Ron Paul's honesty about the United States forced to live with a nuclear Iran is medicine that the Republican Party needs to take. The trouble is that the medicine doesn't taste very good. Hawkish members of the party engage in puffery about U.S. military might, but with a nearly bankrupt treasury and a military fighting three wars already, the U.S. can't do much about Iran.
What's the gist of Paul's position?
Ron Paul wants to return to a pragmatic approach to foreign policy. At present, the United States is giving $3 billion in aid to Israel and $12 billion in aid to its avowed enemies. The United States is engaged in wars where the American people bear the burden of the cost, while other nations and multi-national corporations profit from U.S. efforts. Paul proposes to change that with some new ideas.
- First, Paul proposes that the U.S. rid itself of the phony posturing and end the wars.
- Paul also proposes to remove U.S. veto power from Israel and allow that nation to carry out its own foreign policy and to cut aid to all competing factions.
- Paul also proposes to use the power of trade, instead of military power, to build strong economic ties to countries.
What does Ron Paul believe would happen if he got his way?
If America adopted Ron Paul's honesty and stopped the war rhetoric, sensible solutions could be found to many foreign policy difficulties. With the American military stretched so thin, it can't afford war with Iran. With the exception of fringe candidate Rick Santorum, the other Republican candidates are aware that a war with Iran isn't wise, nor likely to be successful. All of the banter about Iran is useless.
Ending the hawkish position and focusing on building ties economically is a sound foreign policy approach. Countries with robust trade relationships don't often go to war. It's bad for business. Surely a Republican frontrunner could admire that logic.
Paul would likewise stop the insanity of funding both sides of the Middle Eastern conflict, allow Israel autonomy in their diplomacy and open doors for American influence on the peace process. The U.S. has a bad reputation throughout the Middle East because of its meddling in the affairs of several countries. That doesn't account for the two wars being fought there now and the third in Afghanistan.
Ron Paul's honesty is the only medicine that will solve the ills of Republican, and now Democrat, foreign policy.
Instead of using American military force, Paul proposes to use the American imagination to spark new partnerships. Instead of fighting, Americans could be trading and partnering with emerging economies. That type of thinking requires resolve. It also requires a level of honesty that produces the humility necessary to admit that America can't solve all the world's problems and can't act as the world's policeman.
It's going to require an honest man. Ron Paul believes that he's that man. And many voters are beginning to agree with him.
Image Source: Wikimedia Commons
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 53
For one thing, it seems to me that a significant percentage of Republican voters actually seem to like the "puffery". They seem to prefer the idea of a "tough guy" President, and in particular a "tough guy" Commander-in-Chief.
I remember polling from about a year ago saying that nearly 2/3 of Republicans felt that Bush's decision to invade and occupy Iraq was the right call. Maybe the focus on the financial costs of American military adventurism has toned down their desire to see the US "kick ass and take names" anywhere on the globe it chooses, but I think it's just as likely that any lack of enthusiasm has to do with the fact that a Democrat, and specifically Obama, is in the Oval Office.
And I think it's also important to remember that at the time, nearly three quarters of Americans (all Americans - Democrat, Republican, Independent, whatever) supported the invasion of Iraq.
What I'm saying is that a hardcore anti-war position hasn't generally been popular with the American electorate lately. Especially not with Republicans.
Then there's the Israel thing. While I have no doubt that plenty of Republican voters like the idea of removing US veto power from Israel and cutting off aid to it's "avowed enemies", I don't think they're going to like Ron Paul's call to end all aid to Israel, or his statements questioning whether the continued existence of Israel is in the national interest.
What? Please explain.
I don't think that sort of thing is going to sit well with a lot of Republican voters, esp. the Teabaggers and Religious Right/Christian Zionists, etc.
However, if national interest is taken to mean the interest of the people in America, Ron Paul would not be questioning that.
I'm not considering the moral aspects at all. One of the key things I learned from studying diplomatic history is that foreign policy is amoral.
No argument from me there, Nippy. I think Ron Paul was talking about the best interest in the United States as a government entity, and that if he meant to refer to the collective interest of the people of the United States, he would've said so.
As I understand it, his foreign policy position on Israel is to let it sink or swim on its own, without any assistance or interference from the government of the United States.
I want to like and respect you, I really do. But every now and then you have this knack for trying to sneak in something you know full well is a dishonest, disingenuous argument.
The man said: "Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country? I believe it would be better to focus on the security and survival of the United States, the Constitution of which my colleagues and I swore to defend just this week at the beginning of the 111th Congress."
He asked is it in the interest of the U.S. to guarantee the survival of any other country.
From this, you, bold-faced as ever, derive "statements questioning whether the continued existence of Israel is in the national interest."
Please tell me you see nothing dishonest or untoward about twisting a legitimate question regarding the wisdom of one government *guaranteeing the existence* of another, and then turning around and speaking as if Ron Paul had questioned whether Israel's existence was contrary to our interest?
If the continued existence of another country were in the national interest of the US, then it seems to me that it would make sense that the US government would make efforts to ensure that that other country continued to exist.
My understanding of Ron Paul's position is that US foreign policy should be that all other countries, including Israel, are left to sink or swim on their own, with neither aid nor hindrance from the US government.
My point is that even many Americans, including many Republicans, who say they are in favor of cutting off aid to foreign countries make exceptions for Israel. In other words, I think for those people, the answer to his question, at least in the case of Israel, would be a big "Yes!" and I would not be surprised if he lost votes and support over that specific issue.
Really. You don't see the giant chasm between where that leap starts and where you end it?
So, if I were to say, "it is not in my best interest to offer you, Wil B., my personal *guarantee* of your continued existence, thereby obligating myself as your personal unconditional bodyguard, tying my fate with your whatever your decisions and their natural consequences shall be,"
then you are saying that is the same as questioning whether your continued existence, as such, threatens my personal interest?
Nothing dishonest about that? You sure? That's your final answer?
I tell him no, I'm not going to go beat up Danny Mazio for throwing a snowball at him, and he runs and tells our mom that "Steven said he hopes Danny Mazio breaks my nose with a snowball."
To use your Danny Mazio analogy, it would be more like you saying that you weren't getting involved in any neighborhood snowball fights, and you didn't consider it any of your business if somebody's nose got broken or not.
That's not the same as saying that you wouldn't feel bad for your brother if his nose was broken, or that you wouldn't be pissed at Danny Mazio for doing it. Just that you wouldn't do get involved in the fight, either to retaliate against Danny for breaking your brother's nose, or to get in and stop the fight before he broke your brother's nose.
If you say so.
If somebody were to say to me, "I'm wondering if your continued existence is in my personal interest," I don't think there would be any misunderstanding between the two of us what those words meant.
May I be excused for taking your words, about your understanding of Ron Paul's position, at face value?
You invoke the image of Ron Paul posing a question: Is Israel's continued existence in our national interest?
If the answer to such a query were to turn out to be "no," then what is it that's to be implied is in our national interest?
See where all this leads?
In short, I think it leads to the notion that the continued existence of any particular nation (other than the United States, of course) is outside, or unrelated to, the national interest of the United States.
Where do you think it leads, Steve?
Sorry about that- you've made some good points Steve.
I don't get the sense that he's all that interested in the notion of each person and voluntary organization deciding such things for themselves.
Why? He is essentially saying, "leave it to the market" as he does so frequently and correctly.
But if he's making that decision from a position of political authority (as in POTUS), then that doesn't seem much like letting each person and voluntary organization decide for themselves.
You mean leaving it to the market to decide how much aid Americans would lend to Israel. It’s not the President’s job to decide whether other (non-U.S.) markets are allowed to determine Israel’s survival.
“if he's making that decision from a position of political authority (as in POTUS), then that doesn't seem much like letting each person and voluntary organization decide for themselves”
Huh? As opposed to using the government for that purpose, he’s making the decision to let “each person and voluntary organization decide for themselves”!!!!
I don't know what "(non-U.S.) markets" you're talking about, Matthew, but my point is that what Ron Paul's position is that he wants the US government to stay out of it and let Israel continue to exist or not, without any assistance or interference from the US government. And that is a position that a lot of Americans, including a lot of Republicans, don't seem to care for.
Or, to borrow Steve's Danny Mazio analogy again, a lot of voters (and donors) seem to think that while it's okay to stay out of the various scuffles and power plays that go on within the neighborhood, it's different when it's your brother, or somebody else who deserves special consideration. For one reason or another, they believe that Israel deserves special consideration.
"Huh? As opposed to using the government for that purpose, he’s making the decision to let “each person and voluntary organization decide for themselves”!!!!"
He's using the government for the purpose of making the decision in the first place, Matthew. How is that letting anybody else decide for themselves if he's the one using his position as POTUS to make the decisions?
That seems to be correct.
He's using the government for the purpose of making the decision in the first place, Matthew. How is that letting anybody else decide for themselves* if he's the one using his position as POTUS to make the decisions?
You can't be serious here, Wil; this is just another one of your word games.
From this I infer we actually don't have free speech, since the government is deciding to allow us freedom of speech. Really?
From this I infer we actually don't have free speech, since the government is deciding to allow us freedom of speech. Really?"
Are you suggesting that the government doesn't place limits on "free" speech, Matthew?
I would bet not.
You did it once again, another first time Troll with a chip on his shoulder for the current President.
One of these days I'm going to find out where you dig up these Ron Paul headcases.
What kind of article is this, and where is it posted?
It’s a Skywriter article, posted to a special news group.
That means it’s pulling in hundreds or thousands of views. Outside views.
That means Ron Paul supporters are seeing the article and commenting, just like they do at every other site which posts something about Ron Paul.
They are not trolls cloaking their identity.
he is the only sane Republican out there that can save the nation.
You may want to rephrase your statement to read something in the realm of, {only sane Independently thinking candidate who is running on the Republican ticket}
I say this because;
Ron Paul votes in the Congress by his own individual frame of mind and ethical standards, not as a Republican in any sense of the word. Although he is running as a Repuiblican candidate, he is certainly no Republican in ideology.
Heck, Mr. Paul has gone so independent in his self styled ideological thinking, that he can not even be called a Libertarian any longer, which has been his political ideology of past years. Neither can he be viewed as being an Independent which he chose as being his ideology during his first years as a Congressman.
Sane "Republican", not even close !!!
"Middle east is going through the change and Israel needs to come to table and make peace with everyone"
You can not be serious in the above comment, inasmuch as Israel is not the aggressor nor has Israel ever been the initiator of past conflicts without self defense as justification. It has always been the Arab countries who have attacked Israel and/or pushed Israel into an offensive mode in order to protect it's state's sovereignty and it's people's security.
Israel is the smallest nation in the middle east, surrounded by various Arab countries, all of which are hellbent on destroying the nation of Israel and the total annihilation of the Jewish people.
The only exception being the nation of Egypt, which signed a peace accord with Israel under the leadership of President Anwar Sadat, who was summarially assassinated by members of his own people because he initiated that peace treaty.
Isreal is the best friend the US has in the middle east, the rest hate us but just not as bad and they Isreal.
I think things will work out best if Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Bret Baier are just each given 6 million votes a piece for primaries, about 25 million votes a piece for the general, save the rest of us the inconvenience of actually having to get dressed and go out election night. Whaddya think?