during a recent presidential debate, Paul said, "I'm a strong believer in original intent" of the Constitution's framers. To which moderator Chris Matthews, the MSNBC television personality, responded with a disdainful, "Oh, God."
The case for committed: If somebody needs to drag the Republican Party back to its roots, Paul said, "I'm offering that alternative."
Paul was one of six House of Representatives Republicans who voted against the 2002 authorization to use force in Iraq, based on the same wariness of excessive international involvement that long guided Republican foreign-policy thinking. Traceable to George Washington's warning against entangling foreign alliances, its post-World War II followers -- including "Mr. Republican" Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio -- likely would share Paul's view of President Bush's adventures in democratic nation-building as muddleheaded folly.
"He touches a nerve out there," said Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas. "There are Republicans who believe it was a mistake to get in there to begin with, and that's the Paul constituency."
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Casually throwing in the word Libertarian to make Paul seem like a kook doesn't bolster your argument. It simply means you don't have one to begin with.
Paul's foreign policy views are based on traditional non-interventionalism, you know, the foreign policy we had up until the 1960s.
I am reasonably certain that Dr. Paul has no desire to toss us into chaos. Such an act would almost certainly result in anarchy or, as you say, corporate fascism. As well, the problem of getting Joe Average to give up his bread and circuses is daunting.
I am a firm believer in the counterweight theory of social and political action. You may have heard it from such notables as Rush Limbaugh, back in the days when he was actually conservative. Because the momentum in this country is strongly leftward, it will take an extreme rightward pull to even slow it down. I don’t believe Dr. Paul has any illusions that he could make even a sizable percentage of the progress toward the state of things he (and we) desire in the four or eight years he would occupy the Oval Office. However, I think he believes the attempt would at least change the color of the dialog.
We saw that even the marginal libertarianism of Ronald Reagan had an astounding effect on almost every aspect of life here. Unfortunately, the realities of politics forced him to introduce the factor that would almost completely negate everything he did: the Bush clan. Dr. Paul is more strongly libertarian and classically Republican than was Reagan. Reagan did not accomplish everything he wanted. I feel certain Dr. Paul knows that neither would he.
Every great change begins with a first step. A few specifics on your (very real and reasonable) issues:
I think Reagan made the case for privatizing and federalizing a number of functions co-opted by the national government. I think a number of reasonable plans have been laid out for weaning the public off the socialist security system. They range from declining pay-ins to tax moratoriums for selected members of the public, based on age. Bush’s silly “privatization” scheme was mere tinkering, much like his tax cuts. Convincing the public of this requires resistance to demagoguery and an ability to communicate the benefits.
Simply dropping into the gold standard would obviously cause pandemonium in the world’s markets. I believe Dr. Paul has called for the phasing out of the Federal Reserve, to be replaced by private banking entities that would allow a return to a commodity-based currency. Just getting the government out of the business of “controlling” the economy (a pipe dream and fairy tale) would make real progress toward a currency based on reality instead of theory.
Finally, I don’t think Dr. Paul is suggesting that we suddenly vanish from the rest of the world. Once again, a first step is to cease and desist in adventurism and nation-building. We need to get out of the UN and boot them out of the country. The organization will collapse under its own weight without us. We certainly need to stop providing financial aid to hostile countries. And we need to coerce our allies into becoming equal partners in their own defense, allowing us to pull back from our deep presence in a number of places. And we need to stop pretending we are the policemen of the world. We are not successfully performing the function anyway. We need to stop kidding ourselves that we can try to export our culture without any consequence or resentment.
Dr. Paul is the only candidate who is saying out loud that the car is going in the wrong direction. All the others simply want to flash the lights and honk the horn. Even if he has no chance to prevail in the primary, he has at least forced the babbling masses in the media to take him into account. I believe the public is paying attention and some of the “mainstream” candidates are in for a rude awakening. I am sure the Democrats are watching closely. Reagan taught them the folly of underestimating the power of ideas.
It's funny how FReepers have to resort to name-calling when it comes to Paul, ripping a page out of the liberal playbook.
Because they can't debate Paul on the issues, that's for damn sure.
I agree!! He named specifics when asked what he would cut (the only candidate to do so), he used the Constitution as a basis for his arguments instead of just a catchphrase to get a cheap pop, and he gave verifiable arguments (backed up by more than one government agency not to mention history) for his stance on the terroristic attacks. Oh wait, that's actually an intelligent form of debate and presenting facts
But of course the guy running for President of 9/11 (apparently the only stance he has on anything) gives a one liner blatantly showing his ignorance on the subject and Paul is the 'nutter'. Yep, status quo for the 'conservative' party. It's become a pack of sheep spouting bumper sticker sayings. Go watch Fox and get some more baseless attacks from Hannity's talking points.
No one want to waste time like that trying to talk sense to you folks. Fact is Ron Paul has a snowballs’s chance of nomination or election in 2008. Valuable time, energy, and money are being wasted on Ron Paul. Get behind someone who really can win or be prepared to talk to yourself in a padded room for 8 years.
Then don't. Why are you guys so worried about Paul anyway? He's not going to win, right?
Fact is Ron Paul has a snowballs’s chance of nomination or election in 2008.
I already conceded that he doesn't have a chance per post #7, and I believe that Paul himself knows that as well.
Valuable time, energy, and money are being wasted on Ron Paul.
Try to understand why Paul is in the race instead of worrying about "winning" all the time. The Federal Government is out of control. Our foreign policy stinks. The UN is on our shores and wants to control us. Entitlement programs are out of control. Which of the current Republicans are talking about this? Paul is in the race to talk about THE REAL ISSUES and to reaffirm American's committment to the Constitution. Yeah, I know that dried-up old piece of paper doesn't mean anything to you, but it does to me.
Get behind someone who really can win or be prepared to talk to yourself in a padded room for 8 years.
I'm not backing Paul because I know what his role is in this race, and the fact that he's 71 years old. He is there to remind the other Republicans what traditional Republicanism means.
Deluded.
I think the NUTTER part has it covered. He sure is a nut.
Ron Paul is a laughing stock.
The newest version of David Duke.
“We need 534 more Ron Pauls.”
Yeah right. Then we’d resemble Nazi Germany.
Actually if I were to bash Paul, I would exercising free speech, consistent with the Constitution.
“Yeah right. Then we’d resemble Nazi Germany.”
That wasn’t even clever. If you’re going to bash him, at least be clever about it.
Non-interventionist, limited-government constitutionalism is about the farthest you can get from Nazi Germany.
Two different political points of view claim to be conservative. One frankly ignores the Constitution, but wants the U.S. to be a strong force in the world. The second would adhere to the Constitution, and roll back decades of illegal activity on the part of the federal government. Ron Paul is for the latter. You evidently, are not.
Ron Paul is an isolationist nutbar. You apparently are too.
The Constitution is a joke to you; why call yourself a conservative...
Ron Paul is a joke to me. Your cult is a joke to me.
I pity laughingstocks like Paul.
I would rather have Ron Paul as president over 80% of the Republican candidates and all of the Democratic ones.
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.