Ron Paul Interview

Dr. Ron Paul is currently the Representative for Texas's 14th district in the United States House of Representatives. However, Paul's influence on American politics extends far beyond the boarders of Texas. He has run for president on two separate occasions, most recently in 2008. Paul is considered to be the leader of the "Ron Paul Revolution." His campaigns have been based around Republican ideals, but with a special emphasis on constitutionalist and libertarian values. In 2008, Paul was the only Republican candidate for President who opposed the Iraq War and other interventionist policies.

Michael Bendetson: Out of the 535 voting members of 111th United States Congress, only 14 are doctors. What inspired you to leave your lucrative medical practice to enter politics?

Ron Paul: It was concern that the country itself was going in the wrong direction. The government was getting bigger, personal liberties were being undermined, and the financial situation was quite bad. I [entered politics] more as a lark, just to speak out and not with the expectation of winning a seat. The odds were against me, however I did win.
The first time I ran and the first time I won was in 1976. Overall, I sought office to help fulfill my desire to shrink the size of government, enhance personal liberties, and improve the economy.

MB: In October of 2002, you were one of the of 6 out of 224 Republican congressmen to vote against the Iraq War Resolution. Please elaborate about why you were so adamant in your dissent towards the bill six years ago and continue to oppose our involvement in Iraq today.

RP: We went to war based on lies. Lies, bad intelligence, and the interests of special interest groups were pushing our foreign policy. Also, [the Iraq War] had nothing to do with our national defense. Further, if the country goes to war, we [Congress] need to declare war. There were so many reasons: moral reasons, economic reasons, constitutional reasons, and practical reasons. I thought it was a complete waste and a violation against everything America stands for. As a result, I strongly opposed going in and I think if you make that bad of a mistake, you ought to get out as soon as possible.

MB: You are one of the few politicians in Washington who believes that Iran is not a serious threat towards the United States. Why do you reject the notion of Iran as a dangerous enemy?

RP: [Iran] does propose some problem to the United States. They are a so-called "enemy," but it's a consequence of our policies toward them. So, they did not one day wake up and say, "Hey we all hate Americans." Our foreign policy has consequences. It is very well remembered by most Iranians, that in 1953 we went over to Iran and our CIA secretly overthrew their democratically elected government. This makes a mockery of what we claim to be. We fight wars, because we claim, "to spread our goodness and democracy." However at the same time, if a democratically elected leader does not please us, we do everything possible to remove him. If there is a military dictator that supports us, we praise him and give him money. The Iranians are acting logically and in their own best interest. Even in the literal sense, they do not pose a threat. They do not have a [nuclear] weapon and they are not likely to get one. Even if they had one, they would not be so foolish as to use one. If they ever did anything and we were completely out of the area, [Iran] would not dare touch Israel. Israel has around 300 nuclear weapons and they would wipe Iran of the face of the earth rather quickly. This whole idea that we have to keep spending money, building up fear, sending troops over, and putting blockades around a country, all it does is stir up trouble and creates more enemies for us. This foreign policy does not make any sense for us. I think the Iranian situation is a typical example, of how these things backfire on us.

MB: You have remained consistent in your disapproval of federal bailouts of both the financial institutions and auto industries. Why are you against federal intervention and what alternative solution would you propose?

RP: First, there is no authority in our constitution that we [Congress] should use taxpayer money to go and bailout companies that have not done well. That alone, should be enough to stop [the bailouts]. Second, it is morally wrong, because you have to take money from somebody who may be productive and reward people who have been non-productive. Third, the economics of [the bailout] are atrocious. Why should we subsidize mistakes? We have been doing that in the past. Our Federal Reserve System has created all the financial bubbles, and now we are suffering the consequences as these financial bubbles collapse. Propping up the mistakes made during the boom phase of the cycle is exactly the wrong thing to do. It prevents the correction [of the economy] and delays the inevitable. In order to get back to economic growth, you have to liquidate the excessive debts and bad investments. The only way you can do that is to just get out of the way. You cannot buy up all the bad debt, but that is what we are doing. This is exactly what we did in the Great Depression. So we are working real hard in the US Congress and with the Federal Reserve to recreate another Great Depression. It makes no sense, what so ever.

MB: Despite the fact that all of the former Republican candidates endorsed Senator John McCain for president, you abstained from doing so. What prevented you from supporting the Republican nominee for President?

RP: I could not find any issues we really agreed upon. I know what Republicans claim they believe in, and that's what I claim to believe in. However, I practice what I preach. Republicans claim they believe in small government, balanced budgets, less taxes, no intrusion on our first amendment rights, and strong national defense. There was a time when Republicans actually believed that we should not go looking for problems overseas. As recently as the year 2000, Bush advocated for no nation building and no policing the world. I have just stuck with that. John McCain stood for the opposite of all these things that I believe in and the Republicans claim to believe in. He has raised taxes, sponsored McCain-Feingold Act, and voted to double the size of the Department of Education. Further, he has never really voted for a balanced budget. Finally, I have a major disagreement with him on foreign policy. He scared me with his plan to send more troops [abroad] and his claim that we should stay in Iraq for a hundred years if necessary. Domestic policies, civil liberty policies, monetary policy, and foreign policy, there was not one issue in which I was in agreement with him. Therefore with a clear conscious, I was not even able to consider supporting somebody that I had such strong disagreements with.

MB: The relationship that you have with the Republican Party has been strained over the recent months. During primary season, you were constantly in the minority combating the other major contenders on issues such as the War in Iraq. In addition, you held "A Rally For the Republic" during the Republican Convention. Do you still consider yourself to be a Republican, or rather a Libertarian?

RP: I think you can be both [Republic and Libertarian]. A small "l" libertarian is a strict constitutionalist. If you look at what the Constitution says and what the founders believed, they were very libertarian. Nobody has written a rule in the Republican Party that said, "those of you who believe in liberty and the constitution should not be allowed in." We can be both libertarian and Republican. It is true whether it was the McCain leadership in the campaign or in the Party itself; they were not exactly friendly [to libertarians]. However at the same time, it very clear that the grassroots still supported me. When it came to one on one at the lower level, [Republicans] were very anxious to support me. When it came to those in party leadership, they did not want to be challenged.

MB: Over the course of your political career, you have acknowledged that global warming is a serious problem. You have supported the idea of "strict property rights" as a solution over government regulation. Why do you place more faith in the private sector than the public sector to solve this problem?

RP: I do not trust the public sector to do anything right. Their record is extremely poor. Although there is evidence from some data that the earth might be getting warmer, you have pretty reputable scientists on both sides of that argument. So to act on the absolute authority that man is the sole cause of the problem would be a mistake. I simply do not trust the government to deal with [the problem]. Once the government gets involved, they end up what they are doing right now. The [Federal Government] is selling permits to pollute. If a company comes along and has these CO2 or pollutant promises that they can pay for, they can [buy land]. Under a property rights viewpoint, if you are truly polluting your neighbor's property, you have no right to do it and are stopped immediately.

MB: On the issue of healthcare, you have rejected the notion of universal healthcare based on a fear of socialized medicine. Instead you have chose to promote a serious of measures based on free market healthcare, such as tax credits for individuals. Why are you confident that solution for this crisis is found in the private sector of society?

RP: Socialized anything does not work. Socialized medicine has failed throughout history. It did not work in the radical socialized systems such as that in the Soviet Union. Today, you can see around the world that in areas where [medicine] is socialized, there are long lines. It may be cheap so to speak when you see the doctor, but there is often no doctor their and you have to wait months for routine surgeries. With a market-oriented system, things are far more efficient. It is not difficult for me to see from both a political and medical viewpoint to see which is best. The problem today is about half the money goes to the middleman: management companies, drug companies, and insurance companies. This drains the money from the care of the patient and the doctor. As a result the system becomes very expensive and the quality of care goes down.

MB: Despite the fact that the federal income tax accounts for around 42 percent of the federal budget, you have proposed eliminating both the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the income tax. What are the reasons for your plans mentioned in the above?

RP: We lived a good while without the income tax, from the founding of the country up until 1913. We paid all of our bills, but we did not pretend to be the policemen of the world. We did not need to have a huge standing army. Also, we did not have a welfare state before 1913. Once the government gained the ability to tax welfare and warfare and once they were able to debase and inflate the currency, the federal government started to grow exponentially. This is where we are today. So if we are a country that cares more about freedom than the government taking care of us, we do need not need an income tax. If we got rid of the income tax we would still maintain 60 percent of federal revenue. That 60 percent is what we had has a federal budget 10 years ago and at that time government was plenty big enough. We [Federal Government] need to cut back and only do things authorized in the Constitution. Under those conditions, we do not need an income tax. If you want to talk about a boost for the economy, just stop the income tax and bring our troops home.

MB: So much has been made in this past election as to "The Ron Paul Revolution." Your recent book, The Revolution: A Manifesto, was a major success, becoming #1 on the both The New York Times and Amazon best seller lists. Also despite a lack of media attention, you managed to raise more money than your fellow Republican opponents during the early primary season. What in your opinion does this "The Ron Paul Revolution" entail, and why has it become so popular?

RP: I think the American people are starved for an answer. I think there is still a love of liberty in this country. They were looking for somebody who would talk about it [that love] clearly. I think what helped and gave our campaign a boost is that more and more people are starting to recognize the failure of our system. Even since the campaign ended, it has become so evident that the things we talked about have unfolded. Government really does not work. Those of us who have discovered this, know we need less government.

Unfortunately, the sentiment in Washington is so locked in that the problem is still not enough regulation. These people are still in charge of the government, but our revolution is going on. There is this tremendous amount of people, especially young people who realize that they are inheriting not only this financial mess, but also the obligation to have troops around the world. They are not buying into the idea that government is the solution to our problems.

MB: What recommendations can you provide for President-elect Barack Obama with regards to what issues to focus on during his initial months as president?

RP: My advice to him would be very simple: stick to your promises, especially with regards to foreign policy. He wants to bring the troops home and have a different foreign policy. However right now, because of his appointees he has not done that. It is very hard for me to expect him to take much advice from me, because we hold such different beliefs. On the important issues, he should listen to the base. Hopefully, he will then listen to us, who talk about free markets rather than depending on central economic planning. Unfortunately, I am afraid he will be going in the wrong direction.

Comments

[mattress 1]

Thank you HuffPost for interviewing Dr. Paul and helping spread the message of Freedom.

[Pdubya]

what is wrong with reducing the government to a level of ten years agon, eliminating the income tax, and bringing our troops home?

nada, niet, nothing

[TomdeSabla]

As to climate "change" skepticism - yes I am a skeptic.

Not about climate change itself, because OF COURSE the freaking climate changes. Duh. What I'm very skeptical about, however, is

1. "The climate is warming to unprecedented levels" which I know is not true, because I know for a fact that this planet has been much warmer and humans existed and thrived.

2. "The climate is warming at an unprecedented pace" because I keep abreast of climate news and realize that the temperature data that went into forming Hansen's famous hockey stick graph has since been admitted to be erroneous. 1998 is NOT the warmest year on record anymore.

3. "Human beings are literally driving the climate of this planet, and we have the power to control its temperature through political power." Some scientists say that it's the sun that drives our climate, and they present a pretty good case. Who's right? Well, I'm going with that gigantic nuclear reaction happening 93 million miles away.

4. "Climate change/global warming is bad." Sorry, but that's not what history says. Actual history says that we hate cold climates and love warm ones. So do animals and plants. They all thrive during warm periods. You could look it up.

This climate thing is just opportunistic statists and grant-hungry government scientists bleating and grasping for more power. It's the biggest waste of time and energy the world's people have ever engaged in. A total embarrassment for the whole human race.

[TomdeSabla]

As to "fencing off the atmosphere" - there is no need; we already have the science and the courts we need to determine if our air has been damaged, and what entity has emitted the polutants. Then we can sue for damages and to stop the emissions. Unless we're talking about sueing some Chinese factory in Kalamazoo Michigan, it won't be that hard to determine where pollutants come from.

And why can't we "apportion individual property rights to a global space"? What do you mean, "global space" anyway? And who is to do the "apportioning"? If you're going to live on land or water, these areas and distances can be easily defined - after all, we have GPS - so why can't people own property in "global space"? Shouldn't be any damn "global space" anyway; it should all be owned, and be Toms space and octo's space, and ubuku's space, and Hernando's space, and Farouk's space.

Who is this "global" fellow, and why should he own anything anyway?

Is it your contention, Octo, that if all this global space were privately owned, then we would all be fenced in and/or fenced out, unable to travel freely around the globe, totally regulated and photographed, and there would be wars and killing?

If it is, then we will be no worse off than we are now right?

[MetalCanuck]

Tooo bad Obama is going to make a mess, ROn was the right guy for the job and America blew it.

[MetalCanuck]

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=8PIEGK0IbA4&eurl=http://www.campaignforliberty.com/index.php?blogpage=3

Time for both Neo-Cons and moonbats to wake up and listen.

[ElkoJohn]

Dr. Paul articulates the libertaria­n-constitu­tionalist position very well.
Dennis Kucinich was also an anti-war candidate and the Dems made
short work of him.
It seems neither major party can stand dissent from within the ranks.
Oh well, at least our system allows an occasional maverick to get into
Congress.
Maybe someday, the american people will wake up and see that we are
being betrayed by both major political parties, which submit on a daily
basis to the Big Money & Powerful Special Interest Groups, and only
every two years to the voters.

[gbrooks]

I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. He's the first politician I ever donated to, and probably the last. The republicans had a real maverick running for president and he was marginalized, just like Kucinich. I have a lot of respect for both men and I would have voted for Kucinich if he had received the Dem nomination despite being a Republican.

They're the only two in Congress that I know of who are honest and have integrity, they haven't forgotten who they work for.

[jamespatrick101]

Couldn't agree more with your comment. And while I don't always agree with every point or issue they support, Dr. Paul and Dennis Kucinich are two of only a handful in Congress I respect.

And I, being an independent and having never voted for a Republican for President (unlike gbrooks), would have gladly voted for Ron Paul in the general election were he the Republican candidate.

[miamia]

I am so glad to see an article about Ron Paul.

He was right about so many things. Yet, tv journalist only give "time" to all the folks who have been consistently wrong, about everything.

Thanks HuffPo!

[rockyersocksoff]

I don't agree with him on everything -hell, I voted for Obama- but I am a fan of Ron Paul.

Nobody in Congress has had the courage of Ron Paul when it comes to criticising the War(s) and Foreign Policy debacles of Georg W B u s h. And America's unfortunate tendency toward Empire over the recent decades.

[TR12]

Ron Paul is awesome

[sequoiahugger]

Thank you, Huffington Post, for being one of the few media outlets for spreading the voice of freedom. Great interview.

[octo]

Good interview. He really makes a lot of sense on foreign policy and the bailout. However his position on global warming is truly in the dark ages. There aren't "both sides of that argument".

Climate change is a problem of the global commons, and the uncomfortable reality for Ron Paul is that libertarianism has no solution for a commons dilemma. As Garrett Hardin states, the only way out of a commons dilemma, where individual altruism is not rewarded unless everyone else is altruistic, is "mutual coercion, mutually agreed", ie collective decision-making. Not individually-based property rights.

This is the reason he misreads the problem. (He also believes there are 2 sides to the question of evolution, I think that alone makes him ineligible for president.)

[heavystarch]

Octo,

Ron Paul makes perfect sense on US Foreign Policy and the Bailouts. On climate change I think he is offering a possible solution to a problem which is still undetermined at best.

What do you mean "There aren't 'both sides of that argument.'"?
Are you implying there is only one side to this discussion of human caused global warming?

"He also believes there are 2 sides to the question of evolution, I think that alone makes him ineligible for president."

OCTO - I get the feeling that you are in the camp that says "the debate is over". Is my feeling incorrect?

[octo]

heavystarch, thanks for the civil response!

It depends on how you frame the debate. There is plenty of debate within scientific and academic circles regarding: the extent of the change; climate sensitivity; the role of ice sheets and other feedback effects; how much does it all matter in relation to issues like poverty; could political movements use the issue as a vehicle to further their selfish interests. So no, the debate isn't over by any means, except in the popular media.

But to say that there's an equal and opposite debate on the issue of whether or not the earth's climate may change in the future, over and above what it would otherwise due to natural variation, does not align with my professional view. The occasional rightwing-­thinktank-­funded book does not carry equal weight with to 1000 climate scientists of the IPCC, who have been criticised for being too cautious in their estimations.

I have no wish to argue about climate change, I'll not convince anyone here. But it certainly suits a libertarian agenda to minimise it as an issue, because philosophically it can't deal with it.

And the similarities to the "debate" about evolution are striking. Again, its a shame, because otherwise he seems a good man.

"When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong." R. Dawkins

[ThomasMorton]

No, it's the global warming (or is it now "global cooling"?) crowd that is truly in the dark ages, and the uncomfortable reality is that the "debate is over" crowd is undergoing a severe attack from independent scientists and other climate experts.

The problem is only "misread" by those who are willing or unknowing dupes of the those who would assert more bureaucratic control over their lives by those who serve the special interests who benefit from this nonsense.

The only ones who should be "ineligible" (an odd choice of words, that) are those who refuse to think for themselves or to wrest themselves away from the received propaganda. And anyone who thinks the "solution" to all this is to surrender to an elite of bureaucrats and globalists is either too naive or too corrupt to be entrusted with protecting the Republic. Oops, too late.

[octo]

That's argument from conspiracy and emotion, impossible to engage with.

[MetalCanuck]

Right on:)

[thrashertm]

Ron Paul was right - he declared in the South Carolina debate back in January 08 that we are in a Recession. He is also right about his worldview and his policy recommendations for the most part. We need to start taking care of ourselves, and not rely on the government to rob Peter to pay ourselves.

[BaltoAman]

"So if we are a country that cares more about freedom than the government taking care of us, we do need not need an income tax."

This is where the rubber truly hits the road. I don't believe we are that country any longer. The masses bow down to Washington D.C., expecting deliverance from all the social ills, but instead get kicked in the chops time and time again.

Now we are in deep doo-doo. Dr. Paul and others called it long ago. Will we start to listen?

[fromthinair]

Great interview with a great man. No one else in the political world even comes close to making sense.