"Any response to this paper's Friday editorial on my foreign policy position must rest on two fundamental assertions: first, that the Founding Fathers were not isolationists; and second, that their political philosophy -- the wisdom of the Constitution, the Declaration, and our Revolution itself -- is not just a primitive cultural relic.
"If I understand the editors' concerns, I have not been accused of deviating from the Founders' logic; if anything I have been accused of adhering to it too strictly. The question, therefore, before readers -- and soon voters -- is the same question I have asked for almost 20 years in Congress: by what superior wisdom have we now declared Jefferson, Washington, and Madison to be "unrealistic and dangerous"? Why do we insist on throwing away their most considered warnings?
"A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us. American citizens would be encouraged to visit other countries and interact with other peoples rather than be told by their own government that certain countries are off limits to them.
"American citizens would be allowed to spend their hard-earned money wherever they wish across the globe, not told that certain countries are under embargo and thus off limits. An American trade policy would encourage private American businesses to seek partners overseas and engage them in trade. The hostility toward American citizens overseas in the wake of our current foreign policy has actually made it difficult if not dangerous for Americans to travel abroad. Is this not an isolationist consequence from a policy of aggressive foreign interventionism?
"It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example.
"I do not believe that ideas have an expiration date, or that their value can be gauged by their novelty. The test for new and old is that of wisdom and experience, or as the editors wrote "historical reality," which argues passionately now against the course of anti-Constitutional interventionism.
"A Paul administration would see Americans engaged overseas like never before, in business and cultural activities. But a Paul administration would never attempt to export democracy or other values at the barrel of a gun, as we have seen over and over again that this is a counterproductive approach that actually leads the United States to be resented and more isolated in the world. "
Ron Paul doesn't really understand his history. I'm going to quote a letter in a second by Thomas Jefferson. But first understand that Thomas Jefferson was one of our premier forefathers and advocated individual liberties. Similarly to Ron Paul.
Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 12 July 1816 "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, and more enlightened as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions changed with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also and keep pace with the times." This fits Ron Paul too perfectly. What was one perfect for a country of yeoman farmers, may not be appropriate for the colossus. | |
DarkView:
They understood the principles of liberty, something few people today really understand. (Democracy is not liberty.) And since we've pretty much rejected the Constitution and Bill of Rights, we've in effect gone from one King George to another over the course of 230 years. It's time to put government back in its proper place. The government is empowered by and serves the people, not the other way around. Vandit: Ron Paul upholds the Constitution, INCLUDING the means for amending it. If people feel strongly that the Constitution isn't adequate in its present state, it should be amended in the proper manner. The answer is NOT to bypass the Constitution. When we do, we inevitably run into new (and expected) problems. Congress passed a bill saying that if the president takes military action, it must be submitted for review within X months to Congress. What foolishness! The Constitution already says that only Congress has the power to declare war. Congress hasn't declared a single war since WWII. How many wars have we won since WWII? none. The Constitution says that only silver and gold will be used as legal tender. side-step that and what do we have today? runaway inflation and printing money out of thin air. (not to say that everyone should haul around gold with them, but our currency should be backed by something other than debt) Patriot Act? IRS? nation building? all against the principles of the Founding Fathers. So yes, the Constitution IS a "living document" and can be amended as needed. And specifically, the issues not covered by the Constitution were left to the states. We don't need the federal government to regulate every aspect of our lives. The answer is not to take freedom and liberty away from individuals in order to strengthen the national government. I've heard Ron Paul referred to as the Thomas Jefferson of our day, and I couldn't agree more. Jefferson of all people understood the importance of personal liberty. | |
none. Korea, Gulf War 1, The Balkans, Afghanistan 1 ect. ect. No no no, you quoted a man who thinks the founding fathers(the ones who he listed fought and contradicted themselves over and over, so it doesn't make for a good point) are superior to us. Then I posted a quote that directly contradicted that logic and you turned it into some sort of weird argument. The Constitution says that only silver and gold will be used as legal tender. side-step that and what do we have today? runaway inflation and printing money out of thin air. (not to say that everyone should haul around gold with them, but our currency should be backed by something other than debt) You don't know the history behind this one. Ever heard of the Bank Wars? I didn't think so. Patriot Act? IRS? nation building? all against the principles of the Founding Fathers. Did Ron Paul tell you that? Because he again doesn't know what he's talking about. The founding fathers were one motley crew, and had a hard time agreeing on anything, in fact they never really did. They had to make the constitution while half of them were away on vacation just so we could even have it. I've heard Ron Paul referred to as the Thomas Jefferson of our day, and I couldn't agree more. Jefferson of all people understood the importance of personal liberty. Which one? The private intellectual or the public official? I bet you didn't even know there were two sides of him. | |
We didn't win the Korean War, it was a stalemate. I wouldn't even say Afghanistan was a success either (the 'War on Terror' in Afghanistan, and in general isn't even over or won). Not sure about the Balkans though.
| |
Korea, Gulf War 1, The Balkans, Afghanistan 1 ect. ect. Korea wasn't exactly a "win". I'll give you Gulf War 1. The Balkans... was an extended civil war. How can we win a civil war on foreign soil? This was a U.N. police action for the most part. Afghanistan was, again, a civil war. No no no, you quoted a man who thinks the founding fathers(the ones who he listed fought and contradicted themselves over and over, so it doesn't make for a good point) are superior to us. Then I posted a quote that directly contradicted that logic and you turned it into some sort of weird argument. Debate the issue, not the person. I challenge you to find anywhere that RP thinks the Founding Fathers are superior to us. If you read over your quote, you'll notice that it says "deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched" and "and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment", which is 100% not Ron Paul's stance. Given that what I just quoted is the premise of the whole quote, I think my argument was sound. However, Ron Paul IS against SUBVERTING the Constitution. That's a big difference. You don't know the history behind this one. Ever heard of the Bank Wars? I didn't think so. Yes I have. Again, I don't appreciate your hostility. skipping ahead to present day... There's no reason for a private group of bankers to hold our economy ransom (i.e. the Federal Reserve). For every dollar printed, we owe that dollar plus interest back to the Fed. Congress has the obligation to print the nation's money (interest-free), and they ignore that obligation at our expense. Our present-day fiat currency allows government to print money on demand at the expense of debasing the dollar. Once the money finds its way into circulation and world markets, the value of the dollar drops and the poor and middle class of America are hit hardest with inflation. This system is one we should be moving away from, not endorsing. The founding fathers were one motley crew, and had a hard time agreeing on anything, in fact they never really did. They had to make the constitution while half of them were away on vacation just so we could even have it. No one was 100% satisfied with the Constitution. That's how compromise works, generally. 39 of the 55 delegates to the Convention signed it. 3 refused to sign, and 13 left before the signing apparently. That doesn't mean we should throw it out the window, either. It has within it the means for change i.e. amendments. Which one? The private intellectual or the public official? I bet you didn't even know there were two sides of him. Personal attacks, again! Specifically I refer to Jefferson's Enlightenment philosophies, especially with regard to the rights of common people. He also advocated states' rights and limited national government. I believe that's how MOST people regard him. If you decide to respond again, please do so in a respectful manner. I'm off for the night. | |
Problem is, non-interventionist foreign policy is 1) pretty naïve, and 2) not consistent with any remotely capable national defense. Non-intervention could have been used to justify not attacking the Taliban, remember, just as easily as it could be used to justify leaving Saddam alone. (And Afghanistan 1 wasn't a civil war, unless you count Soviet invasion troops as Afghanis.)
The reason non-intervention is naïve is that the direct threat to us does not come from any specific state. To get in and actually kill the jihadists who are trying to kill us, we need to twist some arms. But more than that, we actually need to drain the swamp. That's the indirect threat, and non-intervention would basically put up an artificial barrier of protection around it. Contrary to popular (but wrong) belief, the war on terror hasn't made any more terrorists than not waging one at all. Indeed history--recent and older--has repeatedly and unwaveringly shown that terrorists have more recruiting power when they go unchallenged, but their voices are rendered impotent by losing at every turn. That's being borne out right now with al Qaeda in Iraq. For that matter, it was proven by Libya's sudden about-face on WMD when we first went in. The real core of the issue, though, is that interventionism is precisely the only way to win this war. Specifically, we have to seriously frell up Saudi Arabia's existing social order. Right now, the burgeoning monarchy pays gobs and gobs of money to Wahhabist extremists who preach a doctrine of hate and misogyny. This arrangement started as a convenience to the monarchy but has now spiraled out of control, and no doubt some in power would like to see that relationship come to an end. In the meantime the well-funded Wahhabists have been taking their show on the road all over the world, wielding vast influence in places like the Philippines, and of course the infamous Finsbury Park mosque in London. This is pretty much like if 95% of Congress was funneling money to the Klan so it could go spread the word in Europe, except even they have nothing on the Wahhabis when it comes to bigotry and evil. That the war on terror ends in Saudi Arabia is the dirty little secret nobody much likes to say. (Incidentally, it's also gonna have to plow through major sections of the CIA and the State Department before that can happen.) A major plank of the long-term strategy therefore involved removing a major menace from the field--Saddam Hussein, known to finance and support terrorists, though mostly only when it served his specific interests--and replacing his regime with one that would have the opposite influence. Of course no one with even half a brain expected that the rebuilding would go fast, or that al Qaeda would simply choose to ignore our presence there. | |
Perhaps you didn't realize this, but Ron Paul did in fact vote to authorize the use of force in Afghanistan. They attacked us; we retaliated. That's not an issue of non-interventionism. It was a justifiable reason to declare war (had Congress actually declared war).
The difference between Afghanistan and Iraq? Al Qaeda attacked us. Saddam didn't. Saddam was not an imminent threat, thus the war was not justified. Afghanistan (circa 1980) was just as much a civil war as Vietnam or Korea, with outside influences fueling both sides. The reason non-intervention is naïve is that the direct threat to us does not come from any specific state. This is a valid argument, but it leads us down a slippery slope as a nation, especially with regard to loss of liberty. Using this reasoning, anyone may for any reason be labeled a "terrorist" by the government. Even labeling someone a "potential terrorist" could be enough to deprive them of life and liberty. That, to me, is simply unamerican. If you think I'm stretching things here, you need look no further than the Military Commissions Act to see where we are and where we're headed. That's being borne out right now with al Qaeda in Iraq. For that matter, it was proven by Libya's sudden about-face on WMD when we first went in. Before we invaded Iraq, al Qaeda had little more than a foot-hold in Iraq. Al Qaeda hated Saddam's secular government. With Saddam's gone, we removed the most significant check on al Qaeda in Iraq, and their numbers have gone up significantly. It's also important to note that there was no link whatsoever between al Qaeda and Saddam as stated in both the 9/11 Commission Report and by the Pentagon. Libya's leaders acted shrewdly, but that doesn't justify our behavior. If anything, it shows the way other nations regard us since we've abandoned diplomacy in favor of force. "Do what the U.S. says or be invaded" is the unspoken ultimatum. The real core of the issue, though, is that interventionism is precisely the only way to win this war. Do you mean the "War on Terror"? 1) You can't wage war against a tactic. 2) The only way this war will ever be won is if humanity is wiped out. Why do I say this? Because as long as violence and threats exist, the potential for terrorism exists. The "War on Terror" can never be won. Specifically, we have to seriously frell up Saudi Arabia's existing social order. ... That the war on terror ends in Saudi Arabia is the dirty little secret nobody much likes to say. Again, we should be asking ourselves "Why do they hate us?" One need look no further than Bin Laden's fatwa against the U.S.: "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim." So... they hate us because we occupy their lands, so we're going to fix the problem... by occupying their lands? Saudi Arabia is the Muslim holy land; intervention there would be disastrous as best, catastrophic at worst. | |
For the record I was never hostile, I just didn't believe you could have heard of these events and held the opinions you do.
Yes I have. Again, I don't appreciate your hostility. That wasn't a personal attack, but you're using archaic arguments similar to the ones that were used centuries ago against having a national bank. World economy has evolved past the gold standard. No western countries even use it. Lack of the gold standard is not the reason we have inflation. Specifically I refer to Jefferson's Enlightenment philosophies, especially with regard to the rights of common people. He also advocated states' rights and limited national government. I believe that's how MOST people regard him. Ah, so the public official Jefferson! The one who with a swipe of his pen ignored the constitution and annexed Louisiana and passed an unconstitutional Embargo Act against England! Sounds like he stuck to his principles! If you had just answered my question directly you might have more wisely picked the private Jefferson. However that Jefferson's policies were wildly unrealistic, as can be seen time and time again when they met reality. It is much easier to be an armchair intellectual than an agent of change. Speaking of private Jefferson, I'm sure you're not equating Paul to the slave adulterer who consequently denied his involvement in a rousing speech calling anyone who did a disgrace. That would be a little harsh. No one was 100% satisfied with the Constitution. That's how compromise works, generally. 39 of the 55 delegates to the Convention signed it. 3 refused to sign, and 13 left before the signing apparently. That doesn't mean we should throw it out the window, either. It has within it the means for change i.e. amendments. Please don't ignore my point and talk about something else. Our founding fathers had radically different principles on how to govern our new nation. I can promise you that had Jefferson been at the convention the constitution would never have passed. Had Hamilton written the constitution we might have been ruled by an aristocratic class. Saying things like "Against the principles of the Founding Fathers" is believing a self-serving delusion. They were all radically different in their principles. | |
Sorry if I misread your tone.
Lack of the gold standard is not the reason we have inflation. True. Inflation is the direct result of increasing the money supply. But because our currency isn't linked to anything of real value, there are no checks whatsoever on the levels of inflation. Ah, so the public official Jefferson! I don't see where you're going with this or what point you're trying to make, besides possibly defacing Jefferson. If your point is that no one is perfect, then I agree with you. That doesn't mean we can't strive for what we as individuals believe to be ideal. Our founding fathers had radically different principles on how to govern our new nation. ... Saying things like "Against the principles of the Founding Fathers" is believing a self-serving delusion. They were all radically different in their principles. The personal beliefs of all of the Founding Fathers varied, especially with regard to how the newly created nation should be run. But you have to remember the spirit of the times. Why in the world would they want to institute an IRS or pass something as absurd as the Patriot Act immediately after gaining freedom from England? I am not, however, going to argue semantics with you. If your point is that the Constitution isn't perfect and neither are the people who created it, then you're absolutely correct. However, the Constitution does contain within itself the means for change, and we're obligated to change it as needed, not to bypass it entirely. Otherwise the Constitution really is nothing more than "a goddamned piece of paper". "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The oath is not - to police the world - to serve special interests - to keep people safe at the expense of personal liberty - to spread democracy by force - to run a welfare state It is, very simply, to uphold the Constitution. | |
What superior wisdom did Jefferson, Washington and Madison have? They were obviously wise but they weren't gods handing down cosmic laws to last beyond time itself.