Paul would probably claim Washington. Avoid entangling alliances, don’t get involved in the old world’s wars.
But there is a difference in getting involved in our own hemisphere and trying to remake an ancient Islamic culture into a liberal domocracy. And Ike and Reagan’s interventions were in the context of the Cold War, they weren’t utopian attempts to remake societies.
I haven’t followed the Paul controversy as closely as I should but I think some of the attacks on him are way out of line.
Paul would claim Jefferson too,
while ignoring the irony that in response to Muslim predations, Jefferson sent our marines over to Tripoli to topple a Government who was supporting piracy (the terrorism of the era) against us.
Of course that all misses the point that a few things have changed in the world since 1805.
“And Ike and Reagan’s interventions were in the context of the Cold War, they weren’t utopian attempts to remake societies.”
Our current efforts in the world are not utopian they are part and parcel of the global war on terror. When people miscast our efforts in iraq and afghanistan as not related to GWOT, they strike me as clueless or disingenuous.
“I haven’t followed the Paul controversy as closely as I should but I think some of the attacks on him are way out of line.”
I think Ron Paul’s and his defenders’ distortions of history to back up their points are out of line. It’s apPAULling how ignorant of history even those on our own side are.