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

[Justice1]

I've decided Ron Paul may be the best choice however, can he make it and cure what ails us...?
Jimmy Carter era of presidency. During his reign there was an oil scare. To alleviate the crisis the national speed limit was lowered to 55mph. it worked.

President Clinton is in charge an energy crisis occures. Immediate short term action, open the national reserves for a brief time, which up until now only seemed to be a myth about American oil reserves. An immediate turn of the taps and bod-a-boom bod-a-bing crisis is short lived. This only goes to prove the 100 year oil supply is not a myth and that there are short-term solutions to long range problems. Now, with that considered, should we not tap-off 20 years off the national reserve? What would it hurt? The Pros, we have immediate relief at the pumps for one, two, we have 20 years to find an alternative cure to the situation with 80 more in the reserve should we need it. Now, I am sure that Big Oil analysis are frothing at the mouth to respond to this so let us understand that while we have all the knowledge and questions, they have all the money to buy off anyone to say anything, so speak-on brothers, hell is only half full with its jaws wide open.

In short, our capitalistic oil companies have become a monopoly as their mega profits soar each quarter?
The economy is like a three legged dog, able to get around and eat but, wait until the next fight
Destroy America economically, of course we have done a pretty good job ourselves by importing labor and exporting jobs
How bout social security?
American dreams as far as mortgage buyout/bac­king/band-­aiding.
So in this era of condoning communism and supporting Olympics on communist soil?China continue to buy world companies with counterfeit U S currency?
Ron, What's your take on these events?

[citizenofmars]

He wants to drill off the California coast!! We all went through hell years ago to keep those rigs off the horizon. His advisors must be drunk if they think we're going for that BS. (not to mention the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, another oil target in Paul's 'plan'). Ever seen a Libertaian environmentalist? Name ONE. Laissez-Faire is their motto....

[loki]

Rue Paul calls himself Libertarian, Is that now the same as republican?
If he does get elected, the republicans can however get even closer to their dreams of ending all social programs for the Non Rich and Non corporate. After all, no reason to help the children, the disabled, or the elderly in America when you can spend that money on War and making more profit for the already mega rich. Now, if they can just get children back in the factories, and used the disabled and elderly as food substitutes like soylent green, just think of the profits US style capitalist could make then. Im sure Organized religion would be more than happy to find a passage in the bible that would allow it as well. After all, somehow they found a way to justify not helping the poor and the sick and strangely interpreted the bible to say you must make as much profit off of your fellow humans and it doesnt matter how you do it . Kill, mane, destroy, its all find with God as long as you can make enormous profits. And really, isnt that what its all about.

[Steamboater]

What difference does it make if Paul as president ends the Iraq war but begins a war on the poor and and those without healthcare and our cities devastasted by natural disaster here? His attitude to all is the hell with you.

[ElmoBo]

He wants to trade with the enemy, i.e. Castro. To that I say NO.

[cominginsecond]

If you want to go backward in every respect but one, vote Ron Paul.

[OkieMon]

Hitler, a neocon/fascist, started a pretty big one.

[situationcritical]

You will all be duped by Ron Paul...a conservative is a conservative is a conservative is a conservative whether real or fake.

You still end up with a CON.

[Erdgeist]

Ron Paul, I think, understands that the U.S. Constitution is simply a set governance procedures laid out for and by the the people ("demos: as in democratic). If the people what entitlements, and the President signs a bill into law, it is constitutional. And that goes for a nationwide insurance program such as Social Security.

What Ron Paul objects to is the unconstitutional mischief such as going to war without a declaration, or Letters of Marque or Reprisal. He objects to the "income tax" which was not supposed to be a "wage tax". According to Stapler v U.S., 21 F Supp 737 AT 739, "Income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment and the Revenue Act, means 'gain'... and in such connection 'Gain' means profit...p­roceeding from property, severed from capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, received, or drawn by the taxpayer, for his separate use, benefit and disposal..­. Income is not a wage or compensation for any type of labor."

A tax on wage is, in fact, meant to produce wage slavery forcing people to use credit which keeps them in a perpetual state of enslavement to the corporate state which is de facto fascism.

Ron Paul is also against fascism. I don't see my fellow Democrats up in arms about fascism and the tax mechanism used to support it, making all of us wage slaves, enslaved to the Military-Industrial Complex that uses about a trillion dollars a year of our tax money.

[KMoore1223]

PRESIDENT PAUL
The moment he became President, Ron Paul would blast away at the chains that restrain freedom, peace and prosperity in this country and around the world.

President Paul would endeavor to scale back Government more than any other candidate and he has an ironclad record of doing exactly what he says. In 20 years in Congress he has amassed one of the most conservative and Constitutionally compliant voting records in American history. He has never voted to raise taxes. Never voted for an unbalanced budget. Never voted to trade liberty for security. Never voted for anything..­.ever; unless it was authorized by our Constitution. The lobbyist call him Dr. No because special interest groups can never get anything (our money) out of him. A man of principle and integrity. He's as incorruptible a politician as there ever was.

A Ron Paul Presidency would usher in a return to the Constitutional principles of limited government, just taxation, fiscal responsibility, sound money, strong national defense and individual rights.

Americans are hungry, thirsty; starving for change. We are tired of what we have been getting. Year after year, administration after administration, Republican or Democrat; nothing seems to be able to stop the unrelenting growth of government and it's corresponding sacrifice of freedom and prosperity. Congress has an approval rating in the teens. Ron Paul is a true Maverick. The establishment can't control him but We The People know exactly where he stands because of his adherence to the Constitution.

Liberty is not the natural order of things. It is extreme. It has existed in a relatively small place for a relatively short period of time. Ron Paul is extreme. He wants elected officials to honor their oath of office. He wants this country and posterity to enjoy the blessings of liberty by going back to the future. Back to our Constitution.

[Pdubya]

James - Thank you very much for this article. It is refreshing to see a writer give just attention to a candidate separate of partisan views. I think we've all suffered from an overdose of either red pills or blue pills. And, these pills have been forced on us by plutocrats. Most on the Hill are now plutocrats who only serve their own interests, lobby's, the Federal Reserve's (a private cartel) and agendas outside of the construct of our constitution through the SPP, NAU, WTO, CFR, NAFTA, CAFTA, WB and UN.

Ron Paul supporters: Dems, Indies, conservative Repubs, blacks, whites, old and young are coming together because the more they look into Dr. Paul's views on Peace, Prosperity and Freedom, they realize that not one of those objectives can exist without the others.

[prolifeprogressive]

""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.""

That, right there is the answer to most of the criticism leveled at how a Paul campaign 'would destroy government'.

HArdly, it would be like america going cold turkey after years of being on everything frm sugar to coffee to booze and dope.

You can imagine how the Clinton's and Giuliani's and Murdoch's of the world will try and stamp out Paul should he get close to the nomination.

All this money has he has been hauling into his campaign has to be making the Corpratist Neo:con-lib's sweat, albeit secretly.

[Chrisa]

A libertarian will never be elected, and here's why: The majority wants a politician who promises them that America right or wrong, will always be ok and nothing can phase us. They also promise free healthcare, free college, free other stuff along with claiming that programs such as Social Security are not going to be bankrupt by 2050 without drastic change. SS is a sinking ship.
Why are we not worried about the Baby Boomers, folks? We're hemorhagging money and its only going to get worse. America has become the 'entitlement' country that bitches and whines whenever we don't get our way.

Real Conservatives know that not only do we need to stop depending on other countries, but we also need to ween people off of the government before it's too late.

[Chrisa]

A libertarian will never be elected, and here's why: The majority wants a politician who promises them that America right or wrong, will always be ok and nothing can phase us. They also promise free healthcare, free college, free other stuff along with claiming that programs such as Social Security are going to be bankrupt by 2050 without drastic change.
Why are we not worried about the Baby Boomers, folks? We're hemorhagging money and its only going to get worse. America has become the 'entitlement' country that bitches and whines whenever we don't get our way.

Real Conservatives know that not only do we need to stop depending on other countries, but we also need to ween people off of the government before it's too late.

[tinkaboutit]

Ron Paul is an emergency amputation of our government.

BUT

He'll stop US warmongering.

He'll cut off Israel.

Would you give up YOUR entitlements to spare the lives of those crushed by future US intervention?

Would you give up your entitlements to end all the motivating factors for terrorism against us, i.e., US intervention abroad and unconditional support for Israel?