Why Ron Paul is Resonating
We at Nexus have been watching with curiosity as Ron Paul continues to hold a strong following despite the bad publicity of late in regards to some disgusting newsletters that went out under his name many years back. There is a constituency, relatively small but seemingly growing, that is waking up to the fact that U.S. foreign policy may indeed be undermining our national security, not improving it. Let’s delve into this argument just a bit to see if we can understand why people might feel this way.
With over 4000 troops killed in Iraq, and tens of thousands wounded, many returning with psychological problems, and according to some reports over 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed, Ron Paul supporters would use this as exhibit A as evidence that spending billions and billions for this is a foreign policy run amuck. Throw in the fact that the grounds for the intervention were weapons of mass destruction that turned out not to exist, and you have this constituency madder than heck.
Afghanistan is no better. The Russians were there for 10 years and finally recognized their war’s futility. The U.S. to Ron Paul supporters is making the same errors. And of course while the U.S. has a presence there it is a huge recruiting opportunity for terrorist groups to fight the great Satan.
On the debate stage you have a row of candidates all of which beat the war drum that they will take out Iran’s nuclear capability if they have to. Every candidate touts how macho they are, with the exception of Ron Paul. And he therefore seems out-of-place, out of touch, or to the editorial pages of many newspapers, dangerous.
But who is more dangerous Ron Paul supporters ask: Presidents who will continue to bleed our troops and wealth to death while alienating and creating more and more enemies around the world, or one that would put a stop to this and steer our resources to more productive uses? Ron Paul’s supporters would say we have gone way too much to the extreme in our military adventurism, and our great country risks its future by continuing to do so.
Dwight Eisenhower talked about the “military-industrial complex” and the dangers that it presents to America. That complex is alive and well , and will be ferocious in denouncing the Ron Paul’s of the world, because it is in their economic interest to do so. Nexus readers are urged to not write the Ron Paul phenomenon off as fringe or “dangerous” without giving the concepts at least serious thought before doing so. Sure, some of the ideas coming from that camp you may conclude to be dangerous and extreme. But the same dangerous and extremist ideas exist with the other candidates as well.
A discussion about the current trends towards giving up more and more of our freedoms in the name of national security is a healthy one; and Ron Paul is bringing that to this campaign. And while many will object to his views, they are views we probably all need to hear and at least consider. You won’t hear them from anyone else, Republican or Democrat, with the possible exception of Jon Huntsman.
Tags: Republican debate, Ron Paul
2 People have left comments on this post
This is a very interesting analysis, and just like Ron Paul’s position it is alluring. However, in my view it is a very dangerous and cynical point of view. Ask any person unfamiliar with the details behind the benefits of foreign aid, troop presence in Korea and Western Europe, humanitarian aid, and military aid and they’ll say “stop it, why waste the money”. Simple as that, right? Well, not quite. Yet Ron Paul talks about it as if it is so obvious, “why are we wasting this money in this way when we are broke at home”? He then laughs. As if to say, “what idiots think this is a good idea when it’s so obvious that it’s a bad one?” As if a bunch of idiots were just frivolously stationing our troops around the world, handing out American dollars, and giving fighter jets away like Halloween candy for no reason.
Keep in mind Ron Paul called our humanitarian aid to Africa for AIDS/HIV prevention programs “worthless”. I guess he thinks the estimated 5-10 million people these programs have saved are “worthless”? Perhaps his newsletters did accurately reflect his view on blacks after all? Can you imagine him calling this aid “worthless”? There is not a sane man on the planet who would agree with this, but Paul said it and meant it and defends his position.
Ron Paul caters to the uninformed (meant politely, but it’s the best word I can come up with) and the ignorant (meant exactly like it sounds). “Bring our troops home”, “stop spending money overseas”, “end the wars”. On individual cases one could argue he’s right. Maybe we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq, or maybe we should pull out of Afghanistan (I support the Iraq war and continued military and political engagement in Afghanistan, but respect arguments to the contrary), or maybe we should stop foreign aid to one country or another. But his whole pitch of broad-based disengagement is ridiculous, dangerous, and as I say alluring. While there may be one or two I don’t know about, of the thousands of experts on these matters Ron Paul is the only one who espouses such a broad-based withdrawal inward.
On Iran his rhetoric is sickening. He speaks of them the way Obama did during his campaign, as if they are a misunderstood nation with reasonable intentions who are rightfully mad at us for our greedy imperialism. Like Obama said, and it was alluring to so many voters (who must feel embarrassed by now), maybe we just need to talk to them and understand their concerns and make some concessions and everything will be OK? Wouldn’t you love to press Obama on that one right now, ask him how “extending a hand” to Iran worked out for him? Today would be a great day to do that given that Iran is threatening to shut down the Straits of Hormuz! Iran through surrogates is killing Americans and thousands of others all over the middle east and Africa, has threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”, and is close to developing a nuclear weapon and Ron Paul blames the U.S. It is a point of view that should disqualify him in the mind of voters to serve in any office, let alone the presidency.
Ron Paul was against the killing of Osama Bin Laden. He is against using drones. He is against the killing of Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Iraqi terrorist who killed hundreds of Americans, thousands of Iraqis, and who beheaded Nick Berg on video and published it on the internet for all to see (NEVER watch that video, it is one of my greatest regrets to have done so).
He recently said “The United States is an empire by any definition, and quite possibly the most aggressive, extended, and expansionist in the history of the world.” Huh? Who would vote for a man who views our country this way? And let’s ask Ron Paul, why didn’t we stay in Iraq? Kuwait? The Balkans? South Korea? France? The argument is preposterous. In countries we have engaged we do all we can to support freedom and democracy, and allow the people to choose their governments.
Most importantly, Ron Paul avoids (I’m sure knowingly) discussing the true and real benefits of the many forms of foreign and military aid we provide. Without our aid to Pakistan, the country would collapse and be controlled by terrorists who would also control their nuclear arsenal (Ron Paul thinks this is OK?!). Without our aid to African nations tens or maybe hundreds of millions would die. An immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan would result in the immediate expulsion of 7 million Afghan girls who are now in school and who weren’t allowed to be educated prior to our invasion, which is not to mention the millions who would die in the chaos and revenge environment we leave behind. Without our troops in South Korea Kim Jong Il would have invaded the South. Paul NEVER talks about what happens if we don’t provide aid in some environments, and who would step in behind us if we left. These are inconvenient facts and truths that he, and his supporters, fail to see or consider.
Under Ron Paul’s foreign policy we would save perhaps trillions in the first 2 years. Perhaps a few hundred million people would die, maybe a billion in the end. And the US would either have to spend 10 times what we saved to unwind the mess he creates, or we would cease to exist as a country. His policies, if implemented, would literally end the world as we know it today, and would be a boon to despots and diseases and thieves.
Ron Paul is a horrifying candidate, the worst I have ever seen.
I completely disagree with the previous comments by “Voice of Reason”.
“Perhaps a few hundred million people would die, maybe a billion in the end”
Pure fear mongering at its worst. Typical neo-con rambling.
Ron Paul is the only leader that will restore the Republic and end the Empire. Yes, the United States is an Empire, there is no doubt about that and it is so far away from the Constitution that none of the founding fathers would recognize the monster it has become.
“Ron Paul caters to the uninformed (meant politely, but it’s the best word I can come up with) and the ignorant (meant exactly like it sounds).”
This makes me laugh out loud. So lazy, and such an “ignorant” comment to make about millions of people you know nothing about.
“Without our troops in South Korea Kim Jong Il would have invaded the South.”
Sure, right, you have a mysterious crystal ball that you devined this “truth” from? Talk about delusional!
Real dialog around reducing our overseas Empire is the only way we can return to sanity here in our own country. I, and many of my friends, who are EXTREMELY well educated will be voting for Ron Paul and no other in 2012. We will vote for him because of his excellent foreign policy choices, but his knowledge of economics, reducing the federal government in size and interference, reduce taxes, reduce the power of the Fed, and handing powers back to the States were they belong.
Even if Ron Paul is elected President, he will not be a dictator, he will have to work with Congress on a lot of these things.
Hopefully, Ron Paul will be victorious and we start to right the Republic.