Ron Paul: Real Conservatives Don't Start Wars, They End Them
The following piece was produced by HuffPost's OffTheBus.
Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) recently gained fame for breaking one-day online donation records, but he's still considered an underdog by many because of his single-digit polling and arguably radical views on a variety of issues. For one thing, he supports an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, a position that seems more at home with the Democrats these days. So why is he up there, debate after debate, standing out from the likes of Huckabee and Romney and McCain? Why isn't he trying to fit in if he wants to win the primary? Is he even a Republican?
He told me he is--just not the same kind as the rest of them.
"I think their definitions are different," he said. "Today, the Party has been taken over by a group called neoconservatives, and I don't believe they're really conservative. I think they're really liberal in the modern sense of the word--they're big spenders, they believe in entitlements, they believe in military adventurism."
Paul certainly doesn't believe in "military adventurism." He articulated an anti-preemption stance, geared toward avoiding another inextricable, Iraq-like conflict in the future. And unlike some politicians, he usually acts in accordance with his stated philosophy. For example, he was one of only six Republicans in the House to vote against the Iraq War Resolution.
"The traditional conservative--which the Republicans used to be--did not advocate aggressive war, usually got our country out of the wars such as after Korea and Vietnam..." he said. "We've done exactly the opposite. And because I'm a strict constitutionalist, this has separated me from the other candidates."
Some have called Ron Paul an isolationist, in part because of his views on foreign aid and the use of military force. He strongly disagreed with the association.
"I'm the last thing from an isolationist," he said. "An isolationist is a protectionist--they want to build walls around their country. They may want to bring troops home, but they also want to close the door for trade and travel and the spreading of ideas, and that's quite different. The Founders, I think, had it right when they said, 'Trade with people, be friends with people, but don't get involved in their internal affairs and don't get involved in entangling alliances,' and you'd be a lot less likely to fight people that you're trading with than if you have protectionist measures and sanctions on countries [like] we do today."
He added: "The same individuals who claim I might be an isolationist are the ones who are putting sanctions on countries like Iran and Iraq and Sudan, and yet the trade might stop us from fighting. I, for instance, think we should be trading with Castro, rather than putting sanctions on Castro, because it didn't do any good--after 40 or 50 years, it hasn't helped us a bit."
Finally, Paul believes that the United States should not be entirely dependent on other nations for its energy.
"I think the most important thing is to let the market set the price of energy and get out of the way of alternative energy," he said. "We've been interfering with the development of nuclear energy for 30 or 40 years. We don't develop any new nuclear power plants, but then at the same time we take money and we subsidize alternative fuels such as ethanol, which nobody's ever proven is an economically feasible alternative. So the most important thing is to recognize that the government bureaucrats and politicians have no idea what is the best alternative fuel, but if the market pushes the price of oil up, then people are going to say, 'Hey, they're running out of oil! And oil is now $200 a barrel, we better do something,' and the market's going to come up with the best alternative."
These goals may seem ambitious, but Paul is conservative about what he could accomplish unilaterally, stressing that he would need to rely on congressional support that a mandate, in the form of his successful election to the presidency, would grant him.
"You could [unilaterally] change the foreign policy and bring troops home and save a lot of money. And you could start repealing executive orders that have been so onerous. And you could refuse to enforce laws that are put on the books through regulations and by court orders or executive orders. So you could be discreet in what you enforce, but to really, really have the big changes, yes, you have to work and develop a consensus on what you're trying to do."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Let me tell the people who use these unconfirmed Racial attacks against Ron Paul. I keep my ears open to whats happening in the black community, and have done so for at least 45 years. If Ron Paul had said anything close to that for which he is accused. I and many African Americans would have heard about it many years ago.
These things are manufactured. My suspicions are, he is being slandered, because he is against the number one threat to America and the world. Thats the federal reserves and the irs. These criminal institutions, have controlled nearly every aspect of our lives. Even the politicians and the media.
I am talking about certain people (ones who have profitted through these banks )who have stolen unheard of amounts of money, from us for the last 94 years.
Abortion is an wedge issue...
I too suppport Women's Reproductive Right's,
yet sympathize and understand the other side.
Regardless,
There are more important things to consider,
for me,
Constitutional Rule
Rule of Law,
Freedom from Collectivests,
Freedom of Destiny.
For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents-Thomas Jefferson
I don't have an opinion on what a woman wants to do with her reproductive system, I'm a man. It is between her and her conscience. And it is a state 's right to make that law.
But let me get Dr. Paul's position right. If a fertility clinic puts an egg and zygotes together and one penetrates the egg that’s a life. So if the technician drops the Petri dish then it is murder?
A man is rich
in proportion to the number of things
he can afford to let alone.
--Henry David Thoreau: WALDEN, Chapter II
The radical fringes on the left (commie-leaning) and the right (neo-cons) despise Dr. Paul because he believes in freedom for individuals and in the Constitution. The radical fringes despise freedom for people because it interferes with their agendas, which are to make everyone conform. Dr. Paul believes people have the right to think for themselves and live their lives they way they like in peace. Why is that such a radical idea?
Iraq War Resolution:
Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Yea
John Edwards (D-NC), Yea
John Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Joe Biden (D-DE), Yea
Ron Paul (R-TX), Nay
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 58. I saw Muhammad Ali as a man of great courage, and I admired him for this, not because of the courage that it took to get in a ring and fight men bigger than he, but because of his stance in 1967.
In 1967, he was 25 years old. He was the heavyweight champion of the world, and for religious beliefs, he practiced what Martin Luther King made popular, civil disobedience, because he disagreed with the war. I thought his comments were rather astute at the time and were not complex, but he merely said, I have no quarrel with the Viet-Cong. He said the Viet-Cong never called him a name, and because of his religious convictions, he said he did not want to serve in the military. He stood firm, a man of principle, and I really admired this as a quality.
He is known, of course, for his athletic skills and his humanitarian concerns, and these are rightly mentioned in a resolution like this. But I do want to emphasize this because, to me, it was so important and had such impact, in reality, what Muhammad Ali did eventually led to getting rid of the draft, and yet we as a people and we as a Congress still do not have the conviction that Muhammad Ali had, because we still have the selective service; we say, let us not draft now, but when the conditions are right, we will bring back the draft and bring back those same problems that we had in the 1960s.
http://blo
Liberalnurse
I'm a 50 y/o nurse from rural central Pa. I've always been liberal in my views and active in politics as an life long
democrat. 4 months ago my son, a college junior said the 4 words that changed my life, "What about Ron Paul?" A discussion ensued and I made it my mission to find out "What about Ron Paul" The rest is history. He's not only changed my life, I changed my voter registration, as well as my husband and son to allow us to vote in the primaries. Although, I disagree on a few of his stances, I agree on the ones that are crucial to Americans at this time, civil liberties, returing to the constitution, the rule of law. All really simple ideals that our founding fathers envisioned. As to how I get my Ron Paul "fix" I simply use goggle. I really don't visit the offical web site often. I have joined our local meetup group and have donated to his campain and plan to do so again on New Years Eve. He is HOPE for American and it is a Revolution in every sense of the word. To quote Samuel Adams, " It does not require a majority to preavail but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen to set a brush fires in peoples minds." PEACE... P.S. This is my first ever posted comment.
I'm sorry, I would love to support Ron Paul because of his views on the war and the USA PATRIOT Act, but some of his positions are just nutty.
From his website:
"NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.
And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever."
"Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada."
Sorry, but that's just paranoid to me.
"In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094."
Ron Paul is radically anti-choice. According to his wishes, if a pregnant woman is dying due to a risky pregnancy, it would be illegal to perform an abortion even to save her life... instead, the doctor would have to watch the mother die knowing he probably could have saved her. All this because as an OBGYN, Ron Paul has not personally had the misfortune of witnessing a situation that would warrant the use of abortion to save the mother.
"In the past, I introduced legislation to repeal the so-called 'assault weapons' ban before its 2004 sunset, and I will oppose any attempts to reinstate it."
No need to elaborate there.
I could go on but I really don't have time right now. I recommend reading his website VERY carefully. There's a lot of good stuff in there, but there's a lot of crazy stuff too that I consider radical.
Real conservatives don't support Soviet style legislation either:
Congress is perched to enact the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 20007 (Act)," probably the greatest assault on free speech and association in the United States since the 1938 creation of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC). Sponsored by Rep. Jane Harman, California Democrat, the bill passed the House of Representatives on Oct. 23 by a 404-6 vote under a rule suspension that curtailed debate. To borrow from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, the First Amendment should not distract Congress from doing important business. The Senate companion bill (S. 1959), sponsored by Susan Collins, Maine Republican, has encountered little opposition. Especially in an election year, senators crave every opportunity to appear tough on terrorism. Few if any care about or understand either freedom of expression or the Thought Police dangers of S. 1959. Former President John Quincy Adams presciently lamented: "Democracy has no forefathers, it looks to no posterity, it is swallowed up in the present and thinks of nothing but itself."
http://was
Iraq War Resolution
Clinton - Yea
Edwards - Yea
Paul - Nay
You may be right, Ron... unfortunately, the last "real conservative" passed into oblivion some time ago, unnoticed by all the half-baked, knuckle-dragging reactionaries presently feeding on what's left of the GOP.
On your other points, delusionals frequently experience moments of clarity. That doesn't change your diagnosis.
You know what they say about a stopped clock...
The reason Ron Paul will not be nominated is that his opponents have successfully send out sound bites like 'isolationist' and phases like 'he wants to destroy the CIA' etc.. and the media have run with it.
Many people I speak to about Ron Paul at first think he is a nutcase.. then they read his policies in depth and end up agreeing with him.
In my opinion, anyone who does not vote for Ron Paul is a traitor to the original intent of our founding fathers.
Ron Paul is of the "old school" conservative -- an "Eisenhower" repub, of the highest character. In addition to Ike's mil-indust
"Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among peoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension, or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt, both at home and abroad”
We need a leader who views the complex world through this kind of a by-example limited-government lens. Ron Paul holds real promise.
I understand being against War - but against Lincoln?
Ohg
http://the
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
