Rep. Ron Paul: I advocate the same foreign policy the Founding Fathers would

Union Leader ^ | October 8, 2007 | Ron Paul

[Eric Blair 2084]

Any response to this paper's Friday editorial on my foreign policy position must rest on two fundamental assertions: first, that the Founding Fathers were not isolationists; and second, that their political philosophy -- the wisdom of the Constitution, the Declaration, and our Revolution itself -- is not just a primitive cultural relic.

If I understand the editors' concerns, I have not been accused of deviating from the Founders' logic; if anything I have been accused of adhering to it too strictly. The question, therefore, before readers -- and soon voters -- is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be "unrealistic and dangerous"? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?

A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.

Rep. RON PAUL (BOB LAPREE) American citizens would be allowed to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits. An American trade policy would encourage private American businesses to seek partners overseas and engage them in trade. The hostility toward American citizens overseas in the wake of our current foreign policy has actually made it difficult if not dangerous for Americans to travel abroad. Is this not an isolationist consequence from a policy of aggressive foreign interventionism?

It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.

I do not believe that ideas have an expiration date, or that their value can be gauged by their novelty. The test for new and old is that of wisdom and experience, or as the editors wrote "historical reality," which argues passionately now against the course of anti-Constitutional interventionism.

A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world.

[lormand]

I’m not surprised he advocates such a thing. My previous comment was tongue in cheek sarcasm though. I’m like like that from time to time. :)

[SJackson]

Not to mention our undeclared war with France following the ABC XYZ affair.

The cat typed it that the first time.

[L.N. Smithee]

If I understand the editors' concerns, I have not been accused of deviating from the Founders' logic; if anything I have been accused of adhering to it too strictly. The question, therefore, before readers -- and soon voters -- is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be "unrealistic and dangerous"? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?

Ron Paul is one of those folks who worship the "Founding Fathers" as if they were demigods. I don't worship demigods. So I don't pretend that just maybe if there had been push-button megadeath from across oceans in their time, their thoughts wouldn't change.

[SJackson]

If anybody has something good...links, articles, books about how the Founding Fathers themselves were direct beneficiaries of foreign military intervention from France, Spain and the Netherlands, please share it.

Of course you're right. The Treaty of Alliance Between the United States of America and His Most Christian Majesty , our first entangling alliance, was a one way affair, providing France with an ally should they be attacked by England, there was no benefit to the Colonies who didn't need any help to kick King Georges *ss.

The dudes signing at the bottom, Benjamin Franklin, Silas Deane, Arthur Lee, they're amongst the Founding Fathers, aren't they? Or were they neocons.

Maybe Ron can warm up the time machine, go back and ask.

=================

[SJackson]

Ron Paul is one of those folks who worship the "Founding Fathers" as if they were demigods. I don't worship demigods. So I don't pretend that just maybe if there had been push-button megadeath from across oceans in their time, their thoughts wouldn't change.

See post 64 for an example of the neocon founders entangling themselves in a mutual defense pact in Europe.

[untrained skeptic]

Thanks for pointing out what should be obvious.

[L.N. Smithee]

See post 64 for an example of the neocon founders entangling themselves in a mutual defense pact in Europe.

Typical Paulite response. Enough, enough, enough of the "Look what the KNEE-YO-CAHNS have done!" and more of what "I will do" in the context of the times in which we're living and the situation in which we find ourselves, regardless of how we got here. As I noted yesterday, Paul doesn't say on his "War and Foreign Policy"

[Darksheare]

The quasi-war, if memory serves.

[L.N. Smithee]

See post 64 for an example of the neocon founders entangling themselves in a mutual defense pact in Europe.

Typical Paulite response. Enough, enough, enough of the "Look what the KNEE-YO-CAHNS have done!" and more of what "I will do" in the context of the times in which we're living and the situation in which we find ourselves, regardless of how we got here. As I noted yesterday, Paul doesn't say on his "War and Foreign Policy" page what he would do about Al Qaeda. Sorry about the double-post -- accidently hit send before finishing the post.

[SJackson]

Forgot one.

14-9/11 Death Toll Only One Month of Highway Deaths (Pearl Harbor Only One Month of 1941 Traffic Deaths)

15-Paul Supporters Promote Civil Disobedience on Paint the Town Ron Day

It is my understanding that these paint the town Ron events are illegal.

Civil Disobedience?

Some laws need to be broken to show the unfairness of those laws.

Rosa Parks, MLK, Lysander Spooner, Boston Tea Party

=================

yep.. even dr. paul suggested *peaceful* civil disobedience..

[SJackson]

Ron Paul Daily—All Ron Paul, All Day Long

http://ronpauldaily.blogspot.com/2007/08/switzerlands-president-learns-about-ron.html

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Switzerland’s president learns about Ron Paul
A Ron Pauler wrote to the president of Switzerland regarding the Ron Paul Google interview. And the person actually responded! Can you imagine Bush responding to your letter? Or any member of the government for that matter?

Here is their exchange:

Here is what the person wrote:

Switzerland and your position as President recently came up in an interview given by Ron Paul, a physician and Congressman from Texas, running for the nomination of the Republican Party for the United States Presidential election of 2008.

Ron Paul was asked if there are any other country, right now, that do a better job of protecting liberties and maintaining a small government than the United States. Dr. Paul replied there are more and more countries that are encroaching on the US’s reputation for protecting liberties, but Switzerland is the one he thought does a better job than the US. He said it would be neat to be President of Switzerland, then joked that no one in the audience probably knew who the President of Switzerland is .

The video is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg and the part where Switzerland is mentioned starts at around 17:50 and lasts about 45 seconds.

For Reference, Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist and a libertarian. He believes in a small fiscally conservative government that stays out of the personal lives of people. He believes the United States should stay out of entangling foreign alliances and the affairs of other countries. “Commerce with all, alliance with none.” Ron Paul’s personal and political philosophies are very much aligned with the politics and culture of Switzerland with your long standing tradition of neutrality and independence from international organizations that take from the sovereignty of their member countries. I think it would be interesting if you and the Federal Council could discuss American libertarianism and Constitutionalism with Ron Paul; our two countries and people have far more in common than people realize given the current administration of the United States.

Be sure to check out Ron Paul’s webpage (http://www.ronpaul2008.com) and watch some of his YouTube videos (http://www.youtube.com/RonPaul2008dotcom).

[SJackson]

I found this line interesting.

blockquote>American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.

I think Libya and Iraq are OK now thanks to GWB. Is this for the I can't travel to North Korea and Cuba (easily) crowd. Is this really an issue?

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Rep. Ron Paul: I advocate the same foreign policy the Founding Fathers would

"... so, it's agreed, then: Ron Paul is a cowardly, lying, Islamofascist appeasing little MoveOn weasel. The motion carries."

[mnehring]

Why was Benedict Arnold a traitor? Because he surrendered West Point to the British. And we wonder how the founders viewed surrender monkeys?

[drpix]

Our founding fathers...

Like Thomas Jefferson? Of not only in the Barbary Wars but also the "unconstitutional" Louisiana Purchase.

""A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. "

"To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

Thomas Jefferson

Or maybe like James Monroe of the Monroe Doctrine?

---

I guess they didn't have the benefit of Ron Paul telling them what a founding father's foreign police should have looked like.

[mnehring]

Ron Paul Benedict Arnold's letter to the Inhabitants of America.

To the Inhabitants of America

I should forfeit, even in my own opinion, the place I have so long held in yours, if I could be indifferent to your approbation, and silent on the motives which have induced me to join the King's arms.

A very few words, however, shall suffice upon a subject so personal; for to the thousands who suffer under the tyranny of the usurpers in the revolted provinces, as well as to the great multitude who have long wished for its subversion, this instance of my conduct can want no vindication; and as to the class of men who are criminally protracting the war from sinister views at the expence of the public interest, I prefer their enmity to their applause. I am, therefore, only concerned in this address, to explain, myself to such of my countrymen, as want abilities, or opportunities, to detect the artifices by which they are duped.

Having fought by your side when the love of our country animated our arms, I shall expect, from your justice and candour, what your deceivers, with more art and less honesty, will find it inconsistent with their own views to admit.

When I quitted domestic happiness for the perils of the field, I conceived the rights of my country in danger, and that duty and honour called me to her defence. A redress of grievances was my only object and aim; however, I acquiesced in a step which I thought preciptate, the declaration of independence: to justify this measure, many plausible reasons were urged, which could no longer exist, when Great Britain, the open arms of a parent, offered to embrace us as children, and grant the wished-for redress.

And now that her worst enemies are in her own bosom, I should change my principles, if I conspired with their designs; yourselves being judges, was the war the less just, because fellow subjects were considered as our foe? You have felt the torture in which we raised arms against a brother. God incline the guilty protectors of these unnatural dissentions to resign their ambition, and cease from their delusion, in compassion to kindred blood!

I anticipate your question, Was not the war a defensive one, until the French joined in the combination? I answer, that I thought so. You will add, Was it not afterwards necessary, till the separation of the British empire was complete? By no means; in contending for the welfare of my country, I am free to declare my opinion, that this end attained, all strife should have ceased.

I lamented, therefore, the impolicy, tyranny, and injustice, which, with a sovereign contempt of the people of America, studiously neglected to take their collective sentiments of the British proposals of peace, and to negociate, under a suspension of arms, for an adjustment of differences; I lamented it as a dangerous sacrifice of the great interests of this country to the partial views of a proud, ancient, and crafty foe. I had my suspicions of some imperfections in our councils, on proposals prior to the Parliamentary Commission of 1778; but having then less to do in the Cabinet than the field (I will not pronounce peremptorily, as some may, and perhaps justly, that Congress have veiled them from the public eye), I continued to be guided in the negligent confidence of a Soldier. But the whole world saw, and all America confessed, that the overtures of the second Commission exeeded our wishes and expectations; and if there was any suspicion of the national liberality, it arose from its excess.

Do any believe were at that time really entangled by an alliance with France? Unfortunate deception! they have been duped, by a virtuous credulity, in the incautious moments of intemperate passion, to give up their felicity to serve a nation wanting both the will and the power to protect us, and aiming at the destruction both of the mother country and the provinces. In the plainness of common sense, for I pretend to no casuistry, did the pretended treaty with the Court of Versailles, amount to more than an overture to America? Certainly not, because no authority had been given by the people to conclude it, nor to this very hour have they authorized its ratification. The articles of confederation remain still unsigned.

In the firm persuasion, therefore, that the private judgement of an individual citizen of this country is as free from all conventional restraints, since as before the insidious offers of France, I preferred those from Great Britain; thinking it infinitely wiser and safer to cast my confidence upon her justice and generosity, than to trust a monarchy too feeble to establish your independency, so perilous to her distant dominions; the enemy of the Protestant faith and fraudulently avowing an affection for the liberties of mankind, while she holds her native sons in vassalage an chains.

I affect no disguise, and therefore frankly declare, that in these principles I had determined to retain my arms and command for an opportunity to surrender them to Great Britain; and in concerting the measures for a purpose, in my opinion, as grateful as it would have been beneficial to my country; I was only solicitous to accomplish an event of decisive importance, and to prevent as much as possible, in the execution of it, the effusion of blood.

With the highest satisfaction I bear testimony to my old fellow soldiers and citizens, that I find solid ground to rely upon the clemency of our Sovereign, and abundant conviction that it is the generous intention of Great Britain not only to leave the rights and privileges of the colonies unimpaired, together with their perpetual exemption from taxation, but to superadd such further benefits as may consist with the common prosperity of the empire. In short, I fought for much less than the parent country is as willing to grant to her colonies as they can be to receive or enjoy.

Some may think I continued in the struggle of these unhappy days too long, and others that I quitted it too soon-- To the first I reply, that I did not see with their eyes, nor perhaps had so favourable a situation to look from, and that to our common master I am willing to stand or fall. In behalf of the candid among the latter, some of whom I believe serve blindly but honestly--in the bands I have left, I pray God to give them all the lights requisite to their own safety before it is too late; and with respect to that herd of censurers, whose enmity to me originates in their hatred to the principles by which I am now led to devote my life to the re-union of the British empire, as the best and only means to dry up the streams of misery that have deluged this country, they may be assured, that concious of the rectitude of my intentions; I shall treat their malice and calumnies with contempt and neglect.

[mnehring]

ping #76

[SoldierDad]

American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.

Interesting that one theme with OBL regarding his reasons for wanting to bring down the "Great Satan" (the U.S.) is the fact that the American Infidel has placed boots on the ground in their most holiest of countries (Saudi Arabi, Iraq, etc). So, according to Run Paul, we are to be allowed to visit any place on the Earth and we will trade freely with anyone who wished to trade with us, irrespective of what barbaric practices they have engaged in that violates the basic tenents of human rights. And this will, of course, make us safer against terrorism around the globe. How in hell does such a simple minded fool get elected to Congress? And, repeatedly too?

[Martins kid]

No - I think he means that we are going to build sailing ships and go after the Barbary Pirates!!!!

[Pharmboy]

Exactly correct. Also, Washington is always quoted about his "foreign entaglements" blurb, but he was not so naive as Mr. Paul. Here is an excerpt from the White House bio of The General:

He did not infringe upon the policy making powers that he felt the Constitution gave Congress. But the determination of foreign policy became preponderantly a Presidential concern. When the French Revolution led to a major war between France and England, Washington refused to accept entirely the recommendations of either his Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, who was pro-French, or his Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, who was pro-British. Rather, he insisted upon a neutral course until the United States could grow stronger.