I like Ron Paul

[ArmedBear]

You made it clear that you're not sure Paul would make a good Prez, but you didn't make it clear why.

His foreign policy, or lack thereof, shows dangerous naivete. (I believe the same thing about the LP, of which I used to be a member, and from which Paul's foreign policy is lifted.)

I disagree with his Iraq policy. "Bring the troops home now" does not show an appreciation for the consequences of doing so.

It should be noted that, while Ayn Rand opposed the war in Vietnam on similar grounds to Ron Paul's opposition to Iraq, she also opposed withdrawal because of the consequences of doing so. I'm not an Ayn worshipper, but it strikes me that in 2007, libertarianism, as exemplified in Paul's platform, has wandered quite far from its roots.

I disagree with his analysis of terrorism, which is that we pissed them off, so of course they're attacking us, therefore we should avoid pissing them off in the future. Not only is this history lesson a half-truth lifted straight from one of the world's best liars, Noam Chomsky, it does not serve us as we go forward. The Cold War is over. While it was going on, we made decisions as best we could. Some caused blowback; this doesn't mean that the opposite action wouldn't have been worse both strategically and morally (e.g. our stance towards Cuba or helping the Mujahadeen -- note that many in Afghanistan were allied with the US right away in 2002; we helped THEM in the 1980s, too.) One way or another, harping on Cold War decisions decades after the fact is not "instructive" as Chomsky would say. Paul's foreign policy as stated on his campaign website does not show informed leadership; it shows trendy academic groupthink.

Acting so as to avoid "blowback" at all costs is not an effective foreign policy. Either Paul is very bad at framing his "issues", or his primary goal is to try to avoid "blowback." It failed miserably for Carter -- "they" still hated us, and "they" no longer respected our military power. There is no reason to believe that a similar policy would work for anyone else, not John Kerry, and not Ron Paul, either.

Furthermore, while I like the sentiments of his platform regarding withdrawal from every international organization, trade group, agreement, etc., this is not how you play the game. John Bolton knows how to play the game: go to the UN, and look after American interests 100%. Paul claims he wants "diplomacy", but it appears that he means that in the way that the academic left means it. I don't want kumbaya-with-dictators "diplomacy." I want look-after-US-interests diplomacy. I fail to see how total disengagement would accomplish this, or would accomplish free trade.

"Blowback" will happen, though, if we pursue just about ANY policy, trade or military. Ditto for Islamic terror. See Europe for examples. We can't change history, either. There's little point in talking about it, except to make sure we don't repeat obvious mistakes. Wishing we could go back and do something different 25 or 50 years ago just isn't a viable approach. And if you have any life experience, you know that, no matter what you do, SOMEONE won't like it.

Paul talks about France wanting to tax all US goods in the EU because of some of our trade agreements. Yup, that's bad. Now think about what would happen if there were NO trade agreements. The tax would be in place, and it would be a good deal larger than what France now wants.

I adamantly oppose ceding control over US laws to the WTO, UN, et al. However, I think that playing the game to win will get us a lot farther than just not playing and pretending that free trade will just happen without any agreements. It didn't happen before; what's different? Like I said, I've seen what good diplomacy looks like at the UN, and its name is John Bolton.

How's that for a start?

Paul's domestic policy is pretty much right on the money. However, a US President, unlike someone similar in many other countries, is Commander-in-Chief and Head of State. Perhaps this is a great weakness of our Constitution, but it's a fact, nonetheless. I wish we COULD vote for someone like Paul to preside over internal matters, sign/veto bills, push legislation, etc., and someone else for Head of State, but we can't.

 

[BigG]

RE: blowback avoidance syndrome -

ArmedBear: I like how Ann Coulter put it, "Damn that Bush! He made people who hate our guts not like us!" OWTTE

 

[XD Fan]

Very well said, Armed Bear!

 

[budney]

I disagree with his analysis of terrorism, which is that we pissed them off, so of course they're attacking us, therefore we should avoid pissing them off in the future.

You left something critical out: the things we did to piss them off were things we had no business doing in the first place, like supporting dictators, toppling governments, etc.

It would be appeasement to say, "Anything we do that others don't like, we should stop doing."

Ron Paul says, "The things we did that they didn't like are things we had no business doing, and they SHOULD be mad about it, and we SHOULD stop it."

There's an important difference. If they really did "hate us for our freedom," you wouldn't catch RP trying to take away our freedom to appease them. Giuliani, on the other hand, could honestly say, "That's OK: I was planning on taking away their freedom anyway."

--Len.

 

[MrRezister]

"Blowback" will happen, though, if we pursue just about ANY policy, trade or military. (snip) And if you have any life experience, you know that, no matter what you do, SOMEONE won't like it.

Thanks for the response, Bear. I appreciate the time you put into that, and it cleared a lot of things up. Unfortunately, I think that the "someone won't like it" argument is sort of a carte blanche, is it not? If we're going to have enemies no matter what, then we might as well exert all our force on the bad guy du jour and wipe out whole countries at a time. Chavez has been getting on our nerves lately, how would he like a Tomahawk - I understand the remains leave the "smell of sulfur". Sure, it might tick off most of the international community, but it sends a message, right? "Don't mess with America!"

I understand that's extreme, but I feel like you're painting Paul as an Isolationist, and that's not what I'm hearing from him. His ideas on foriegn policy seem to be that America should keep her eyes and ears open, but keep her hands and feet to herself. I think there's ample room in American policy for both "non-intervention" and "good diplomacy". Ron Paul thinks so as well - here's a quote from his website:

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihads themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

Source: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/html/issue-War_fx.html

 

[HiroProX]

BigG,

Then you have abdicated your right to complain about gun control, etc.

The candidate with the best position in right in front of us.

Liberty at home or foreign military adventurism, pick one you cannot have both.

As for what planet I fell off of, it'd have to be one where actions have consequences, and adults accept responsibility for those actions and their consequences.

 

[BigG]

As for what planet I fell off of, it'd have to be one where actions have consequences, and adults accept responsibility for those actions and their consequences.

As I suspected, obviously not Earth.

 

[HiroProX]

Nah, it'd be earth, we just have a severe shortage of adults in the world at present.

 

[samtechlan]

I've also contributed to Ron Paul. He's not an isolationist, he's a non-interventionist when it is not in the national interest.

 

[limbaughfan]

BigG that was a great Ann Coulter quote, simply put Ann rocks.

 

[Titan6]

Err Bear Which is it?

I like where he stands, I like the man, I like his smile. I like everything about him.

OR

His foreign policy, or lack thereof, show dangerous naivete. (I believe the same thing about the LP, of which I used to be a member, and from which Paul's foreign policy is lifted.)

I disagree with his analysis of terrorism, which is that we pissed them off, so of course they're attacking us, therefore we should avoid pissing them off in the future. Not only is this history lesson a half-truth lifted straight from one of the world's best liars

OR

Do you like everything about naive, thieving, liars?

At least you are no longer claiming to be a libertarian. Why don't we just go ahead and call it what it is? You are presenting the current foreign policy view point, which is more of the same. This is okay since this is what you believe.

Now this piece make me ask the whole why not question...

However, a US President, unlike someone similar in many other countries, is Commander-in-Chief and Head of State. Perhaps this is a great weakness of our Constitution, but it's a fact, nonetheless. I wish we COULD vote for someone like Paul to preside over internal matters, sign/veto bills, push legislation, etc., and someone else for Head of State, but we can't.

By head of state do you mean as presented to foreign leaders? In your copy of the constituion who is empowered to make treaties?

 

[atblis]

Well

I look at it this way.

It's a mixing process. You vote for a few different people

Ron Paul has some things I like. Somethings I don't.

A politician who doesn't have any stances you don't like is a lying piece of crap. They're pretending to be in the middle in order appeal to the broadest audience. You have no idea what they actually are.

Fortunately, simply being President isn't a guarantee you'll get everything done you want.

Unfortunately most of the political issues and views we get presented with are vastly oversimplified for common consumption. I think the statement that Ron Paul has no foreign policy is what his opponents would like you to believe.

He's not an isolationist, he's a non-interventionist when it is not in the national interest.

Exactly. I am sick of giving hundreds of millions of dollars to places that I could care less if they cease to exist.

 

[Marshall]

I like Ron too. Really. I like the fact he has balls to stand up and say what he thinks, whether I fully agree or not. I like his overall position as far as being a constructionist goes. Personally, I believe he picked the wrong tree to bark up and it's going to cost him.

I agree with Armed Bear in the fact that our next President will be a good communicator, or by all rights should be. I would like to see Newt officially put his hat in the ring. I don't see anyone on stage that can communicate as intelligently as he can. He would absolutly bury Hillary or Obama in debates. Unfortunately, he has a stigma that accompanies him but, I think the more that people see and hear from him, better.

Fred, I want to see him get into this full ahead. But timing is everything. Same with Newt. Don't want to peak to early. They both may be playing this right.

 

[Rachen]

You are not alone


I swear total and firm allegiance to Ron Paul. I always sided with the most conservative parties in the US, and Ron Paul is the best of them. The more support he has, the more words we can get on air, the bigger we can carry the fight. Each piece of evidence now that shows that gun control does not work is a great UFC sized fist in the face of the antis.

Now Ron Paul is in the ring, he will make all the antis TAP OUT

 

[GoRon]

The football analogy works better than a one on one UFC type fight.

Ron Paul and other libertarians only have one play, the hail Mary pass. It only works once if at all.

The other team will run right over and through them eating up a few yards at a time, grinding out "progress".

Oh yes, hail Marys are fun, but you don't script it for every play.

Its always all or nothing with the libertarian types.

Then they wonder why they always get nothing.

 

[MrRezister]

Ron Paul and other libertarians only have one play,

You mean that whole "personal liberty/limited government" thing? Yeah, it's no wonder they can't get any serious support among American voters, right?

 

[Boats]

It's no wonder at all, just look at all of the dreamland pronouncements made here on behalf of RP or the LP over the years.

Kind of a chicken and the egg problem in my view. Libertarians will not be taken seriously until they win something. Libertarians can't win something because no one takes them seriously.

What's missing?

The Farm Teams.

The Libertarian Party has always been about gaining federal matching funds, not actually winning an office and devolving it or privatizing it. There's no federal trough to pig out in during the local dog catcher election.

As a result, there are about as many credible Libertarians out on the hustings as one can count upon his hand.

Real political parties presenting themselves as credible alternatives build from the ground up. They capture local seats somewhere and build a regional base of power with experienced candidates who know how to connect with voters and raise money. That developed talent, with a lot of luck and a lot of sweat, catches on as a national party if done well, especially if there is a signature issue to latch onto.

Then again, the LP is not a credible effort by any objective measure.

 

[budney]

Then again, the LP is not a credible effort by any objective measure.

It was created as a way to educate the public, not really as a way to get elected. The party has since lost its way, and decided that they ARE about getting elected, and that the way to do that is to stop being so libertarian.

--Len.

 

[ArmedBear]

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

He doesn't mention military action. That made more sense when we fought with muskets, not missiles. It doesn't make sense to me now. He doesn't mention what we should do when a nice chat doesn't work.

Maybe he would send in the bombers, but has some disagreements about when and where. If so, it seems he wants to give the impression of a huge contrast when there is a much smaller one, between his policy and his opponents'. If not, then what does he propose to do when things don't work out according to the promises of LP dogma?

At least you are no longer claiming to be a libertarian.

Actually, there are MANY, MANY people who call themselves libertarians who agree more with me than with the Libertarian Party platform, regarding foreign policy. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to give a small group of people the right to define a word. Furthermore, nobody agrees 100% with anyone else, every minute, if either person is using his/her brain.

Perhaps I should call myself an O'Rourkian? Of course, PJ seems good enough for Cato, and he's called a libertarian by people of many political stripes, even as a pejorative sometimes. So you don't get to define the word for me, either, Titan6. Perhaps you ought to just call yourself a Paulista, like much of the blogosphere would? Or do you prefer to think for yourself a bit? I suspect you'd want to decide for yourself, and I think you ought to be allowed to.

Do you read Tech Central Station? Those are also libertarians. Most don't identify with the LP's platform, except in a general way.

That's why I'm puzzled by your insistence on some fundamentalist doctrine, since you call yourself a reformed republican, not an LP member. Can the GOP decide you're not? You're probably the first non-LP-member I've ever read or heard, who thought he could decide that other people with a certain class of views that they couldn't be "in the club."

You are presenting the current foreign policy view point, which is more of the same.

Well, if the "current foreign policy view point" means "anything other than Ron Paul's platform," I guess you're right. Otherwise, it's a false dichotomy. You seem to be defining as this "current viewpoint" any opinion that acknowledges the value of or need for military intervention, ever. That's a very broad brush, so broad as to be a meaningless definition. There is so much variation of opinion within that general viewpoint that it can't even be listed. You're using a mutation of the silly moonbat meme: "anyone but doctrinaire Libertarians and far-left anti-war activists are a bunch of dirty, filthy neo-cons!"

Note Ron Paul's campaign web site. It DOES NOT MENTION the use of military force in the international arena, on his Foreign Policy page. I'm taking that at face value. If his stated platform can't be taken at face value, then I'm even more disturbed by it.

By head of state do you mean as presented to foreign leaders? In your copy of the constituion who is empowered to make treaties?

Here's a wonderful compare-and-contrast piece, if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_state

My Constitution says this about the President:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls...

The Senate can approve or disapprove a treaty, but it's initiated, negotiated, and "sold" by the President and subordinates within the Executive Branch. The fact that the President doesn't have absolute power to approve treaties does not make his role any different.

 

[ArmedBear]

Ron Paul says, "The things we did that they didn't like are things we had no business doing, and they SHOULD be mad about it, and we SHOULD stop it."

And I say that's easily said, especially after the fact. I'm just plain not impressed by it, since the real decisions faced by a real President are not so simple, and never have the benefit of hindsight.

What DO we have any business doing, especially in the context of something like World War II and the resultant Cold War? These wars were chock-full of moral ambiguities, but we had to win anyway. If we had lost, the cause of liberty that all of us DO agree is important, even if we differ in fine points, would have been set back enormously. What about dealing with real threats?

This isn't the 18th Century. Missiles don't have to be marched to your borders like muskets do.

You mean that whole "personal liberty/limited government" thing?

I'm all for that. And I'm the one who is being called a "not-libertarian" here because I point out what I think are some gaping holes in Ron Paul's LP-platform/academic-left-wing-based foreign policy platform.

Do you like everything about naive, thieving, liars?

To paraphrase Jesus, nobody's perfect.

Seriously, though, I don't think someone has to have all the right ideas about everything to be likeable, or a good member of a political team. I don't think Paul is lying, or thieving. I think he is naive about foreign policy. I'd be pretty busy if I had to hate everyone who is naive about foreign policy. I'd even have to hate myself.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Rose O'Donnell supports Ron Paul... no, seriously, she quoted him.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/...s-insults-elisabeth-calls-carter-christ-like/

Towards the very end.

 

[Titan6]

That's why I'm puzzled by your insistence on some fundamentalist doctrine, since you call yourself a reformed republican, not an LP member. Can the GOP decide you're not? You're probably the first non-LP-member I've ever read or heard, who thought he could decide that other people with a certain class of views that they couldn't be "in the club."

The issue is I don't claim to be anything that I am not. For a while you were.

Well, if the "current foreign policy view point" means "anything other than Ron Paul's platform," I guess you're right.

What have you presented that is different than current foreign policy and insist that it is the right course? You will find that 80% of America disagrees...

You're defining as this "current viewpoint" any opinion that acknowledges the value of or need for military intervention, ever.

That is simply not true. No where have I ever done anything of the kind.

There is so much variation of opinion within that general viewpoint that it can't even be listed. You're using a mutation of the silly moonbat meme: "anyone but doctrinaire Libertarians and far-left anti-war activists are a bunch of dirty, filthy neo-cons!"

I don't ever recall calling you a neocon. Although I may have, certainly you are very defensive of the NEOCON foreign policy. So show me some other solution... I would really like to see it. What is Fred's take on the war? What would the foriegn policy look like under a Thompson administration that is so differen than what we have?

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls...

The Senate can approve or disapprove a treaty, but it's initiated, negotiated, and "sold" by the President and subordinates within the Executive Branch. The fact that the President doesn't have absolute power to approve treaties does not make his role any different.

True, but since WWII the Senate has been turned into that of a rubber stamp for the president. What the president wants (or does not want), he gets and few stand in the way. Would it not be better if this were done "by and with the advice and consent of the senate" instead of the other way around?

The senate gives up it's power and we are left with an unchecked executive.

 

[ArmedBear]

The issue is I don't claim to be anything that I am not. For a while you were.

Where? Libertarian is a general term, and I've been forthcoming about any specific beliefs. And if I registered as a Republican, and joined the local committee, but said, "I don't want to ban early term abortion," would I not be a Republican because that's in the party platform? I'm not buying it.

What have you presented that is different than current foreign policy and insist that it is the right course? You will find that 80% of America disagrees...

1. I am not running for office. I don't have the ideal foreign policy plan, and I haven't seen you present one, either. If I think Ron Paul's is fatally flawed, I'll say so. That doesn't mean I agree 100% with your favorite political enemy du jour.
2. If you're going to point to polls, 99% of America isn't currently planning to vote for Ron Paul. This means, what, exactly?
3. I may not like particular decisions made by past or present administrations with regard to military force. However, that does not mean that I buy into the Paulyana policy, either. "Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations." I agree. However, I don't think that the necessary outcome is "and everything will be okay." It wasn't okay under Jefferson, either. He sent the military to North Africa when the country was in its infancy.

certainly you are very defensive of the NEOCON foreign policy

Uh, you just did. I can't even tell you exactly what "neocon" means, but if "neocon" foreign policy is any foreign policy we've had for the past century, executed by Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, then hell, throw around whatever meaningless terms you want. Just because someone doesn't agree with you, or Ron Paul, doesn't mean he has thrown in with whatever philosophy you most despise at the moment. That's fundamentalist thinking: us or them, total depravity or total salvation, Jesus or Satan. I keep my libertarianism away from Calvinism.

But tell me, was Jefferson also a neocon?

True, but since WWII the Senate has been turned into that of a rubber stamp for the president.

That shows how his role as Head of State is more important than it would seem, even, like it or not.

 

[Mumwaldee]

Get to the za choppah!

 

[BigG]

You mean that whole "personal liberty/limited government" thing? Yeah, it's no wonder they can't get any serious support among American voters, right?

Yes - you have to appeal to more than 0.0013% of the electorate to get elected. I would suspect you count yourself fortunate that you have placed yourself in such an exalted class.