My Thoughts on Ron Paul

I started writing a blog post about Ron Paul a few weeks ago, when he was a threat to win the Iowa caucus. I never got a chance to finish it, but I decided to revisit the topic after reading the link A.K. posted on the blog earlier today. I'm a little hesitant to write too much about Ron Paul, because my opinions about him put me at odds with a lot of people I care about, including family members. But during this GOP primary season, he has made himself pretty hard to ignore, and I have to be honest about what I think.

First of all, I must say that I agree with Ron Paul on many issues -- some of which are well expressed by the Voddie Baucham article linked in the previous post. I do believe that Paul is a sincere Christian and a highly principled politician who holds the Constitution in high regard. I agree that he is the most committed of all candidates currently running for political office to dramatically cutting federal spending and controlling the burgeoning power of the federal government. While I think Paul may be overly obsessed with the Federal Reserve, he does raise valid concerns about its manipulation of currency. (A.K. is far more knowledgeable about this topic than I.) And I like his emphasis on individual liberty. However, although I probably agree with him on more issues than I disagree with him, I consider the areas of disagreement to be important enough and the degree of those disagreements to be sharp enough that I absolutely could not vote for him in the Republican primary. I would vote for him in a general election against Obama, but that is not saying much because I would vote for my cat over Obama as well.

Let me present, as best as I can, the reasons why I could not vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary.

1.His position on terrorism. He believes that non-U.S. citizens, including enemy combatants, are entitled to the same constitutional rights as U.S. citizens. He believes that Guantanamo Bay should be shut down and that the foreign terrorists currently being held there should be brought to America and tried in civilian courts, rather than military tribunals (much like Obama and Eric Holder!). He does not believe the government should be permitted to use any kind of enhanced interrogation techniques on captured terrorists, even if it could lead to information that will prevent terrorist attacks and save lives (as it has). He opposes the Patriot Act, which I believe provides vital intelligence-gathering tools to the government to foil terrorist plots. I do not believe these anti-terrorism measures are unconstitutional, and I previously linked to some excellent articles by Andrew McCarthy related to these topics that explain why they are not unconstitutional.

In fact, Paul has repeatedly expressed his opinion that the U.S. brought the 9/11 attacks on itself -- at least to a certain extent -- by its foreign policy decisions, a view which both minimizes the sheer evil of terrorism and demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of radical Islam which underlies 9/11 and other attacks. According to Eric Dondero, a long-time former senior aide, Paul "was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.... He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration." Dondero says that Paul was planning to vote "no" on the resolution authorizing force in Afghanistan, but changed his mind at the last minute, perhaps realizing that a no vote would be political suicide. Paul even questioned our recent killing of Osama bin Laden. I believe that Ron Paul's position on terrorism would put our country in grave danger from radical Islamic terrorism -- in violation of his most fundamental duty as Commander-in-Chief which is to keep our country safe from foreign enemies.

2. His anti-Americanism. Ron Paul always seems to rush to the most negative judgment about our country and our involvement in the world. In the presidential debates, he has parroted left-wing lies about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, such as calling them "blood for oil" and
"wars of occupation and aggression" and saying we declared "war on 1.2 billion Muslims." He accused the Americans who justifiably spoke out against the Islamic Center near Ground Zero of being Islamophobic, saying that "neo-conservatives never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars."

Worst of all, there is evidence that he sympathizes with "9/11 truthers," people who believe that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job carried out by the U.S. government. While Paul has long associated with crazies who believe this, the link here shows a recent video of Paul answering a question from a supporter about "why [he] won't come out about the truth about 9/11," an obvious reference to "truther" conspiracy claims. Paul's response? "Because I can’t handle the controversy, I have the IMF, the Federal Reserve to deal with, the IRS to deal with, because, no, because I just have more-too many things on my plate. Because I just have too much to do." It seems obvious to me that Paul agrees with the truthers, but he won't come out and say it because it would be too controversial. And Paul apparently has been greatly influenced an old friend named Lew Rockwell, whose libertarian website has published some incredibly nasty things about the U.S. military (see this post for an example).

3. His foreign policy beliefs. Ron Paul believes that we should dramatically cut funding for our military and withdraw our troops from all their bases and locations around the world (everywhere from Germany to the Korean border). He has publicly stated that our country faces no threat from Iran and believes they have a perfect right to acquire nuclear weapons. He is against all trade sanctions, even with countries like Iran and Cuba.

Quoting Dondero again, Paul is "most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the American taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs." These claims are consistent with everything I have heard him say relating to Israel. While I agree with Voddie Baucham that the U.S. is not obligated to always agree with Israel, I think we should recognize Israel as virtually the only country in the Middle East that shares our democratic values and stands side-by-side with us against terrorism. Dondero also said that Paul "strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times that 'saving the Jews' was absolutely none of our business." This is also a believable claim about Paul, since such a view is common in radical libertarian circles.

4. His slanders against fellow Republicans. During a recent campaign speech in Iowa, Paul said that immediately following the 9/11 attacks, "there was glee in the (Bush) administration, because now we can invade Iraq." This is a nasty slander against Bush that is entirely contradicted both by the shock, horror, and anger exhibited by Bush and his top aides following the attacks, and also by the fact that the war in Iraq did not start for well over a year after 9/11. Paul also recently appeared on the Jay Leno show, where he accused Michele Bachmann of hating Muslims simply because of her mainstream Republican beliefs about Iran and terrorism, and suggested Rick Santorum also hated Muslims and gays. He wants to be accepted and respected as a legitimate contender for the Republican nomination, but he shows little respect for his fellow Republicans. His loyalty to the party he wants to represent is questionable at best, since he left the party once before to run as a third party presidential candidate, and has not ruled out doing so again this year.

5. His support for the legalization of drugs. I am somewhat open to the idea of legalizing comparatively harmless drugs like marijuana, but Paul supports the legalization of all drugs, even hardcore ones like heroin, crystal meth, and cocaine. While the war on drugs has been costly for the U.S., I believe that it would be more costly for these dangerous and highly addictive drugs to be legal and readily available. Paul has even suggested that U.S. policy on this issue deliberately targets African-Americans for tougher sentences and therefore is racist -- a charge that would seem to be more at home in a Democratic debate than a Republican one.

6. His utterly unrealistic candidacy. Ron Paul supporters disagree with me, of course, but I believe that it is virtually impossible for Paul to be elected to the presidency. If, through some scenario almost impossible to imagine, he were to win the GOP nomination, he would split the party, since more than 60% of Republicans in polls say that he is an "unacceptable" nominee. The Left, which has been pretty nice to him so far, would turn on him with a vengeance and viciously attack him for all kinds of out-of-the-mainstream comments and votes. Remember those old racist newsletters published under Paul's name in the 1990's and Paul's disapproving comments about the Civil Rights Act? We'll be hearing a lot more about those things, courtesy of the media. (And to be honest, I think those issues raise real concerns about him too, even though I do not believe he is personally racist.) And even if he could get elected, he would not be able to accomplish anything close to what his supporters think he could accomplish. With almost no institutional support from either party, he would probably be unable to deliver on nearly all of his agenda. You think the outcry is loud now when Republican propose even modest adjustments to Medicare and Social Security? Imagine when Ron Paul comes on the scene and starts proposing eliminating dozens of departments and agencies!

I have tried to explain, in the limited time available to me, the major reasons why I could not vote for Ron Paul. Some of his supporters agree with Paul on most of the points listed above. Many others who support him disagree with many of these more extreme positions and statements, but still support him because they think his integrity and intention to dramatically shrink government make up for his shortcomings. Personally, I am bothered by the personality cult that seems to surround Paul, and the fact that many of his supporters seem to believe he is the only acceptable candidate and the only hope for America (Voddie Baucham does not).

But I also believe that there are many good people supporting Ron Paul, and the Republican party should treat Paul and his supporters with respect and should not take them for granted. Partly I believe this because the Republicans need the votes of many of his supporters in the general election. But I also believe this because the Republican party would do well to follow Paul's lead on many issues relating to our federal spending and our national debt. If he can influence the party to become more focused on restoring our country's economic liberty and fiscal solvency, then our party and our country will both benefit from his presence in the race.

Under no circumstances, though, do I think he should be the GOP nominee!