It's time for Ron Paul's 15 minutes to be up

Foreign Policy ^ | 11-1-07 | Mike Boyer

[SJackson]

Ron Paul is a seductive mistress. His popularity on MySpace and YouTube is now legendary. It helped him raise more than $5 million in the third quarter of this year's fundraising cycle. Even some among the media elite — on both sides of the aisle — can't resist his charm. Conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan gets downright giddy over Paul. And liberal Hardball host Chris Matthews (who cut his teeth under big government, East Coast Democrat Tip O'Neill) has declared of the libertarian from Texas: "He's my guy! I love Ron Paul!"

But do people understand what Paul really stands for? Like every siren song, his policies are fraught with danger. Let's take a look:

1. Foreign Policy and the Constitution. Paul is what you might call a Constitutional originalist. He divines his governing philosophy from the Constitution and America's Founders. But his understanding of their vision is profoundly flawed. Paul appears to believe the founders vested absolute authority for foreign-policy making in Congress, not the executive. "Policy is policy," Paul wrote in 2006, "and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive." But there's almost no evidence the founders saw it in such simplistic, absolute terms. Law professor Michael Ramsey, a former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, recently noted (pdf) this in very eloquent terms in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Reasonable people can agree that Congress has failed its oversight responsibilities with regard to Iraq and the Bush Doctrine. But Paul's thinking here is simply not supported by the weight of historical evidence.

[Badeye]

(chuckle)

You forgot to add silly string....

[EliteRangerValues]

“Ron Paul is a seductive mistress”

I have often wondered what the appeal of Ron Paul is. If you actually dig down and look at his specific policies, he is a nut. Right now Islamofascism is one of biggest threats and a keystone of Islamofascism. Yet Ron Paul wants to put up the white flag in Iraq and let Al Qaeda take over. Who in their right mind would support that? I have family members in Iraq fighting to protect our freedoms and I take Ron Paul’s views as a personal affront.

[-=SoylentSquirrel=-]

[My Favorite Headache]

People need to stop calling Andrew Sullivsn “Conservative”, there is nothing “Conservative” about him at all.

[GourmetDan]

"The U.N. has problems, sure, but does anyone serious really believe that the world would be better off without the United Nations?"

Yep.

(You should have known better than to ask that question on FR!) ;-)

[GourmetDan]

"Paul’s not going to win..."

An I wanna vote for the wiener dad-gummit!

[BGHater]

I never asked that question, I simply cut out #4 from the article, where now the Repubs want to bow down to the UN and be beholden to UN and international regulations.

Of course I want us out of the UN.

[GourmetDan]

"Paul supporters love him because he wants to get rid of the federal reserve..."

That'll just git him kilt.

[My Favorite Headache]

LOL...I have found some new art to send to friends now.

[GourmetDan]

"I never asked that question, I simply cut out #4 from the article..."

Well, don't expect me to be paying *that* much attention.

Doh!

[Eagle of Liberty]

A view that foreign policy should be the venue of Congress

It is my strong view that Congress should have almost no say in foreign policy and should constrain itself to dealing with DOMESTIC issues.

[padre35]

Here here!

Paul’s 15 minutes may run out or they may not, but the NeoCons are persona non gratia as well.

[mnehring]

I would offer a third option- use the UN as a tool for us, versus the other way around that it has been happening. Instead of leaving and letting everyone else around the world make decisions that affect the US, or instead of capitulating to the will of smaller nations, we flex our muscles more in there, remind them who we are, and use them like a tool.

[-=SoylentSquirrel=-]

Feel free to use my product, no matter how lame or insipid!

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Do you notice that when you point out a part of the Constitution that he ignores, such as Congress’ authorization to define and punish offenses against the laws of nations, they say that that section really doesn’t apply today, but other sections and subsections we are traitors if we don’t follow to the letter of how they interpret it?

Reminds me of snake handlers with the Bible.

LOL, also reminds me of "religious liberals", those folks who tell us that the Bible absolutely demands socialism, but doesn't say a word against sodomy or abortion.

[SJackson]

Thank you, this echoes what I've been saying for months now. RoPaul's "vision" about the foreign policy powers of the legislature vs. executive are just the tip of the iceberg for RoPaul's constitutional incompetence.

Despite the voluminous documentation left by, and the diverse opinions held by the founders, it always seems to come down to a one or two line quote, with no context, unassailable in it's clarity. As though Jefferson, a favorite, always agreed with Hamilton and Adams, on every point. Gives little credit to the founders for their individual, as well as collective, achievements. They weren't a like minded social club.

As to the UN, while I'd support a significant downsizing of our commitment, the author will find plenty of support here for a withdrawl.

[ari-freedom]

andrew sullivan is conservative if you think rudy is

[BGHater]

Alot of the problems today is the fact that we have that dam 17th amendment.

The States have lost their say.

Now, all Congress does is tell us how important they are and get film time; States in the past would have put their foot down and told them to deal with ‘State’ problems instead.

[svcw]

Joke - correct?

[SJackson]

It doesn’t change the fact that many were disappointed with GWB stubbornness in refusing to close the border and timidity in prosecuting the war. However much we bitch and moan, the other two choices would have us facing a whole different future.

IMO timidity in prosecuting the war was actually stubborness in correcting a mistake. Add in the secretive manner he handled the Dubai Ports issue, Harriet Meyers, and immigration reform. One could make the case that McCain might have been a better choice, he wouldn't be any worse on the borders, and we got McCain-Feingold