To his supporters, one of Ron Paul's most endearing qualities is his forthrightness. Paul doesn't mince words, he tells you to your face exactly what he thinks. And, to give the man credit, he keeps to his positions even when it would be a lot easier for him to either fudge an answer or tone down his beliefs, the way most politicians do (at certain times).
So it came as no surprise to anyone familiar with Congressman Paul's politics that he would appear this weekend on television -- while Hurricane Irene was still churning up the East Coast -- to reiterate his belief that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) does more harm than good, and shouldn't be a function of the federal government in the first place. For those unaware of the full extent of libertarian thinking on such subjects, it was perhaps a little shocking to hear a Republican candidate for president clearly stating that getting rid of FEMA was part and parcel of the "big government" versus "small government" political debate.
What is astonishing is that nobody seems to have noticed, at least not to the point of taking exception with Paul's stance on FEMA. Ron Paul finally broke through the "media blackout" of his campaign, and appeared this weekend in several national television interviews, making statements like: "We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960. I live on the Gulf Coast; we deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district." And nobody bothers to address his position?
Jon Huntsman seems to have decided that he's going to run for president as the "sane Republican" in the race, but even Huntsman hasn't addressed Paul's words yet (at least not that I am aware). Eric Cantor not only lives in a district in which Irene threatened, but also hails from the same district a rare East Coast earthquake struck last week; and yet he seems to be supporting the concept of FEMA so far (except that he's demanding further budget cuts to offset Irene disaster relief, but that's not the same thing as coming out against FEMA's existence, exactly).
Six years ago, of course, FEMA was the best bad example of why political cronies shouldn't be awarded important jobs in the federal government, in its disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina. But even President George W. Bush came to realize that paying a little more attention to getting this particular agency to work in an efficient and competent matter was a big deal -- after the fact, of course.
Which is exactly what Democrats in Washington should be arguing today. After watching New Jersey's Chris Christie (a new darling of the Republican Party) not only singing the praises of federal governmental help during a crisis but actually going out of his way to publicly thank FEMA for their efforts in his state, this would seem to now be a mainstream political position.
So where are the Democrats who are arguing today some version of the following:
All we hear from Republicans is 'cut spending, cut spending, cut spending.' But some spending is always necessary, and I think this last weekend proved that the federal government is there for all Americans when a crisis hits that is so big it transcends state governments' ability to react. Ron Paul is out there saying FEMA should be abolished, but we stand for strengthening our country's ability to respond to natural disasters and other emergencies in an efficient and competent manner. It's not so much a question of 'big government' and 'small government,' but rather of government that works well versus government that makes things worse. FEMA was pathetic after Hurricane Katrina. It was not pathetic in responding to Hurricane Irene. There's a big difference when you put someone in charge who knows what they are doing, and give them the resources to make it happen. Rather than having government so small you can 'drown it in a bathtub,' we instead want government to work well when you are at risk of drowning, or are hiding in your own bathtub from the storm.
I have yet to hear anyone make this argument from inside the Beltway, personally. Which is, ironically, what sets Ron Paul apart from most other politicians. Ron Paul has a philosophy of government. He sticks to it, even when it would quite obviously be convenient for him to downplay this position or that. And he's not afraid to tell you -- in detail -- what his philosophy means.
Unlike a lot of other Republican candidates, Ron Paul is not the type to denigrate federal spending in public, and then quietly cash in for his district from the same programs he's denouncing, while hoping nobody will notice. In 2008, Hurricane Ike hit the Texas coast and caused massive damage. Ron Paul voted against a bill to send federal disaster aid to the affected areas, even though it included parts of his own district. That is consistency, you have to admit.
Which is why it wasn't too surprising, for anyone familiar with Ron Paul's governmental philosophy, to hear what he had to say this weekend while the hurricane was still happening. What is surprising is the absence of any response from the political world. Of course, Congress is still enjoying its monthlong vacation, so everyone's still out of town. His fellow Republican presidential candidates haven't been noticeably willing to take on Ron Paul's positions on the campaign trail, instead following the "hope he goes away" strategy of dealing with Paul. They are abetted in this, Paul's supporters will tell you, by the mainstream media refusing to give Paul the coverage he deserves.
Personally, I think it would be more interesting for everyone if Paul's comments were given the same weight as Rick Perry's comments, or Michele Bachmann's comments. I'd like to hear the other candidates asked "Do you agree with Ron Paul that FEMA should be abolished?" for instance. Because Paul has consistently staked out one end of the spectrum in the "big/small government" debate. To Ron Paul, the debate isn't actually "big government versus small government," it is more properly stated "government versus no government." It would be interesting to see how far down that path the other Republican candidates are willing to go, and at what point they might actually have some supportive words for a governmental program like FEMA, which is hard at work in a multi-state crisis right now. It would also be interesting to hear Democrats make the "good, effective government is a good thing at times" argument, but I'm not exactly going to hold my breath waiting for that.
[Note: Ron Paul appeared on Fox News Sunday yesterday, but the transcript was not available as of this writing. They do have the video posted at their site, however. Other coverage of Paul's FEMA statements came from a Huffington Post story (with video) and an article from CNN.]
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
Ron Paul: FEMA Is The Real Disaster | FoxNews.com
Ron Paul: FEMA Signals Too Much 'Dependency' On The Federal ...
Ron Paul Addresses Hurricane Irene, Says 'There's No Magic About ...
Ron Paul: 'Why Not?' Abolish FEMA, Government Should Not 'Take ...
FEMA's response to Hurricane Katrina was in fact pretty much perfect -- it was everyone else who utterly screwed the pooch, then turned around and blamed FEMA for their own failures. Above all, Louisiana's state emergency management officials were so unbelievably lazy and negligent that they hadn't even completed basic training in how to operate under the ICS unified disaster response protocols -- more than a YEAR after those protocols were made official.
In short, Katrina is what happens when FEMA does its job but state and local officials fall flat instead of doing their part and the President hesitates to shove them out of the way.
MIAC Report
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/23/fusion-centers-expand-criteria-identify-militia-members/
Really.
Don't believe me? Look at how much presence Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, Reagan, and Clinton had. Even Dubya was working on it. And four of those guys had aircraft carriers named for them; if there ever is a USS Ron Paul it'll be a laundry ship at best.
Your assumptions are based on cherry picked selections.
Ron Paul doesn't want FEMA on the same logic that he doesn't want a drug war, or US occupation of bases around the world. If you want to setup a large incompetent organization and run it with voluntary donations by all means feel free to do so, but stop stealing my money to fund ineffective organizations that interfere with voluntary assistance. You can't blame all of FEMAs actions on the Bush appointment. You simply need to read through all the garbage that went on during Katrina, there is no way their turning water away/etc. had to do with the top guy...
And as for how well they did this time, it was such a non-issue in the first place. By all merits by the time Irene "slammed" into the coast it wasn't even a hurricane according to sustained wind levels and barely had a visible eye.
I think expecting FEMA to do a good job when it's got little incentive to do one is "planning for the best." The worst that happens is the organization fails and the top guy gets fired and the agency gets more money to try it again. They have no profit/loss test. If they do well while using a lot more resources than necessary we have no way to know, because their performance is not measured by any cost/benefit test.
Your argument is wrong because you make it sound like we would not be able to survive disaster situations without FEMA. Well, for your information FEMA was created in 1979 and our country did fairly well before then. When you leave government and taking care of the people to the locals it is always better.
I don't think FEMA came in and helped any of my friends or family when Hurricane Charley came through Florida and destroyed part of my high school or when Hurricane Ivan came through Florida twice. My family and lots of people I know lost money because of natural disasters but they don't go to the government looking for handouts.
I also have a problem with the authors characterization in the article of Ron Paul being "government vs. no government" because he is not an anarchist. He believes that our Founding Fathers created a document that preached a limited government that only provided a few limited things.
The founders realized quickly that a confederate system w/states stronger than the central govt would not be good for our country. They created a strong central govt vs a state by state confederacy.
He is in favor of eliminating the regulatory agencies like the EPA and letting private property owners duke it out in court via tort law. The problem is that you and I can’t afford to take a corporation to court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Free-market_environmentalism
He’s a theocrat who is in favor of having the 10 commandments in courtrooms and allowing states to discriminate and criminalize gays.
http://tinyurl.com/42a3wbv
He has been endorsed by the John Birch Society. Someone please let me know when he rejects this endorsement.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/history/american/8677-ron-paul-as-an-anti-communist-cold-warrior
"It is published by American Opinion Publishing, a wholly owned subsidiary of The John Birch Society."
Next stop Medieval Christendom!!!!
http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/08/neo-feudalism-and-the-invisible-fist/
The 10 commandments makes him a theocrat? As for gays, he's for states rights, not for the discrimination or criminalization, specifically he says.. "Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be" and then takes the strict interpretation of the constitution that there is no explicit right to privacy. Considering this was also the foundation of the Roe v Wade decision, it's not entirely surprising he would come down on this the same way.
"Someone please let me know when he rejects this endorsement."
Please let me know when he rejects ANY endorsement. He doesn't bother with nonsense like that... Aside from that, even people who are wrong on many things don't have to be wrong on everything. Weren't you just talking about "true believers" earlier? I suppose those who are non-true believers think that it's impossible for people who are wrong on some things to be right on anything?
https://mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf
http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block167.html
- Yes, in most of his writings he invokes the supremacy of Christianity. I'm not surprised by his views at all. I think they are absurd and dangerous. He uses libertarianism to disguise his desire to see Christianity in schools & courthouses and to have laws based on the bible (e.g. s 0 d0my and a b0r tion).
- With a group like this he should distance himself the same way the Republicans did previously. It is a sign of how out of control the GOP has become that this does not even raise an eyebrow.
There was an argument at the time of the adoption of the Bill of Rights that by enumerating rights, other rights that people naturally had would not be protected. I guess they were right. Of course it is not explicitly in the Constitution. But how can you argue seriously that people should not have the right to be left alone.
Is Ron Paul More Progressive than Obama?
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/04/28/is-ron-paul-more-progressive-than-obama/