Why Conservatives Should Support Ron Paul

[MJ]

Why Conservatives Should Support Ron Paul
Friday, 30 December 2011 11:33
Dennis Behreandt

As Ron Paul has surged over recent weeks becoming a front-runner for the Republican nomination despite mainstream attempts to derail his growing popularity, among some conservatives, concern is growing.

Specifically, among those conservatives most concerned with foreign policy, Ron Paul is viewed with skepticism, if not disdain. Support for the Texas congressman, they say, will mean weakening America’s position in the world, leaving Israel weak and undefended, and giving Iran a free hand to go nuclear. On the basis of these concerns, Paul’s conservative critics say, he would be bad, and possibly dangerous, for the country as president.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Not only would a Ron Paul presidency help the country become economically stronger and militarily more secure, it would reinvigorate the conservative cause.

To begin, it is necessary to put Ron Paul and the movement that supports him into context vis-a-vis the modern conservative movement at large. Much continues to be made of Ron Paul as a libertarian rather than a conservative. But while there may be some utility in considering Paul and his supporters as libertarian, for some certainly are, it is more useful to consider Paul an outgrowth, or an example of, American orthodoxy.

There is a subtle but important difference between an orthodox political movement and a conservative political movement. In a broad sense, those of a conservative mindset seek to save and preserve institutions because they view those institutions as having demonstrated some utilitarian value to culture and society simply by the virtue of their existence. This was a theme explored by historian Jerry Z. Muller of the Catholic University of America in the introduction to his book Conservatism: An Anthology of Social and Political Thought from David Hume to the Present.

According to Muller, “The conservative defends existing institutions because their very existence creates a presumption that they have served some useful function, because eliminating them may lead to harmful, unintended consequences, or because the veneration which attaches to institutions that have existed over time makes them potentially usable for new purposes.”

Because existing institutions vary from nation to nation, conservatism likewise varies from nation to nation. As a result, conservatives have sought to save and preserve many things over the years in many countries. Soviet conservatives sought to preserve Soviet institutions, for example. An American conservative would look askance, for instance at an attempt to paint the Soviet planning agency GOSPLAN as a vital and important institution as it would violate the tenets of free enterprise most American conservatives hold dear. Yet it would not be surprising to find that a Soviet conservative might think that GOSPLAN should have been preserved.

In the United States, the institutions that tend to be of interest to conservatives are of broadly two types. The first are those explicitly created by the charter of government that brought the nation into being. Therefore, American conservatism tends to be supportive of the separation of powers among the branches of government. As a consequence of this, for example, American conservatives often lament the prospect of judicial tyranny or the tendency of modern presidents to rule by executive order, which many see as infringing upon and diminishing the Constitutional role of Congress. This also explains the seemingly contradictory position some conservatives take of actually supporting the idea of a powerful, unitary executive as they see the Hamiltonian ideas of a more powerful presidency as of central importance.

Second, American conservatives have generally been supportive of the cultural institutions that they see as existing prior to the state. Among these are defense of traditional values, defense of the family, and defense of the idea of the common law. In both areas among conservatives these things are valued primarily for their utility. Because they exist, they must therefor perform a useful function and we tamper with them at our own risk.

In contrast to the conservative point of view, the orthodox outlook says that a given institution exists because it is in alignment with a transcendental truth. Says Professor Muller: “...the orthodox defense of institutions depends on belief in their correspondence to some ultimate truth.... The orthodox theoretician defends existing institutions and practices because they are metaphysically true: the truth proclaimed may be based on particular revelation or on natural laws purportedly accessible to all rational men....”

It is from this latter point of view that we must understand the phenomenon of Ron Paul. In the introduction to his book Liberty Defined, Paul places himself firmly within the orthodox American tradition by acknowledging that he believes in natural rights that precede the foundations of government. He writes: “The definition of liberty I use is the same one that was accepted by Thomas Jefferson and his generation. It is the understanding derived from the great freedom tradition, for Jefferson himself took his understanding from John Locke (1632-1704).” Put succinctly by Jefferson, this is the idea “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These are, to put it as Muller did, “natural and accessible by all rational men.”

There is a substantial nexus between the orthodox American point of view represented by Ron Paul and the modern American conservative movement. The orthodox view holds that the rights enjoyed by individuals, including to live, to build a family, to own property, to speak one’s mind, to associate with whom one wishes, etc., are inviolate and that governments lack any legitimate interest in legislating in these areas. Meanwhile, the conservative simply sees the outcomes of the exercise of these rights as the institutions (the family, for instance) as worth protecting because of its utility. But both the orthodox American and the conservative American can agree on the value of the family and other such institutions. Moreover, the explicit political institutions brought into being during the founding era were created largely by orthodox American thinkers. In defending these institutions because they now exist conservatives find themselves in agreement with orthodox Americanists who defend them because in their view it is morally right that they existed in their proper form in the first place.

Because there is a nexus of interests between the American orthodox outlook and the conservative outlook, there should be a natural affinity between the two. And while this has not necessarily been the case at least since the 1950s, with both sides tending to look askance at one another, the opportunity now exists for the two movements to work together for the same goals. Consider some of the outcomes that are possible:

Foreign Affairs: Conservatives want the United States to be the preeminent power in the world, both economically and militarily. The orthodox position cares nothing for this as a goal in and of itself. Nonetheless, the orthodox Americanist approach naturally creates conditions wherein the United States must be the preeminent military and economic power. The orthodox position is to call for the shrinkage of government down to Constitutionally authorized levels (thus Ron Paul’s plan to eliminate five cabinet departments). The shrinkage of government means the government will need to tax less and inflate the money supply to a lesser degree, leaving vastly more money in the pockets of Americans, supercharging the free enterprise system by leaving property in the hands of its rightful owners. Under such conditions the U.S. will dominate the world economically because all other nations will have, by comparison, larger and more intrusive governments that disrupt their economies.

Military Strength: Counterintuitively, Ron Paul’s desire to bring troops home would improve the U.S. military’s capabilities. Currently, with large deployments abroad, both men and material tire and wear out. There are obvious costs involved with regard to the necessary health care and maintenance this requires. Less obviously, budgets for new and improved types of equipment come under fire as the maintenance cost of keeping expeditionary forces in the field grow. Over time this leads to a military with decreased war-making ability. It is easy to see this starting to play out in the U.S. military. Warships are increasingly old and are not being replaced. Frontline aircraft face similar pressures. We currently fight with F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s, all featuring designs dating to the 1960s. The B-52 bomber is older still, a remnant of the 1950s. Ending deployments abroad, or at least being much smarter about them, would free up money in the budget for badly needed equipment upgrades and replacements. The result would be a stronger and more effective U.S. military that is not stretched so thin by being deployed all over the world.

Israel: Where does a much less interventionist foreign policy leave Israel? Concern for the Jewish state is particularly prevalent among conservatives who view it as a bastion of Judeo-Christian civilization surrounded and threatened by aggressive theocratic and dictatorial neighbors. A Ron Paul presidency would mean the abandonment of Israel, according to some conservatives. And it would mean, according to most of the same conservatives, that Iran gets the bomb. Would this mean that Iran would then attack Israel with its new nuclear weapon? While no one can predict the future, this seems unlikely. Even under a Ron Paul presidency there is no reasonable likelihood that the United States would stop trading freely with Israel. That means that the Israeli government, already the most advanced and powerful in the region, would continue to hold military supremacy in the Middle East. Moreover, because meddling in other country’s affairs is no part of the orthodox American program that would be instituted under a Paul presidency, Israel would be freed from constraints that currently hold it back from pursuing whatever national agenda it wishes. This would largely end the charade orchestrated from Washington that keeps the idea of a Palestinian state alive and would completely free Israel to act in its own defense. Under a Paul presidency the likelihood of an Israeli preemptive strike on Iranian nuclear installation becomes much greater. In the long-run, it is likely that the Mideast will be stabilized under a Paul presidency and Israel will find its position strengthened.

Domestic Affairs: What conservative wouldn’t want to see the size of the American welfare state radically decreased? Only under Ron Paul would the Executive Branch bring pressure to bear on Congress to roll back our omnipresent government. Just ask, which among the other Republican candidates both has expressed a desire to cut the size of government and has a record of actually opposing federal expansion? There’s only Ron Paul. The idea that a Gingrich or a Romney would do so is laughable.

Only Ron Paul can win: There is a lot of talk about who can beat Obama. Michael Savage thinks only Romney can do it, which is a patently ridiculous position for a conservative to take. Romney only claims a fraction of support from some conservatives. There is no way he is going to get additional support from independents who rightly will see that he is simply a Republican version of Obama. We already had a Republican version of Obama in the White House in the form of George Bush II. Romney will never have enough support to beat Obama. As for Gingrich, he’s even less likable than Romney. There’s no need to go into his downsides here, they have been adequately covered everywhere for the last two decades (currently there are 6,800,000 results in Google for the search “ Newt Gingrich scandal”. Simply put, he is far too polarizing to win. As for the other Republican candidates, they have failed to demonstrate an adequate command of the issues to win. They simply will never have a chance against Obama, who even conservatives must admit is a formidable campaigner who now also wields the advantage of being the incumbent.

But Ron Paul can win. He has all the advantages the others lack. He is, for instance, quite clearly an alternative to the present liberal democratic ascendency in both parties. His orthodox Americanism is a clear distinction. If Americans truly want a different approach, his is the only option. As for support, Paul has a core of supporters that are passionate, nationwide, intelligent, and vocal. This is a firm foundation for running a strong campaign. Now, consider if the mainstream conservative movement puts its considerable weight into supporting Paul -- this would build a coalition that would unite libertarians, mainstream Republicans, those defined here as orthodox Americans, and a large proportion of independents who are now disillusioned with President Obama who they once supported.

Such a coalition would put Paul in the White House, perhaps in a landslide. Afterwords, it would set America on the road to renewed economic strength and would advance most, if not all, the goals conservatives seek.

The truth is, come November, only Ron Paul can win. The question is, will conservatives have the courage and foresight to support him?

http://www.americandailyherald.com/201112301123/publisher-s-corner/why-conservatives-should-support-ron-paul

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.