Ron Paul for the Republicans
When I considered the Democratic nomination, I had to consider several details of their policy to make a decision. With the Republican contenders, it’s much easier. Ron Paul is the only candidate who believes the government should obey the US Constitution. Any subtle disagreement I might have on how the Constitution should be followed pales to insignificance when Paul’s Constitutionalism is compared to the other candidates. During his time in Congress, he has been given the nickname “Dr. No” because “he never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.”
Although some candidates weren’t in Congress at the time, he is the only candidate from either major party who voted against the Iraq War. Before the invasion, he stated on the House floor:
I rise to urge the Congress to think twice before thrusting this nation into a war without merit- one fraught with the danger of escalating into something no American will be pleased with. […]
It is unwise because of many unforeseen consequences that are likely to result. It is immoral and unjust, because it has nothing to do with US security and because Iraq has not initiated aggression against us. We must understand that the American people become less secure when we risk a major conflict driven by commercial interests and not constitutionally authorized by Congress. Victory under these circumstances is always elusive, and unintended consequences are inevitable.
He is also the only candidate who voted against both forms of the Patriot Act. He also voted against the REAL ID Act. He has never voted for a tax increase or an unbalanced budget. He’s the only person who still talks about ending federal agencies and entitlement programs. You Republicans still say the word “limited government” but Ron Paul is the only small-government conservative running for President.
The only reason I can think of for not supporting him is because his ideas sound kooky. My school’s paper said Paul was impractical when they endorsed John McCain. The only reason cited was because his desire to close the Department of Education was “unsound in theory and unworkable in practice.” The essential Department of Education, which was created in 1979? The Department of Education that Ronald Reagan tried to close? The Department of Education that Bob Dole promised to close? The Department of Education whose closure was an official plank of the RNC platform until George W. Bush took office? The $56 billion money pit of a department that has yet to be able to substantially raise test scores in the US since inception? That’s Ron Paul’s kooky idea?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not one of the fanatical Ron Paul fans. I don’t think we should withdraw from the UN and I’m not sure the gold standard will solve all our monetary problems. I do, however, find it odd that both of those positions are considered kooky. We should certainly be wary of the UN controlling US policy through resolutions. We should be even more worried about the UN controlling the policies of developing countries who don’t have as much influence as we do. And a lot of people like the gold standard. In fact, Steve Forbes and Jack Kemp think Ron Paul’s proposal isn’t a true gold standard because he wants competing currency backings including gold, silver, and fiat. The one time I’ve ever seen him able to actually explain this in detail, the idea was praised by the host and guests of Kudlow and Company, except for Steve Forbes who didn’t think it was close enough to a gold standard.
So look, the choice is obvious for me. There is no choice. Ron Paul is the only person close to believing in a limited government that obeys the Constitution. If you don’t care about that, then don’t vote for him. But I care deeply about the proper role of government and I once swore an oath to defend the Constitution.
Will Ron Paul win the nomination? It seems somewhat unlikely, but I won’t write him off just yet. Even if I knew he wouldn’t win, I would still vote for him. What are the alternatives? I’m also convinced he has more of a shot than some give him credit for. At around $20 million, it is confirmed that he raised more money last quarter than any other Republican candidate. He also placed second in Nevada and may win the Maine caucuses today. Like I said before, nothing’s over untl at least Super Tuesday. Still, I certainly won’t be surprised if Ron Paul doesn’t finish well next week. But I’ll know I did the right thing. I hope you do too.
Comment by walt moffett
I’d much rather for Cthulhu or this candidate than any of the D or R candidates. General Zod is also a possibility.
Comment by KentAllard
We still have a constitution? I thought we dumped that old thing a few years ago.
Comment by Anonymous
So the big constitutionalist opposed the war on other grounds instead of arguing that, under the Constitution, it’s Congress job to declare war, rather than delegating that authority to the President?
Comment by Brian
Ditto, Dan.
Anon #3, did you bother reading Paul’s full statement that was linked or just the excerpt before you left your comment?
From Paul’s statement:
“There is a constitutional argument and a constitutional mistake that could be made. If we once again go to war, as we have done on so many occasions since World War II, without a clear declaration of war by Congress, we blatantly violate the Constitution. I fear we will once again go to war in a haphazard way, by executive order, or even by begging permission from the rotten, anti-American United Nations. This haphazard approach, combined with a lack of clearly defined goal for victory, makes it almost inevitable that true victory will not come. So we should look at this from a constitutional perspective. Congress should assume its responsibility, because war is declared by Congress, not by a President and not by a U.N.”
Comment by Don
Dan, I took that same oath that you did, more than once, as has Dr. Paul. Our presidents and every member of Congress also took that oath, but most of them have failed to live up to it. They ignore or circumvent the US Constitution whenever it’s convenient for them, which seems to be on a fairly regular basis. I still adhere to the oath as a military retiree, and for that reason I must vote for Ron Paul. There is no other choice.
If anyone needs another reason to vote for Paul, they should consider the fact that our country is in a dire fiscal position that’s worsening every day. Unless we change our fiscal policies dramatically, and soon, the USA may become a third world nation during the lifetimes of the children of today who will be saddled with the debt we’ve amassed, as will their children. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is a student of economics as it relates to government and who has a plan to turn this country around. When he talks about economic issues in the so-called debates the eyes of the other candidates seem to glaze over. They don’t have a clue.
Comment by John Little
Right on!!! I’ve got a Ron Paul yard sign, bumper sticker and have canvassed a bit. Not nearly enough, I know…
Comment by Daniel Harper
Sorry, any man with connections to the ultraconservative Christian Identity movement is no friend of equality, and I’d like to think that any libertarian worth the name would have repudiated him awhile ago.
Like Tim Sandefur.
And Ed Brayton.
Or, hell, all of these guys.
For the record, I’m not in any sense a libertarian, but even I can recognize that just because a guy makes the right kind of noises that libertarians like to hear about small government, doesn’t make him a true libertarian.
Comment by John Little
a worn out, decade old story, resurrected just before the NH primaries
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/pre.....wsletters/
Comment by Daniel Harper
So if Hillary Clinton had spent a decade putting out the “Hillary Clinton Survival Report” (later the “Hillary Clinton Political Report”) that had included the kinds of things found in the Ron Paul newsletters, that’d be A-OK?
Sorry, Ron Paul may not have written those things, but they went out under his name, and while he’s backing away from those newsletters now, he’s clearly very well-connected in the Christian Identity/Reconstructionist movement. I am not directly saying that Paul is a racist, if he’s not, then he’s really cozy with a lot of people who are.
Again, run it through the “Hillary Clinton filter” — if Clinton were found to have done it, would you consider it bad? And if so, why is it okay when Paul did it?
Comment by Dan
Even Eric Dondero says Ron Paul didn’t write the newsletter in question.
I do agree that he should have handled it better, though. It’s a negative point, but not nearly enough for me to worry about voting for him. As for the Christian identity stuff or whatever… I’m an atheist, and nothing about Ron Paul scares me more than every other candidate running for office.
Comment by Daniel Harper
Yeah, so Paul didn’t write it. Just people who worked for him who published it under his name. Sandefur again has a nice bit about some of the modern-day variants of libertarianism, and Paul seems to belong to the crazy reconstructionist types.
Again, even if Paul didn’t write these newsletters, he’s awfully chummy with people who did, and has maintained contact of some sort or other with crazy right-wing militia groups ever since. Paul’s no more of a true libertarian than I am.
Comment by Dan
Daniel, I read your link to Sandefur and I disagree with both his attempt to broadly classify people (especially libertarians) into narrowly defined groups and his bulleted description of Ron Paul.
I was reading the piece with quite a bit of humility. I was expecting the first bit about Ron Paul believing that “women’s bodies are the property of the state” and tried to keep an open mind. After reading the rest of it, though, I simply have to come to the conclusion that the guy is stretching the truth to meet his agenda. I won’t claim that I don’t have an agenda. I want people to vote for Ron Paul. But unlike the author you cite, I won’t lie or deceive to meet my objective. Here’s the truth.
1. Ron Paul believes that the US Constitution does not give the federal government the power to make any law about abortion. So do I.
2. Ron Paul opposed the amendment to define marriage even though he personally disagrees with same-sex marriage. He thinks such matters should be left to the local or individual level.
3. I don’t know if Ron Paul would rather “orphan children.” I do know that he does not think rights of adoption are a federal issue.
4. Ron Paul is also carrying out the agenda of Dan Roberts, an atheist, libertarian, veteran, engineer, husband, lover-of-freedom. I could really care less if some fundamentalist, racist, child-eating, velociraptor-hybrid wanted Ron Paul to win.
5. “Ron Paul opposes individual rights for anyone who has a different cultural background than his own.” That’s not even an argument. It’s a statement that I could just as easily apply to any candidate for President, especially if I refuse to offer any evidence.
6. “Ron Paul opposes the protection of individual rights through the courts.” As far as I know, the only basis this has in fact is that Ron Paul has proposed barring the federal judiciary from hearing suits regarding an individual state’s regulation of abortion. A point to Sandefur, even if it is overstated. Such a limitation on the judiciary is well within the Congress’ constitutional power, but such a limitation is also very open to political opposition.
7. The Constitution is sacrosanct, not because it is written by God or some other such nonsense, but because it is all we have to protect the people from the capricious and potentially detrimental power of government.
Comment by Daniel Harper
First of all, let me note that I really like your blog, and I’m sorry that my first postings here have been, well, hostile in this way. I found you via FTH, and while I don’t always agree with your politics, I find your arguments generally interesting and worth paying attention to.
That said, I’m not going to debate each point you raise (even though I think there’s a lot that could be said on some of them), as this will be my last post in this thread. I have no desire to turn your blog into my own personal anti-Ron-Paul proving grounds. I have my own blog for that, if I choose.
I’ll just say a few words and get out of your hair. I don’t think that a brand of libertarianism that limits federal power while giving individual states the ability to oppress citizens’ civil rights is a libertarianism worthy of the name. Repealing Roe v Wade on the grounds that the federal judiciary simply doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to have made that decision sounds fine in principle (although I obviously strongly disagree with this interpretation of the Constitution), but in practice that means that the personal liberty of individuals in more conservative states (like this one) is severely reduced. Ditto for gay marriage, etc. — Paul even uses some of the far-right rhetoric like “elitist, secular left” in making arguments, and supports the idea that there’s no such thing as separation of church and state.
Effectively, a Ron Paul presidency is going to look and feel a whole lot like a Mike Huckabee presidency, just with that warm and fuzzy uppercase-L-Libertarianism sheen to it. A presidency with the effect of reducing overall liberty is, I think, not a presidency that has the right to be called a friend of liberty, despite the rhetoric.
(And, while you didn’t respond to this element of my last comment, I still think that you can know Paul by the company he keeps, at least some of whom are really crazy racist pricks. That’s another Big Thing that I can’t overlook in a potential presidential candidate.)
Okay, that’s it, I’m done. Unless you specifically ask for a response to something, I won’t be posting in this thread again. Again, I like your blog, and if I post about this topic myself I’ll send you a link to you can come beat me up on my own turf. I’ll raise my next pint of Shakespeare stout in your honor.
Comment by Dan
I get into plenty of arguments with people on here that I respect. You’re right that the Constitution does give national rights and that a BIG ONE is the ninth amendment that specifies that all rights need not be enumerated. Medical privacy and the ability to regulate your own body is certainly included in that.
Anyway, I’m done with this thread as well. I think you might find this post a little explanatory of how I and some others feel about certain things, though.