Infinite MonkeysNick Gillespie and Matt Welch of Reason have a fascinating op-ed in Sunday's Washington Post probing the Ron Paul phenomenon. As Gillespie and Welch note, Paul has "about 5 percent (and climbing) support in polls of likely Republican voters." At this rate, Paul could well lock up the GOP nomination by March of 2013.
Seriously, though, Ron Paul is a fine congressman. If he represented my district, I'd surely vote for him. And I agree with my libertarian friends that Paul, the presidential candidate, appeals to a certain brand of voter. At one point, a thousand centuries ago, I might have been that voter. Alas, I don't believe Paul will be my candidate this year.
Here's the thing. Gillespie and Welch write: "Paul's challenge represents a not-so-lonely GOP revival of unabashed libertarianism. All his major Republican competitors want to double down on Bush's wars; none is stressing any limited-government themes, apart from half-hearted promises to prune pork and tinker on the margins of Social Security."
I believe in freedom. I believe in the Constitution. But "Bush's wars"? Don't push me. The trouble is, you really need to believe that America is at war or not. Either the United States is facing an existential challenge from Islamist terrorists, or not. Either it's a Bushist fantasy, or not.
Evidently, Ron Paul believes the United States is engaged in a needless war, founded on a Bushist fantasy. If that's the case, Ron Paul is absolutely and unequivocally wrong. That isn't the only reason why the gentleman from the great state of Texas won't be president, but it's a damn good one. I agree that the government is too big, and that it spends too much, and does too much. But the war is real. And war makes government big. We'd better win, or the government will stay bigger than we honest-to-goodness libertarians would like.
Posted by Ben at November 25, 2007 11:02 PM | TrackBackRon Paul is right that we can defend our country just fine without bombing Iraq. We would be smarter if we took our troops home. I have cousins in the army, a brother in the air force, and a sister in the marines. They agree with him.
Posted by: at December 1, 2007 07:50 PMThis article logic escapes me? The war is real, shi.. yea because we went over and started to invade their country under what guise? That Saddam started 9-11? That he had yellowcake, whatever that is? Maybe he just had some Betty Crocker cake mix left over and the CIA made an honest mistake. Kucinich has commenced impeachment proceedings based on the lies of Cheney. You know he is a solution to make the war unreal? Just leave.. What is our goal there? If you want to kill everyone, just do it and get out of there. Why make a big long drawn out production about it. Just set off a few nukes and call it Depleted Uranium. No? Well, why are you there in the first place and what are you after besides depleting and demoralizing our armed forces with an occupation that makes zero sense. Ron Paul will win despite what people say with depleted logic. No taxes, No patriot act, no taking my shoes off at the airport, sounds good to me. The irony here is that Ron Paul supports everyone except for everyone who is hiding their Treason under the cloak of National Security. The truth is that the people in Washington are terrified of Paul, because he is a moral man and incorruptible, he will actually follow the Constitution and that scares the bejesus out of everyone in Washington.
Posted by: Kevin Courtois at December 1, 2007 07:51 PMApparently, some Ron Paul supporters have found this blog. Good. Glad to have you. Here's the answer. The United States does not exist in a vacuum. It acts in its interests, and the rest of the world -- countries, nations, ethnicities, religions -- reacts. But the rest of the world also acts in its own interest. Ron Paul's policy of non-interventionism, though commendable in theory, does not recognize the ways in which the rest of the world acting in its interests adversely affects the interests of the United States.
Like it or not, America is an empire -- with all that word entails. Ron Paul may be a good man, and a faithful acolyte of the Constitution. But he is not fit to be president in 2007. Read Cicero. And read Cicero's biography.
Posted by: Ben at December 1, 2007 10:56 PMBen, non-interventionism is not "Ron Paul's policy". It's the policy of oh let's see... George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, et.al. Ron Paul is just jogging our memory a bit. So if you're going to argue for interventionist foreign policy you must start by undercutting the premises upon which the Founders articulated non-intervention. Find yourself in an argument with their statements and let's see how many people agree with you.
Posted by: Cory Burnell at December 1, 2007 11:35 PMCory, it's more complicated than you make out. Adams and Jefferson supported policies that ultimately led to the expenditure of one-fifth of the Republic's budget to a North African sultan. At best, it was blackmail. Please read up on the war against the Barbary Pirates. You know the U.S. Marine Corps lyric about "the shores of Tripoli"? Ron Paul, God bless him, has selective understanding of history.
Posted by: Ben at December 1, 2007 11:44 PMUntil I see someone come up with a better game plan for saving this country than Ron Paul, there is nothing else to talk about.
Posted by: at December 2, 2007 02:30 PM"Ron Paul will win despite what people say with depleted logic."
I just wanted to see that posted again.
Posted by: Monkey Brad at December 2, 2007 08:11 PM