Friday, November 23, 2007

Foreign Paulicy

There are many things that Republican voters agree with presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul about. For instance, as a U.S. Representative, Ron Paul has never voted for a tax increase. He’s never voted for an unbalanced budget. He’s never voted for a gun control law. He has never voted to raise congressional pay and has never taken a government-paid junket. He’s pro-life.

One position that has caused some misunderstanding among some Republicans (including Rudy Giuliani) is his foreign policy. A strict constitutionalist, Dr. Paul favors a return to the noninterventionist policies that our founding fathers envisioned.

Dr. Paul agrees with Thomas Jefferson, who advocated “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” Spurning that advice, America now has treaty guaranties with 50 foreign nations on five continents, threatening to drag us into every potential conflict anywhere. He agrees with John Quincy Adams who advised that America be “the well-wisher of freedom and independence of all” but “the champion and vindicator only of her own[,]” lest we involve ourselves “beyond the power of extrication.”

In short, Ron Paul believes that America should be run like “a republic, not an empire,” if I may borrow a phrase from Pat Buchanan. That may seem like a radical change from the foreign meddling and “nation-building” of the Bush/Clinton era, but it is not isolationist. Under Ron Paul’s policies the American people would be freer to engage in commerce, cultural exchange and charity with the people of the world (and they would have more money left in their pockets with which to do it).

A former Air Force captain, Dr. Paul is not anti-military. He would use the military against those who pose a clear and direct threat to tangible U.S. interests. He voted against the Iraqi quagmire but FOR the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists.” He is peace-loving, but not a peacenik.

One group that seems to understand this is the military itself. According to the Federal Election Commission, in the last quarter, service members sent twice as much in donations to the Paul campaign than to any other candidate. It's no wonder the troops support Dr. Paul. Every service member swears an oath before God and man to defend the U.S. Constitution. Ron Paul has been defending the Constitution his entire adult life and is the only candidate who supports it still.

I’m supporting the man that our troops support, Ron Paul.

2 comments:

nick f said...

whoa whoa whoa, before we get head of ourselves, declaring Ron Paul as the military candidate, I think we need some more evidence.

Just like Rudy misunderstands Paul's foreign policy, I think you are confusing military support in general.

Most of the military supports the war in Iraq. This plays out in every poll conducted.

Like wise, you said that military supporters have given more to Paul's campaign than anyone else. But that doesn't say any thing definitively. A few wealthy members of the military can make large contributions and make it look as if Ron Paul is the military candidate.

Now I hate to use anecdotal evidence, but I have been in the army for close to 10 years. In my current unit I know of no one who supports Ron Paul. When asked, it is specifically because of his foreign policy, namely, his position on Iraq.

Ron Paul's objection to the Iraq war based off of constitutional grounds is not supportable under closer scrutiny, and many of us in the military simply feel that his foreign policy objectives are simply not feasible given the current state of technological advancement and the advance of free trade (which is a good thing).

Personally I am a Fred Thompson supporter because I think he comes the closest to supporting Paul's domestic and tax policy while having a realistic and effective foreign policy.

Overall i hope that Ron Paul supporters are picking a solid 2nd pick candidate.

The Republican party cloud use the help of libertarians if we are ever going to get back to traditional conservative and libertarian principles.

p.s. I would be more than happy to explain my constitutional position on Iraq if you think it would be a topic of interest.

Ben said...

Hi Nick! Thanks for reading our blog and thank you for your service to our country. Let me address a few of your points:

I know that not everyone in the military is a Ron Paul Revolutionary. But the donation numbers are as good of a yardstick for measuring his support as any other. Since a few wealthy servicemen can also contribute to the other candidates, and with the donation limit being $2,500, I don't think that the numbers are abnormally tilted toward any one candidate.

The main thing I was trying to stress here was that Dr. Paul is NOT anti-military. Since he opposes the war in Iraq, I don't want to see him lumped in with the Democrats who oppose the war just because they hate the military and/or hate President Bush.

As I've mentioned before on the blog, I too was a "bomb the bastards" conservative, but now I really do believe that a non-interventionist policy would be best. Unfortunatly, I think the vast majority of Americans disagree with me.

Democrats and Republicans alike want the U.S. to be the world cop. If my only choice is whether that cop is to be a Republican Dirty Harry or a Democrat Barney Fife, I'll take Dirty Harry.

Also, feel free to post your constitutional position on Iraq, I'm sure it would be interesting.