My oldest son Kit and my wife are both big fans of Ron Paul and intended to vote for him in the republican primaries. Personally I don't know enough about Ron Paul to form a real assessment of him.
From what Kit has informed me, Ron Paul is against American international adventurism such as existed during the cold war (propping up dictator regimes).
I also have been informed that Ron Paul is very conservative toward the Constitution. We'll isn't that radical to the status quo of the Constitutional hypocrites now in Washington D.C.?
What about the topic of Austrian Economics which seems to be so closely associated to Ron Paul?
What style of President might Ron Paul project if he should win the White House? I need your thoughts on these and other matters of interest concerning Ron Paul. MY wife really wants me to get behind Ron Paul, but it's just too early to commit.
You might check out this column on Ron Paul, that I saw just yesterday.
ReplyDeletehttp://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/7195-adele-m-stan-alternet
Hmmm. Thanks for the link Manssana. The article seemed to fail to note that the things it was saying Ron Paul was against, fell under FEDERAL government over reaching actions. For instance, to think something like the Civil Rights Act wasoutside the pervue of the FEDERAL Government to which Rona Paul is philosophically oppsed to under the criteria of the Constitution, doesn't mean that he's racist. It means he disapproved of the actions of the FEDS, acting outside of the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteI think the article was slightly distorting Ron Paul's dissaproval of a Governemnt action as being against something the Government action (illegally) was addressing.
But that being said, if Ron Pauls is against Abortion and against Homosexuality, and to confining the Feds to the innumerated powers of the Constitution, then I'm aqlright with that aspect of Ron Paul.
What most people I lsiten to are objecting to is Ron Paul's "neive'" foreign policiy views. That was my first snag with Ron Paul as well when years ago I approved of the Iraq War, yet Ron Paul seemed to think it was reckeless unnecessary adventurism. He didn't resonate with me on his foriegn policy views at that time.
New day, new issues, so I'm not so sure how I view Ron Paul's foreign poloicy positions, because I haven't heard anything relevant on that lately.
Later on, I'll write a similar list comparing Non-Interventionism to Americas current foreign policy stance: Preemptive Interventionism. It's actually a lot like Isolationism, except that the military focus is directed extra-nationally as well as domestically.
ReplyDeleteThis being said. I think we can agree that Ron Paul is not an "Isolationist", but is in fact a "Non-Interventionist". Any time you hear someone state that his foreign policy arguments are weak or nonexistent, you can be assured that that person just hasn't heard the man out.
I think that a lot of where this misconception comes from is due to the fact that Ron is operating on an entirely different premise than what people are familiar with.
Just how you, Dad, once said that you try to make your starting point of analysis the view point of God, and therefore people have trouble getting you. Ron Paul's starting point of analysis is of a completely unregulated free market and of a foreign policy that respects the rights and sovereignty of other nations and peoples. Pretty radical huh?!
It's of an ideal situation in which the overflowing wealth of the American Free Market, coupled with it's unparalleled respect for human rights is the bringer of peace, and not the heavy handed, "gun drawn" military coercion by which America currently ensures "stability".
A few familiar adages that exemplify Ron's foreign policy are; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." "Be polite. Speak softly. And carry a big stick." "Never start fights. But always be ready to finish them." And "In business, reputation is everything."
But most importantly he holds the believes that Most if not all conflicts can be avoided by not meddling in other peoples business. And that if you do offend another nation that you should give them a chance to petition for a redress of grievances, just as a citizen has the right to do. The world has enough tyrants without the CIA propping up more of them, and causing the people of the world to resent us.
Then if they still want to fight, A Non-Interventionist military policy allows you to build up a hoard of resources in your own country. And just as the Legendary General; Sun Tsu wrote in "The Art of War", we should fight hard fast offensive wars, backed by the rule of "Moral Law", and end them quickly before we empty our nations coffers.
As far as situations in which a populace is being slaughtered by a tyrant. The proliferation of free trade alone tends to disable that kind of behavior. A surplus of production will increase the wealth of all the world. And usually if there is enough business and wealth flowing into an area, the people will have an opportunity to seek refuge elsewhere or establish militias to depose the despot.
At it's core, Ron Paul's foreign policy is one of; respect, peace, liberty, truth, civil justice, and Love for your fellow human.
V: Thank you for those clarifications, Kit. Right now I can't seem to poke an holes in what you've put forward. Nor can I seem to find any personal discomfort in the stated approach that you say repesents Ron Paul.
ReplyDelete