No thanks. I love his interpretation of the constitution, But his views on national security are asinine and his expectations about what a president can actually move forward and accomplish are wholly unrealistic. Again, No thanks.
On Dec 31, 12:43 pm, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Why Conservatives Should Support Ron PaulFriday, 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 possiblydangerous, 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 contextvis-a-visthe modern conservative movement at large. Much > continues to be made of Ron Paul as alibertarianrather 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 bookConservatism: 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 executiveas 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 theirutility. 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 metaphysicallytrue: 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 bookLiberty 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 > institutionsbecause they now existconservatives find themselves in agreement > with orthodox Americanists who defend them because in their view it is > morally right that they existedin their proper formin 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 Statesmustbe 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’sdesireto 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 Savagethinksonly 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 > coveredeverywherefor 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.
