Maybe Ron Paul’s fringe is what America needs

I was a Ron Paul supporter in the 2008 campaign for the presidency, and I made no apologies about it. Ron Paul was the candidate at the time that supported a smaller government, individual liberties and the Constitution closer than any other candidate. By far, he was the small government candidate.

Others, especially conservatives, would often say that they support many of Paul’s positions, but…

Either his voice was too “high and whiny”, or they viewed his position on America’s foreign policy to be “wacko” and “crazy”. The going phrase at the time, and still today, is that Ron Paul is a politician who is living “on the fringe”. He was not “mainstream” enough to win over much of the concerned voting public.

Clearly, the term fringe is meant in a negative light to imply that his views are out of the norm. So-called fringe candidates are outside of a more typical path to political enlightenment, I suppose, and cannot possibly run a country as big, expensive and corrupt as the federal government.

But the irony should be simple. It is just this “typical path to political enlightenment” that has grown this country to monstrous proportions. These candidates who apparently subscribe to the more common views in Washington are the very ones who are responsible for our multitrillion-dollar national debt, and our ever-burgeoning deficit. These are the politicians with whom Americans are most upset with, but yet, other candidates like Ron Paul are somehow “on the fringe” and cannot possibly be trusted. Continuing with the “mainstream” was a better option.

To this, I have only one question. WHAT?!? Truthfully, if a firm and consistent belief in a small government and a non-interventionist foreign policy is what it means to be on the fringe, then I am proud to be here. I am proud to be outside of the typical political thought in Washington D.C. that has caused the great majority of the problems that we face on a daily basis in the first place. Being mainstream is the problem!

What ground can anyone possibly stand on, when their political philosophy (you know, the typical, common, “in the middle” frame of mind) happens to be the root cause for the problems that concern so many Americans today? How is it possible to escape from the clutches of big government corruption and maniacal control over almost every aspect of American life if we continue to reject outsiders as “on the fringe”?

I am sure during the revolutionary times back in the 1700’s many viewed our founding fathers to be “on the fringe” for wanting to start a war to free ourselves from British tyranny. But sometimes, when things get bad enough, introducing non-common ideas and a radical change to politics as usual is what a country needs to break free from the continued degradation of American society.

This isn’t about Ron Paul specifically. This is about the rejection of thought outside of the norm, but yet, expecting the same political ideas from the same politicians to somehow result in positive change. Career politicians have made their living out of consolidating money and power into the hands of select politicians. There are a lot of uncertainties in this world, but one thing is very, very certain: nothing will change unless American voters begin to reject typical political thought in D.C.

Don’t believe me? Then continue voting as you always have. Continue rejecting anything outside of the same political thought that politicians have used to concoct government programs and initiative for years. Continue doing what you have always done, and watch what happens.

"In a rational world, no nation would support, or give sanctuary to terrorists who attack the country with the mightiest military in history. In a rational world, those that do, pay dearly. In a rational world, Libya, Iraq, Iran. Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Pakistan would be radioactive, smoking ruins."

In a rational world, we would not be interventionist, but we would get revenge.

And THAT is where the public support for the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan came from.

The truth is that "Revenge" is what Americans really wanted after 9/11 -- -- to strike back and not feel helpless. But Americans are so geographically challenged that it became "Iraq, Afghanistan", same difference, it's all over there". It's NOT "the same difference".

Afghanistan, yes. They gave safe harbor to those who attacked us. We needed to take out al Qaeda there and there is evidence that it wouldn't have taken all that much to do so had we used the right strategy and not been distracted by Iraq.

But if someone took a step back for long enough to realize what's happened, they'd see that it was Saudi Arabia that needed (and still needs) removed from the face of the map. Saudis are playing both ends against the middle -- publicly befriending us to take our money, meanwhile sponsoring terrorism against us and other non-Muslim peoples around the world. If we took out Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Pakistan would ultimately become completely irrelevant. But the Saudis were protected by the longstanding friendship with the Bush family. And I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was Saudi Arabia that was the prime motivator and financial sponsor for the Iraq war.

Attacking Afghanistan was rational. But nothing else in our Middle East strategy (if there is one) for the last 20 years has been rational. It's probably irrational to us because we don't see all the strings being pulled and pockets being stuffed behind the scenes.

War is unfortunately sometimes necessary to defend yourself, but the point is to fight wars that you are going to get some relief/benefit from, not to make it a way of life that drains you, your people and your resources and leaves you with nothing -- even if you win.

So, having said all of that, I still agree that a RP non-interventionist policy should be our ideal, where we only go to war to defend ourselves and defend our direct interests.

But instead, we've empowered a globalist cabal who are determined to remake the world in their own image using our country, manpower and resources to do it for them --FOR THEM, not for us. Their strategy is that they reap the benefits and we wind up broke and disheartened, dependent on them for everything.

I, for one, don't want to play their game.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.