The Manichean Paranoia Patch

OK, I have held out long enough. Let’s talk about Ron Paul.

If you haven’t heard the name before, than you are part of a large but rapidly shrinking group of voters. Ron Paul is difficult to describe. He’s a Republican but, as a libertarian, his beliefs are increasingly out-of-line with current Republican thought. His platform is a strange mix-max of positions, many of which are quite out there. Having paid close attention to the election campaign so far and watched all four of the Republican debates, I can say with some certainty that Ron Paul is simultaneously the most extreme candidate and, on many issues, the most logical and fact-driven.

Because there is so much to talk about both in terms of platform, this post will be solely devoted to analysis of Ron Paul’s foreign policy, which for me is his most appealing aspect.

Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate for President that is against the Iraq War, one of six Congressmen to vote against the invasion from the outset. He believes that while American ideals are wonderful and universally appealing. In fact, they are so appealing that they should be able to stand on their own merits and spread naturally, not by the point of a gun (which rarely works anyway).

It isn’t America’s job to police the world, so why do we still have troops spread throughout the globe, particularly in places like Germany that are no longer strategic hotspots? Ron Paul believes that a strong defense means protecting America’s strategic interests only when they are directly threatened, and that wars of aggression are rarely, if ever, in America’s long-term interests.

Our relationship with Vietnam, for example, is very healthy today. We engage in trade and do not include them in even the periphery of our “Axis of Evil.” Why then, did 60,000 Americans have to die on that nation’s soil? Trade, an active dialogue and open mind, and time will heal all wounds. Covert action and regime change attempts by the CIA and undeclared wars do not.

Ron Paul is against attacking Iran because he feels that the cost involved would be astronomical, it would encourage America’s enemies and increase terrorists’ recruiting base, and is generally unnecessary given the current situation. His argument generally compare Iran to the Soviet Union, the evil empire and America’s nemesis for many decades, had nuclear weapons and we never attacked them or any of their satellite states. Why are we so concerned if another country that doesn’t like us obtains them?

While it is true that Ahmadinejad has used some very provocative and deplorable rhetoric, so did the Soviets. Ahmadinejad’s statements have actually produced a lot of domestic backlash, and only when the people of Iran felt like we were threatening their sovereignty, did Ahmadinejad’s domestic popularity recover. Trade and an active dialogue will protect America better than a series of financially exhausting wars ever could. Although Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism, most of the foreign attacks that occur in Iraq are actually Saudis, just like 15 out of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. While I think the biggest concern is that Iran would give a nuclear weapon to terrorists, the same thing could easily be said about North Korea or Pakistan.

Ron Paul is also the only candidate willing to admit what the 9/11 Commission Report stated: that 9/11 was partially a backlash against American foreign policy in the Middle East. Giuliani in particular, continues to tote the “they hate us for our freedoms” argument, despite the absurdity of that statement. If liberalism were really the biggest motivation behind the attacks on America, the Netherlands would be the main target, not the U.S.

Oh, and Ron Paul doesn’t believe the President should be able to drag America into wars without explicitly asking and getting approval for a declaration of war from Congress. At some point after World War Two, this important constitutional distinction seems to have faded. Ron Paul wants to bring it back.