Is Ron Paul the Best Republican Presidential Candidate for 2008?
Monday December 17, 2007
Background: Ron Paul on Civil Liberties
In an earlier blog entry, I described Bill Richardson as the best civil liberties candidate in either party for the 2008 presidential election. But some of you will be voting Republican in your presidential primary. Since Richardson isn't running as a Republican, what are your options?
Topping everyone's list of civil liberties candidates is Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), an old-school Goldwater Republican who would end the federal war on drugs, abolish the federal death penalty, shut down Guantanamo Bay, and put an end to all 9/11-driven civil liberties abuses. In the first presidential debates, Paul was the only candidate in either field to make a central issue of habeas corpus. He has a lot to recommend him.
But there are also problems with Ron Paul's platform, primarily dealing with federal equal protection guarantees. Before voting for Rep. Paul, it is important to look at both his strengths and his weaknesses. His strengths, as a civil liberties candidate, have been well-emphasized. Here are his three primary weaknesses.
All of the paragraphs below are written on the assumption that Paul is a serious candidate who could potentially win the Republican presidential nomination. I have come to believe that, while the odds are still not in his favor, the emerging four-way fight between Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson could potentially open things up for Paul in New Hampshire. And the nastier the top-tier fight gets, the better his chances are.
So let's look at Ron Paul, and let's take him seriously. His chances of winning the nomination are extremely slim, but he can no longer be dismissed as a novelty candidate.
The most egregious flaw in Paul's thinking is represented by his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended legal segregation in employment and public accommodations. I don't believe that Paul is a segregationist; he just thinks states should handle that sort of thing, and this is a view he consistently holds in other areas, from drug policy to abortion. But he has described no viable mechanism by which it could be guaranteed that states take over the burden--no transitional legislation, for example, to federally fund state-level equivalents to the EEOC.
Ron Paul has admitted that the mass deportation of 12 million people is not practical, but he would not change current deportation policies. This is comparable to admitting that the war on drugs is not working, but refusing to change U.S. drug law. He has suggested that, if undocumented immigrants are treated badly enough through denial of basic services and through the random deportation system currently in place, they will leave. What he does not seem to realize is that the only way to enforce such limitations would be to either increase paperwork requirements for everyone, which does not seem consistent with his small-government philosophy, or to practice ethnic profiling, which would not be consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment.
Then there's the fact that he wants to revise the Constitution to exclude native-born residents from citizenship based on their parents' documentation status. There are many problems with this idea. Among other things, it punishes infants for their parents' mistakes, as they would be effectively deprived of all native-born citizenship--they would literally be people without a country. But there's also the practical matter of enforcing the policy, which runs into the same problems as denial of social services: Do you increase paperwork requirements for everybody, or selectively increase them on an ethnic basis?
There are various approaches to the immigration issue, some good, some bad. Paul's holds the distinction of being simply unworkable, impossible to implement under our current system of government. What it would do is arbitrarily punish a few people, create a thriving black market industry, and give policymakers an excuse to violate civil liberties and expand the size of the federal government. In other words, Ron Paul's immigration reform effort would be an awful lot like the war on drugs.
Terrorist recruitment is already grounded in the idea that the United States is a greedy, selfish nation that monopolizes world resources. Large-scale death and human suffering due to sudden, drastic cuts in foreign aid--a horrific human rights crisis in its own right--would also place the United States at greater risk of future terrorist attacks, defeating the purpose of adopting a non-interventionist position.
So for many, Ron Paul may indeed seem to be the best Republican presidential candidate of 2008--but his policies are not, from the vantage point of civil liberties, always the best policies for our government as a whole to adopt. The separation of powers would rein in some of his more dangerous ideas, while his veto pen would rein in some of Congress' more dangerous ideas. The candidacy of Ron Paul is worthwhile not only because Ron Paul would limit the power of the federal government, in other words, but also because the federal government would limit the power of Ron Paul.
See also:
|
Topping everyone's list of civil liberties candidates is Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), an old-school Goldwater Republican who would end the federal war on drugs, abolish the federal death penalty, shut down Guantanamo Bay, and put an end to all 9/11-driven civil liberties abuses. In the first presidential debates, Paul was the only candidate in either field to make a central issue of habeas corpus. He has a lot to recommend him.
But there are also problems with Ron Paul's platform, primarily dealing with federal equal protection guarantees. Before voting for Rep. Paul, it is important to look at both his strengths and his weaknesses. His strengths, as a civil liberties candidate, have been well-emphasized. Here are his three primary weaknesses.
All of the paragraphs below are written on the assumption that Paul is a serious candidate who could potentially win the Republican presidential nomination. I have come to believe that, while the odds are still not in his favor, the emerging four-way fight between Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson could potentially open things up for Paul in New Hampshire. And the nastier the top-tier fight gets, the better his chances are.
So let's look at Ron Paul, and let's take him seriously. His chances of winning the nomination are extremely slim, but he can no longer be dismissed as a novelty candidate.
Problem #1: Minimal Federal Equal Protection Guarantees
As a general rule, Paul supports a small federal government. This might make him an ideal presidential candidate if he also supported small state governments, but he hasn't suggested any viable way to achieve that objective. End result? Perhaps a very libertarian New Hampshire, but a radically communitarian Vermont and a borderline theocratic Mississippi.The most egregious flaw in Paul's thinking is represented by his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended legal segregation in employment and public accommodations. I don't believe that Paul is a segregationist; he just thinks states should handle that sort of thing, and this is a view he consistently holds in other areas, from drug policy to abortion. But he has described no viable mechanism by which it could be guaranteed that states take over the burden--no transitional legislation, for example, to federally fund state-level equivalents to the EEOC.
Problem #2: Goodbye War on Drugs, Hello War on Immigrants
When you stand Paul's drug policy side-by-side against Paul's immigration policy, it becomes clear that Ron Paul intends to put an end to one unwinnable, vastly expensive, overreaching domestic law enforcement effort...and start up another one to take its place.Ron Paul has admitted that the mass deportation of 12 million people is not practical, but he would not change current deportation policies. This is comparable to admitting that the war on drugs is not working, but refusing to change U.S. drug law. He has suggested that, if undocumented immigrants are treated badly enough through denial of basic services and through the random deportation system currently in place, they will leave. What he does not seem to realize is that the only way to enforce such limitations would be to either increase paperwork requirements for everyone, which does not seem consistent with his small-government philosophy, or to practice ethnic profiling, which would not be consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment.
Then there's the fact that he wants to revise the Constitution to exclude native-born residents from citizenship based on their parents' documentation status. There are many problems with this idea. Among other things, it punishes infants for their parents' mistakes, as they would be effectively deprived of all native-born citizenship--they would literally be people without a country. But there's also the practical matter of enforcing the policy, which runs into the same problems as denial of social services: Do you increase paperwork requirements for everybody, or selectively increase them on an ethnic basis?
There are various approaches to the immigration issue, some good, some bad. Paul's holds the distinction of being simply unworkable, impossible to implement under our current system of government. What it would do is arbitrarily punish a few people, create a thriving black market industry, and give policymakers an excuse to violate civil liberties and expand the size of the federal government. In other words, Ron Paul's immigration reform effort would be an awful lot like the war on drugs.
Problem #3: Strict Non-Interventionism Isn't Heroic
Ron Paul's approach to foreign policy would reject what the Founding Fathers call "foreign entanglements." To the extent that this includes elective wars, it sounds like a really good idea. To the extent that it bars foreign aid, encourages a "humble" foreign policy in which the United States does not attempt to promote human rights abroad, and forbids the United States from intervening in human rights crises overseas, it would have a disastrous effect on international human rights and the global reputation of the United States.Terrorist recruitment is already grounded in the idea that the United States is a greedy, selfish nation that monopolizes world resources. Large-scale death and human suffering due to sudden, drastic cuts in foreign aid--a horrific human rights crisis in its own right--would also place the United States at greater risk of future terrorist attacks, defeating the purpose of adopting a non-interventionist position.
On the Other Hand...
As a practical matter, the issues that make Ron Paul a less-than-ideal candidate are issues over which the President has limited power. Paul would not be able to get a congressional majority to agree to revoke the Civil Rights Act, for example, or to end foreign aid. And while Paul would almost certainly veto comprehensive immigration reform, the same can be said of any Republican candidate.So for many, Ron Paul may indeed seem to be the best Republican presidential candidate of 2008--but his policies are not, from the vantage point of civil liberties, always the best policies for our government as a whole to adopt. The separation of powers would rein in some of his more dangerous ideas, while his veto pen would rein in some of Congress' more dangerous ideas. The candidacy of Ron Paul is worthwhile not only because Ron Paul would limit the power of the federal government, in other words, but also because the federal government would limit the power of Ron Paul.
See also:
Comments
In regard to Dr.Ron Paul’s cure for illegal immigration: Dr.Paul would simply remove the incentives that draw the illegal aliens. Such as welfare, healthcare, schooling and jobs. This would be accomplished by ending federal mandates regarding those entitlements and by enforcing the law regarding employers hiring only legal residents. Deprived of the big government teat, the illegal aliens would return home.
As far as non-interventionism being “non-heroic,” far too many of the US government’s efforts internationally have been downright terrible for people in other countries, and disastrous for the US image in the world. Just think of all the authoritarians that the US has supported in the name of anti-communism or regional stability. American citizens have always been generous supporters of people in need worldwide, and can continue to do so. And Presidents can – and should – continue to use the “bully pulpit” in support of rights and freedoms worldwide; it would be more plausible if the Federal government wasn’t causing trouble in several places in the world. I’m tired of my government supporting causes around the world that I disagree with, in my name and with my money. Other Americans who support those causes…they can do so with their money and in their own names.
“As a general rule, Paul supports a small federal government. This might make him an ideal presidential candidate if he also supported small state governments, but he hasn’t suggested any viable way to achieve that objective. End result? Perhaps a very libertarian New Hampshire, but a radically communitarian Vermont and a borderline theocratic Mississippi.
The most egregious flaw in Paul’s thinking is represented by his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended legal segregation in employment and public accommodations. I don’t believe that Paul is a segregationist; he just thinks states should handle that sort of thing, and this is a view he consistently holds in other areas, from drug policy to abortion. But he has described no viable mechanism by which it could be guaranteed that states take over the burden–no transitional legislation, for example, to federally fund state-level equivalents to the EEOC.”
Ron Paul has on numerous occasions stated he would not just drastically change things and would instead attempt to set the wheels in motion.
“When you stand Paul’s drug policy side-by-side against Paul’s immigration policy, it becomes clear that Ron Paul intends to put an end to one unwinnable, vastly expensive, overreaching domestic law enforcement effort…and start up another one to take its place.”
Because drugs and people are the same thing…it’s a bit easier to keep humans out of a country as opposed to keeping tiny substances that can be grown or made inside our borders
“Ron Paul has admitted that the mass deportation of 12 million people is not practical, but he would not change current deportation policies. This is comparable to admitting that the war on drugs is not working, but refusing to change U.S. drug law. He has suggested that, if undocumented immigrants are treated badly enough through denial of basic services and through the random deportation system currently in place, they will leave. What he does not seem to realize is that the only way to enforce such limitations would be to either increase paperwork requirements for everyone, which does not seem consistent with his small-government philosophy, or to practice ethnic profiling, which would not be consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment.”
It wouldn’t be that difficult at all,if you make it better for illegals to go back to their country they will do so. Fine any employer found to be employing illegals, which would result in employers installing cheap procedures such as ensuring a social security number is legitimate, ensuring drivers licenses are legal etc…If you think someone has to revert to ethnic profiling in order to tell if they are illegals you are not using your brain. We already have systems in place to ensure people are citizens, we just have to use them
”
Then there’s the fact that he wants to revise the Constitution to exclude native-born residents from citizenship based on their parents’ documentation status. There are many problems with this idea. Among other things, it punishes infants for their parents’ mistakes, as they would be effectively deprived of all native-born citizenship–they would literally be people without a country. But there’s also the practical matter of enforcing the policy, which runs into the same problems as denial of social services: Do you increase paperwork requirements for everybody, or selectively increase them on an ethnic basis?”
They would not be people with a country, they would be citizens of the same country their parents were born in. It would be no more punishment than not giving citizenship to all babies born throughout the world. In regards to enforcing it, use birth certificates and social security numbers to ensure at least one parent is a citizen
“Terrorist recruitment is already grounded in the idea that the United States is a greedy, selfish nation that monopolizes world resources. Large-scale death and human suffering due to sudden, drastic cuts in foreign aid–a horrific human rights crisis in its own right–would also place the United States at greater risk of future terrorist attacks, defeating the purpose of adopting a non-interventionist position”
You might want to read a few books, terrorists recruit based on the perception that we are currently occupying several “Islamic” countries. Not because we are “selfish”…
In regards to what would happen as a result of cuts in foreign aid, what scenarios are you describing?
Numerous studies have shown the US foreign aid can be directly linked to the horrors currently going on in Africa
Problem #1: How do you guarantee that the federal government forces on the states only the ‘good’ laws? You won’t… Doesn’t the state-competition make more sense then?
Problem #2: He wants to abolish welfare for … well, everybody, including illegal immigrants. How is that ‘more paperwork’? How “not giving somebody taxpayer’s money” is “punishment”? How does that lead to black market industry? Do you know the ‘moral hazard’ problem?
Problem #3: several economic studies stated that foreign aid is neutral, often negative. Paul does NOT want to bar american citizens from sending aid to foreign nations. He does not want the US government to do it, because…there is no authority in the Constitution? But if the citizens feel they should help – they could.
Terrorism: Just wonder if ‘foreign aid’ to authoritatirian regimes in saudi arabia, pakistan and anti-arab regime tend to prevent terrorists..?
BTW: I feel there is some issue in the Civil Rights Act that would cause Paul not wanting to adopt this law even on state-level. But this would require a deeper discussion of the content of this law and of the ‘human rights’ philosophy.
Uh…how does an article on the best civil liberties candidate turn into a discussion on the merits of a non-interventionist foreign policy?
The reason Paul is the best candidate on civil liberties, from either party, is because of his voting record. When he holds a view, he votes consistently according to that view.
Many Democrats oppose the Iraq war and support civil liberties, but voted to authorise the President to go to war in Iraq and voted for the PATRIOT Act. Paul voted against both.
At least with Paul you know he’s honest.
There is no need for any EEOC. Each individual’s rights are protected under the constitution–even black people and women–see the 13th, 15th, and 19th Amendments. If someone would actually abide by this contract all of these superfluous laws would be completely unneeded.
Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who supports individual rights. And an individual is the smallest minority.
Hate crime laws and fairness doctrines have nothing to do with civil liberties. I can’t remember the last time a democrat did anything to preserve my civil liberties.
I keep trying to find something wrong with Ron Paul…but I haven’t found anything yet.
I was going to come on and point out the flaws in this guys blog, but i see i dont need to.
Well said everybody.
The most egregious flaw in Paul’s thinking is represented by his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended legal segregation in employment and public accommodations.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a clear restriction on the civil liberties of some in favour of others, insofar as it deals with the private sphere of employment and voluntary exchange. Those components of the act which prohibit discrimination by government agencies and their federally funded colleagues are perfectly reasonable, since they demand equal treatment for people in the public sphere.
But in the private sphere, a civil libertarian believes fundamentally in freedom of association. This, it seems to me, is the axiom for defending many other such civil liberties, like the right to organise in trade unions or the right to express dissenting political speech. It also, however, implicitly contains the freedom of disassociation – indeed, without this important proviso, ‘freedom of association’ is nothing more than compulsory service of others, since you can’t choose on what terms you decide to associate. So, the Civil Rights Act compels bus companies, hotels &c to serve people which it would not voluntarily choose to, taking away the freedom of association of the hotel proprietor in order that the range of options of potential clients is not limited. It’s this clear bias, which enforces with the coercive apparatus of the state the claims of ethnic minorities on the property of others, which is against the right of freedom association, and thus contrary to civil liberty.
Moreover, it fails to recognise that the contract between an employer and employee is no different to that between a consumer and a self-employed tradesman. In both cases, labour is voluntarily exchanged for some renumeration, but whereas consumers are legally permitted to discriminate on the grounds of ethnic origin (eg. refusing to permit black people into their home), employers are not. This clear asymmetry, derived from similarly unclear thinking about the necessity of demarcating the public and private sphere correctly (ie, not including businesses in the public sphere), is a further infringement of the principle of equality under the law.
Although the sentiment is nice, the concept of forcibly stealing money from Americans to fund top-heavy government bureaucracies overseas is nonsense. As an American expatriate I have witnessed for 2 decades how our tax dollars are wasted overseas. The locals rarely ever acknowledge USAID or any other governmental efforts as being American benevolence. The only projects I have ever seen generate any significant positive effects are those performed by private foundations, of which there are quite a few funded by philanthropies along with the now-traditional community-development activities businesses in my industry perform.
Otherwise your analysis is spot on.
Foreign Aid is greatly overrated. It in fact often worsens the problem. John Stossel did a report I recall, worth watching to get the other side of the story.
I suggest ALL journalists do their research before speaking rhetoric from the other alphabet medias… Isn’t that plagarism? BE INFORMED!
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/index.php
I was going to point out the flaw in your argument concerning the supposed problems that would come about if our government cut foreign aid, but thankfully my fellow Paul supporters have already done so.
Ron Pauls only agenda is the betterment of our great nation, and the same can not be said of any other candidate.
Please do your homework and turn in a revision of this poorly written piece.
Interesting arguments, but your foreign aid point is completely wrong.
There is absolutely nothing to stop U.S. citizens from directly aiding other countries through NGOs? Look at any foreign natural disaster, and the most effective aid comes in the form of the private donations, not U.S. government money. Give the money back to the people and trust their generosity rather than legislating generosity and letting politicians celebrate it as their own.
What a stupid reporter… Ron Paul welcomes Immigration, in fact he says “Immigrants would not be a burden to the peoples wealth…” if we didn’t bankrupt the people with welfarism, and being the world police.
A truly free and prosperous society would welcome this influx of immigration, but rewarding those who do not do it the right way (illegal immigrants) with healthcare and foodstamps, while Americans in poverty are denied access IS WRONG.
“Then there’s the fact that he wants to revise the Constitution to exclude native-born residents from citizenship based on their parents’ documentation status. There are many problems with this idea. Among other things, it punishes infants for their parents’ mistakes, as they would be effectively deprived of all native-born citizenship–they would literally be people without a country.
This statement is not true. It shows that the author of this article doesn’t understand how citizenship works. Other countries like Korea, Japan, Ireland and Spain already deny automatic citizenship upon native born status. Like any citizenship, you must apply first. Citizenship is not limited to native-born status. Children born to parents overseas who are legal citizens elsewhere are automatically granted citizenship in the country of their parents’ origin of it is determined that they aren’t able to achieve it in the country that they were born. If it is determined that that they are able to achieve it, one of three things may happen:
(1) They are automatically denied citizenship in their parents country, and must renounce their birth citizenship and re-apply under special application status to their parents’ native country, since not all countries recognize dual citizenship (Korea)
(2) They must (or their parents) must fill out a special application to determine if their citizenship status is to be with their parents’ native country or if they intend only to keep only their birth citizenship. (Japan)
(3) They are AUTOMATICALLY granted citizenship in both countries and simply have to fill out a passport application while submitting apostilled copies of their and their parents’ birth certifates and/or passports.
What Ron Paul is opposed to is #3. He wants to put a legal status test on the parents to determine if they are here illegally. This provides a disincentive for women to get pregnant solely for the purpose of not getting deported and forcing a negotiation of amnesty.
As an excited Paul supporter, I have asked myself some of the same questions with regard to the effects of a more libertarian federal government on less libertarian-minded states. I appreciate the thought you’ve put into your arguments and I think your conclusion is reasonable. Decades of governement/citizen codependency may REQUIRE Paul’s Constitutional orthodoxy to tow our federal government back into check.
I recommend the author of this piece visit http://www.ronpaul2008.com and educate himself before he makes silly comments. The great thing about Ron Paul is he is hiding NOTHING. All positions are CLEARLY EXPLAINED on his web site and BACKED UP where applicable with his VOTING RECORD in congress for the past 20+ years.
Our author writes,
“Terrorist recruitment is already grounded in the idea that the United States is a greedy, selfish nation that monopolizes world resources.”
No, it isn’t. It is grounded in our violent aggression toward them.
Liberal, progressive Americans are the ones convinced that America is greedy and using too many resources. Muslims, on the other hand, just want us to stay home and mind our own business.
Assuming that the Muslims, whose countries we bomb and occupy are instead concerned about our environmental policies, is what the shrinks call “projection”.
I have to guess that our author is worried about the myth of global warming and thinks the muslims must be too.
Ron Paul’s view are becoming more attractive to voters of both parties as they weigh the typical politician alternatives. Ron Paul can win.
Read, President Ron Paul – Could He Really Win?
Learn how outside economic and foreign policy events just might elect Ron Paul.
http://www.ronaldholland.com/presidentronpaul.htm is a two part article on how current events outside the political process could elect Ron Paul as President.
Tom,
Wow! You certainly did your homework on Ron Paul! Aside from any questions that have been posed here about your concerns regarding his governing philosophy, I certainly can’t fault you for not keeping the dialogue constructive. Thank you for the well-crafted column!
You, gentle writer, are a logical fallacy waiting to happen. I didn’t realize we could reduce the immigration problem to the two options you place before Ron Paul and the nation. And not many people would make the leap from non-intervention to human rights violations, but you sailed right over the abyss, didn’t you? And how on earth can the president control state governments? Would you mind defending your position by telling us how a man can be governor of 50 states and president of them all simultaneously?
Give me a break.
This is one of the first pieces that cast Ron Paul in a negative light that is actually respectful and therefore respectable. I really appreciate your well thought out arguments, as opposed to what we’ve been seeing from most of the press.
I disagree with some of your stances, and I agree with you that some of Paul’s positions need to be clarified. The nice thing about Dr. Paul is, I believe he is humble and honest enough to either explain his opinion, or consider changing it if it is indefensible.
As you know, there isn’t bad press, so thanks to let all your readers get the true information about Ron Paul, your misrepresented points of view are well explained by the others that precede my comments.
Maybe, if you like to abandon your biased argument and try a true debate you can learn a thing or two about civil rights and the real meaning of the world LIBERTY.
Vietnam was so heroic.
Thank you for your fair toned article. I FIRMLY believe that if you read Ron Paul’s positions in depth, your questions would be answered to your satisfaction and you will have no major contention with ANY of Ron Paul’s Positions.
http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml
http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Ron%20Paul&page=1
You praise him with faint damnation.
I’ve got one vote, and there’s a good argument for giving it to the LP candidate I most support, and an argument for giving it to the R I support most among the front-runners (I’m registered independent), but I’m thinking more and more it’s going to Ron Paul.
Ron Paul has dangerous ideas?
The writer does not seem to understand that we face more danger now as a result of the neo-con fascists foreign policies.
Ron Paul has my vote and there is nothing he says that I do not agree with.
He merely states what we are supposed to be doing, following the Constitution!
Most of what D.C. does is not authorized under the constitution, this is why his ideals seem radical. We’ve all become brainwashed to the status quo. Look at Romney for god’s sake. What a shill for the CRF, Giuliani too, and McCain, etc.
Vote Ron Paul or America will be only a memory.
Oops! I meant CFR, or Council on Foreign Relations.
“The most egregious flaw in Paul’s thinking is represented by his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended legal segregation in employment and public accommodations.”
The Civil Rights Act is not an attempt to uphold equal protection, it is a law that intentionally circumvents the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment in favor of the Commerce Clause. In fact, the Equal Protection Clause interfered with the ability of the Federal government to control States, so they Federal government intentionally undermined this important protection in an attempt to control State Civil liberties with appeals to interstate commerce. This is the same tactic as the War on Drugs.
Ron Paul still has my vote. I agree with him on most topics, and not on others — however, I still believe he is a president that the United States needs.
People need to get a better idea of what their own government is supposed to be, and stop being led down the path towards a completely different form of government.
America needs a different mind set, and hopefully Ron Paul could give them that. A lot of people oppose him because his views aren’t shared by the majority of people that have come to believe that our government should take care of everything. Of which, is what just about every other candidate offers — the same old stuff, with a few “voter boosting” twists.
In the end — I’m quite interested to see where the U.S. will be in 10-20 years…and if by then, if I’ll have had to learn Mandarin.
“Problem #3″
Any moral obligation that U.S. Citizens have in regards to human rights issues around the world can and will be addressed by the giving spirit of the American People, not Govt. intervention with false motives and alterior agendas.
Problem #1 is mostly irrelevant. Even assuming the very worst from “borderline theocratic Mississippi,” things would improve vastly for the average American.
Problem #2 is a more real concern. But nothing Paul has proposed to do would be any worse than what is going on now! And ending the insane drug war would be a huge step forward, and long overdue.
Problem #3 is mostly misapplied mumbo-jumbo. Ceasing to waste our money of covert intervention–the hallmark of US foreign policy for decades–is absolutely essential to restoring America’s place as a becon of liberty to the rest of the world. It would make us _less_ vulnerable to the bogey man of “terrorist attacks,” not more so.
This was an extremely biased article. the author Head clearly has his own agenda to promote at the expense of Ron Paul and liberty for U.S. citizens.
Maybe you guys should stick to instructions on how to fix a lawnmower and stay out of politics.
There is so much more to this candidate but the author simply puts up straw men to discourage voters from investigating.
“Problem #1: Minimal Federal Equal Protection Guarantees… End result? Perhaps a very libertarian New Hampshire, but a radically communitarian Vermont and a borderline theocratic Mississippi.”
I suppose the author would prefer a theocratic New Hampshire, Vermont, and Mississippi then? Or a communitarian New Hampshire, Vermont, and Mississippi? One size doesn’t fit all. That’s the point of having a Republic. Nobody can impose their narrow views on the entire nation. This is a primary strength of Dr. Paul’s platform, not a weakness.
“Problem #2: Goodbye War on Drugs, Hello War on Immigrants… he would not change current deportation policies… what he does not seem to realize is that the only way to enforce such limitations would be to either increase paperwork requirements for everyone… or to practice ethnic profiling…”
In fact, Dr. Paul does not want to have a war on immigrants, he wants to liberalize our immigration policy. However, all new immigrants must be legal. Porous borders are a security threat. What he has said is that it would be impossible to round up all currently-occupying illegal immigrants and that instead they should be deported when arrested for a crime, which seems reasonable to me. No extra paperwork or racial profiling needed. Non-criminal illegals would have to be tolerated, but would not receive any benefits of citizenship. They could apply for citizenship or other legal status at the back of the line while those who have been patiently waiting to enter the country are processed first.
“Then there’s the fact that he wants to revise the Constitution to exclude native-born residents from citizenship based on their parents’ documentation status. There are many problems with this idea. Among other things, it punishes infants for their parents’ mistakes, as they would be effectively deprived of all native-born citizenship–they would literally be people without a country.”
Hogwash. If a couple from France touches down in New York for a connecting flight from Paris to Vancouver, and the woman delivers a baby at the airport, that baby is French, not American. Who cares where the baby is born. It is the citizenship of the parents that should determine the citizenship of the baby. What if you have a baby while on a cruise and you are at sea in international waters? Is your child without a country? Of course not. The only infants that should be covered under the 14th Amendment, as was the design, are those whose parents were U.S. residents and not also citizens of another nation. The purpose being that former slaves would be considered citizens. But a pregnant Mexican who hops the border to deliver a baby absolutely does not apply. That baby already has citizenship in Mexico because its parents are Mexican. The 14th Amendment was never meant to grant citizenship to this child, as the United States has no jurisdiction over it. The parents are Mexican citizens so the child is under Mexican jurisdiction. Ron Paul doesn’t want to alter the Constitution, he simply wants to strictly interpret the 14th Amendment according to its original context and spirit.
“Problem #3: Strict Non-Interventionism Isn’t Heroic… To the extent that it bars foreign aid, encourages a ‘humble’ foreign policy in which the United States does not attempt to promote human rights abroad, and forbids the United States from intervening in human rights crises overseas, it would have a disastrous effect on international human rights and the global reputation of the United States.”
On the contrary, foreign aid does nothing but enrich tyrants and destroy foreign economies. The only way for people to rise up from despotism and destitution is through a popular rebellion and free enterprise. You cannot instill this from the outside.
George Washington wisely advised:
“Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all…
“In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.
“So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.
“As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils? Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.
“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.
“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
“Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
“Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?
“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
“Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
“Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.”
I came away with a stronger sense that I’m making the right choice in Ron Paul. I’m with Mr. Head in that I don’t totally agree with Mr. Paul, but I realize he’s not going to change the US government overnight and some of the things he proposes simply won’t be enacted because the government and large corporations won’t stand for it.
Too bad Mr. Ron Paul was treated like a ghost by the biased media.
America has no responsability for all the poor in the world!Immigration is ok when its done in a responsible way,with people willing to integrate into the american way of life.However,when you have herds of people who care less about the ways of the U.S/religion/language and instead demand “respect” for theirs,its logical the general discontent.
This is not the 1800’s anymore and this country has serious problems to atttend.Allowing thousands of people to BREAK our law and come in here with the excuse of “I just want to work”is not acceptable.If all these people demanded all the reforms/benefits they want from their own countries,they wouldnt be here.The problem is everything is set up here! all you need to do is extend your hand to get welfare,food stamps,etc etc.These people are not morons!!!wherever they see free handouts,thats where they’ll go.Dont believe me….ask the scandinavians…dealing with the exact same problem,only different nationality:irakis,iranians,turks….in other words,pardon my french but…..scum…who little contribute to the development and advancement of human kind,specially with their retarded muslim religion.