Posted on 01/14/2008 8:04:27 PM PST by forkinsocket
Ron Paul is not a nut. He is honorable and intelligent. I have talked with Congressman Paul about politics and policies. He is consistent and principled. Much of what he says is true. The Constitution is routinely ignored by politicians of both political parties. Government spending, particularly entitlements, is wildly out of control. The crucial constitutional concepts of federalism and limited government are tacitly denied and this denial is the crux of many of our social and political problems.
But Ron Paul holds the vain hope that American government would return to constitutional law anytime soon, even if he did win the presidency. Congress, the judiciary, legal education, and tradition have imparted momentum to the living constitution school of thought. Bring about an actual return to the Constitution requires more than a snap of the president's fingers. Federal courts routinely "interpret" the Constitution in ways directly in conflict with the plain language of the document. At best, a president can only appoint judges the Senate will confirm and wait for natural turnover.
A lot of persuasion is necessary before Americans (including our elites and their institutions) change their way thinking. We in fact still need a crusade to change hearts and minds more than a candidacy.
And if we are going to return to first principles, remember that the Constitution is not the foundational document of our American experiment in individual liberty. It was preceded by the Articles of Confederation. Prior to the Articles of Confederation, which were adopted after independence, the Continental Congress acted as the original government of the United States and successfully waged a war against the great superpower on the planet with very little real authority. The fundamental principles of American government were established long the Constitution was adopted.
What does matter is the Declaration of Independence. The divine endowment of all people with liberty comes directly out of this document of 1776 and it is to this document that serious friends of liberty should look for inspiration and restoration. And what was the Declaration of Independence? It was, in effect, a declaration of war against the British Empire.
It was not an isolationist document but a universalist document. It speaks, pointedly, to the rest of the world. It talks about the reasons that governments are formed (not just our government.) It was bold, sweeping, and international. And it was seen by the rest of the world as just that: A revolutionary document for all peoples, even if it applied specifically only to thirteen embattled colonies in North American.
Ron Paul wants to return us to the Constitution, as if it were a sacred document which granted us freedom. Our spiritual lodestar should be the Declaration of Independence, which remains a much more dangerous, much more powerful, and much more relevant document to our times.
Some policies Paul proposes are admirable. Why do we still have armies in Germany and in Korea, when both are rich, modern industrialized nations? Why does government have to do so much and why does "government" more and more mean centralized government in Washington? Why have a tax code which punishes productivity and which requires contortionist behavior from business?
But other parts of Paul's policies simply do not fit our age. The notion that we should disengage from the Middle East, for example, suggests that Israel is "just another nation," like, say, North Korea or Syria. The foundation of the Jewish state was based upon the undeniable facts of history continuing, dreadfully, through the Holocaust, that Jews are not "just another people," but are rather a persecuted people who were not welcome when escaping Nazified Europe. Ignoring that is ignoring salient history.
Likewise, the stark contrast between Israel and its neighbors (except, until the last three decades, the successful state of Lebanon) cannot be ignored, and the murderous intent of neighbors who seriously read in large numbers Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is also a grim, absolute fact of the modern world. The notion that, on paper, Israel can make peace with these neighbors is not just pure theory, but it is theory which has failed the test of experience.
Paul also seems to doubt that people wish to do America harm because it is America, and that nuclear weapons change everything. Ever since H.G. Wells first used the term "atomic bomb" in his science fiction stories more than a century ago, it has become almost inevitable that true, horrific global war power was inevitable. Happily, America acquired fission weapons and then fusion weapons first. Happily also, America has had leaders willing to use that power to protect our nation and allies who would otherwise be unprotected.
And, as we learned from the Japanese in the Second World War and from radical Moslems today, the calculus of economic benefits and political rights which works very well in moderating and balancing the behavior of most people, simply does not work with everyone. Does anyone doubt that the Japanese would have used the atomic bomb on American cities or that radical Moslems will use thermonuclear bombs on America, if they can, even if it means massive casualties in our retaliation?
Liberty can no longer stand safely behind two vast oceans and decent men can no longer ignore their human brethren after Hitler, Stalin and Mao. As Lincoln today might have said "This world cannot long endure half slave and half free." This was also perhaps the greatest victory of the greatest conservative leader of our age: Ronald Reagan. Congressman Paul might recall the Gipper's Cold War strategy: "How about this: We win; they lose?"
Ronald Reagan, like Abraham Lincoln, understood the supra-constitutional importance of liberty in the fulfillment of America, and liberty to them meant more than just the liberty of American citizens. If the ideal which is America is to survive the totalitarian impulse which we see not only in North Korea and the Taliban, but among the Leftists in our own nation, then we need to recapture the fortitude of Washington, the vision of Lincoln and the clarity of Reagan. If we can do this and preserve the vestiges of the Constitution, fine.
But the vision of America is much more than the Constitution. It is much more than Congressman Paul sees. What Ron Paul proposes is not bad or dishonest. It is simply no longer enough for liberty and decency to survive in America or in the world.
>>>>which doesn’t mean they’re somehow funding the war on terror.
They are buying our debt which is paying for the WOT.
And by jamming our head in the sand and depleting our military, and retreating back to the westen hemisphere, that addresses the humongous Chinese military buildup HOW exactly?
What is depleting our military is being stretched all over the globe, defending areas that can be defended by the nations in that region.
>>>>As well as conventional, chemical and biological.
The Soviets had no fear of us in conventional land warfare.
(What they miss teaching world history in public schools these days is simply breathtaking!)
Yes, I am amazed how one can be so obtuse in understanding recent history.
We are fighting an enemy with no organized Army, no Navy and no Air Force, but the Defense budget is too small!
LOL!
We can't even finish our war in Iraq and you want to take on the Chinese!
Well, that would have meant declaring a war and winnng it, something we haven't done since WW2.
Interventionism is the American way,
It is!
We didn't start intervening until the Spanish American War.
not isolationist cowardice or internationalist globaloney. When necessary, war under whatever auspices is better than a phony peace. If two lions and one lamb vote on what's for dinner, the main ingredient will be lamb.
You guys would try to find a enemy to fight a war against even in the Millennium.
We certainly should not punish South Korea for returning to a sensible pro-Western stance by removing the troops at the DMZ. When the communist bosses of North Korea are dead and when the place has been rehabilitated and disarmed and is ruled by the South, then we can talk withdrawal.
Yea, in another 50 years, if the US survives that long.
You sure must like the sound of your own voice!
Defense is one of the legimate roles of government-our Defense, not the Defense of the world.
Don[t the people that advocate our continued garrisoning of the world realize that by paying for the defense of other countries we are making it easier for those other countries to become socialist countries since they don’t have defense spending to worry about?
By keeping our troops abroad we are subsidizing the spread of socialism.
Whoops, there I go again . . . blaming America first. :sheesh:
No offense, but I am surprised to see the phrase "ultra far right" used on FR. I think there are better ways to characterize what you say were the faults of the newsletters. Your phrase seems to suggest there is a peg mark on the conservative spectrum beyond which reasonable minds shouldn't venture - a point at which "right" becomes wrong.
Neocons consider no expense as too great for the U.S. taxpayers to bear to defend the world!
There is the neocon WOT!
What a farce!
The only enemy that S.Korea has is the North.
Stop inventing stuff
>>>>Hardly. Anyone with even a cursory sense of history knows that not only is China a threat being communist and is building a large military while the world sleeps, but they ALSO were actively involved in the Korean war!
Again, what passes for history class in failed public schools these days is just sad.
What is depleting our military is being stretched all over the globe, defending areas that can be defended by the nations in that region.
>>>>”Can be defended” and “will be defended” is as absurd as buying debt and funding the WOT example.
History shows time and time again allowing terrorists to build armies, take land, and terrorize populations leads to greater catastrophe.
It would be really peachy if the U.N. did it’s job but it clearly doesn’t.
The Soviets had no fear of us in conventional land warfare.
Yes, I am amazed how one can be so obtuse in understanding recent history.
>>>>>Projecting to cover your own shortcomings just doesn’t work.
If the Soviets had no fear of us in conventional land warfare, why did they build all those tanks?
We are fighting an enemy with no organized Army, no Navy and no Air Force, but the Defense budget is too small!
>>>>You have no ability to learn from the past AND look to the future.
The “War” in Iraq was done in 2-3 weeks. It’s been the mess afterwards that’s been a problem.
For that matter, the war in Korea hasn’t been finished, the war in Europe hasn’t really been finished, which is the ENTIRE point!
War is with us, always has been, always will be and no matter how many pretzels you contort yourself into, that simply won’t ever EVER change!
You guys would try to find a enemy to fight a war against even in the Millennium.
>>>>>No, enemies hate freedom. Enemies find us, not the other way around.
Yea, in another 50 years, if the US survives that long.
>>>>If YOU were a South Korean you’d be happy if we waited out ill leader 500 years.
The best chance we have to NOT survive the next 50 years is plugging our head in the sand and pretending we’re the problem.
Defense is one of the legimate roles of government-our Defense, not the Defense of the world.
>>>And our defense entails more than our borders. Even my 5th grader understands by now after studying history, (during WW2), that once you have enemies literally at your doorstep on every side, eventually you’ll fold.
Again, it would be really nice if the Euroweenies could figure it out. Some have: GB, Poland...but too many haven’t.
If they relied on their own defense they’d be totalitarian. Forget socialist, they’d be something much much worse!
History has proven this over and over and over...
Ooops there I go being a war monger again...
sheesh
Freedom isn’t free.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure”.-——————Thomas Jefferson
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing”.-—————Edmund Burke
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.