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."

Comments

[headcold]

Too bad Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution. How could someone so smart and reasonable be so stupid about science? I would vote for him otherwise.

[BadBrad]

As I read this and other threads, I can't believe how much distortion of Ron Pauls platform and his "personal " beliefs there has been by party loyalists.

I am not a Ron Paul supporter, I am undecided independent. So I kinda like to see everyone running for office of President get treated with a little respect.

I listened to Ron Paul speak and I have read his platform, like I have done with the other presidential candidates. What I see here on this board and other places are the party loyalists from both parties attacking Ron Paul and distorting his platform.

If you want to know what Ron Paul is really about why not read his platform for yourselves?
www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

[Talcott]

Here's a good article

on how partisianship defeats We the People's

common goals.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_anthony__071224_blind_partisanship_i.htm

Secondly, the ignorance about Ron Paul was staggering. Some managed some media driven propaganda blurbs about how Paul wants to do away with everything under the sun. Others called him a racist because he correctly makes the argument that the civil rights act gave too much power to the federal government at the cost of states rights, which is at the core of his beliefs. Others attacked him as anti-woman, I am assuming because he is pro-life. Considering he is a doctor who has delivered thousands of babies, is that position really that surprising? Those that could not find a platform from which to launch an attack simply questioned Dr. Paul’s sanity. The last bastion of the ignorant is to blindly lash out at the mental stability of those they could not compete with intellectually. They wrote revisionist history then, claiming he seemed confused on Meet the Press where he successfully defended himself against the vicious attacks of Tim Russert. They attacked and dismissed his followers despite the fact that Paul consistently out-performs the other GOP candidates in every debate and in fundraising. The ignorance was now at full force.

[MajorKong]

He's right. Unfortunately I disagree with the other 90% or so of his positions.

[Talcott]

Yay!

A reasonable article on DR. Paul at Huffpo.

.
.
.

www.freeatlast2008.com
.
.
.

[repearwo]

I am sorry that so many people think in black and white terms. Just because Ron Paul does not want the Federal Goverment to do things - correctly so - that does not mean that he does not want them done.

When Franklin Roosevelt came into office the country was not technologically advanced enough to have local governemts take care of the poor. Much of the country still did not have electricity. Three of the States had been in the union for less than 25 years.

We are not highly connected and the programs that we needed 75 years ago we no longer need from the Federal GOvernment. Ending the incompetant governance by the Federal Governemnt and all the wasteful spending is not a bad thing nor is it a "war" on anything but waste and incompetance.

It is time for new thinking that lets We The People to get back in the driver's seat. We keep doing the same old thing and expecting a different result - Einsteins definition of Insanity.

We have already had the worst President Ever. Lets try something new. Lets try people who stand for a principle an have a record of doing so. Ron PAul has been a thorn in the foot of the Republican Party for the entire time he has been there.

He is as close to a Lincoln as you will get today.

SO try to think in Color. If you are for abortion rights, All Paul wants to do is send back to the states. If it is sent back to the States he will have no say so if he is against or opposed is of no concern unless you live in Texas and then he is just another citizen there.

[conned]

The way I see it is we have been manipulated and used by the corporate owned Democrats and Republicans. They actually believe that if TV tells us something, we believe it. So in essence, we have "two wings of the same bird" (Lou Dobbs) that are manipulating us at our own expense and to our own detriment. It is the old "divide and rule" strategy of fragmenting opposition.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that poses a challeng to the way things are being run on our dime. He is the only candidate who will restore our rights under the Constitution.

[cognate]

"We have a real problem, and we want the government to do something about it."

If you've had enough of that attitude, you should look into Ron Paul.

[eShirl]

"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."

No, they're CONSERVATIVE in the modern sense of the word. Hence the term neoconservative.

[RickO]

One can't help but like the guy. He's a republican and conservative on many issues that rub up against progressive ideas but he really seems to have a certain clarity of vision we don't see often, and does not seem to be guided by imaginary friends and big-monied interests. If I simply had to choose one of the republican candidates, no question it would be Ron Paul and from the looks of the Democratic field...I wish he were running as an Independant. In fact, there are a growing number of interesting people who, if they decided to run as Independants, could break the 2-party establishment and even have a plurality. We're getting close to that.

[chronic5]

I really want details on how Ron Paul thinks the elderly and disabled and poor are going to fare in his world. I want to know if he really is going to deprive baby boomers of Social Security and Medicare. He says these could slowly be phased out but offers nothing to replace them with. As a doctor he refused to care for Medicare patients so pay attention people, he is not even pretending to be compassionate.
The health insurance companies are not going to insure old people. Watch out, baby boomers.

[Stevelagain]

John Kerry finally found something to do in congress. A cause he can get behind. Something to justify his do-nothing existence. He's threatening to hold hearings if some sports game doesn't get a wider broadcast!

You go John. You have finally found something you are willing to stand behind.

Well, not really. Good old Kerry has a long long history of threatening to take action but never actually doing it.

[Airborne2]

Like the Ron Paul the man said, fascism will come to us wrapped in our flag and carrying a cross. It is happening NOW.......­..........­.

[BPCentrisAmerican]

Hate to break to Congressman Paul; neo-cons and Christian Zionist aren’t conservatives, as for greedy war profiteers thier flag is green, not red white and blue. Wrong party, wrong century, what can I say?

[Wiredwilly]

Nancy " Impeachment is off the Table" Pelosi was the last straw.
I worked for months to get a Democratic Congress & so what.
They gave me the finger.
Ron Paul : a return to the Constitution. What a concept.