Iconoclastic Libertarian

What's not to like about Ron Paul? He's probably a very nice elderly gentleman and quite affable at small dinner parties if you can keep him from dominating the conversation with digressions about the gold standard, pacifism, state's rights and the joy of medicinal applications of marijuana. As a presidential candidate he has all the electability of Adolph Hitler.

OK, that's harsh, but it doesn't sound so strange if you recall that Hitler built his political power with a small but intensely loyal cadre of largely politically naive idealists. He was generally unsuccessful in open elections and his party never captured more than a very small percentage of the Reichstag. Paul is a similar out-of-the-mainstream sort of player.

In less inflammatory terms, his un-electable status derives from a number of factors. Some of those are reasonable, some are purely statistical, and some are undeniably irrational but real emotionalism of the electorate.  He is too old for the job. He has never held executive office. Congressmen seldom get elected to the Presidency and when they do they aren't usually very remarkable in the job. Governors, generals and senators are the minor leagues for the big job. He is a largely unattractive and decidedly uncharismatic personality. And, if we laugh at the idea of a community organizer job as preparation for the Presidency, what then to anticipate for a gynecologist? These gripes aren't necessarily right, but they are very real in this game.

Is there substance for opposition to Paul? I think there is.

We tend to look at American political ideology as liberal and conservative. In reality, however, that dichotomy is a narrow subset of a wider range of ideologies and while many of those aren't common in the US, there are two which gather a bit more support than most: communitarian and libertarian. Liberals are often linked with communitarians. Conservatives often characterize themselves as libertarian. Ron Paul is an unabashed Libertarian. He has even run for the presidency as the nominee of the Libertarian party where he garnered the nomination by defeating Russell Means of the American Indian Movement.

You could have gotten a glimpse of the Libertarian perspective the other night in the debate. Paul's interpretation paints foreign policy in pure 1815 isolationist terms for America. He envisions a Fortress America protected by our oceans and withdrawn from leadership on the global stage. He advocates withdrawal from the UN, which for better or for worse, provides communication with the rest of the world and administration of a wide range of international programs which are both significant and important to world trade.

He wants US withdrawal from NATO, NAFTA, WTO and a broad range of alliances, compacts, treaties and trade agreements. Somehow he thinks that such isolationism would solve American economic woes more effectively than global commerce. Possibly a review of trade and the British Empire in the 18th and 19th centuries would help him understand.

He has no apprehension about an Iranian nuclear capability. He doesn't seem to appreciate a linkage between Iran's bomb and the existential threat to Israel which it represents. He doesn't find anything to worry about with regard to terrorism and nuclear weapons. Ditto for N. Korea, Venezuela and all of the other nuclear aspirants.

Probably most grating to me is his very populist bleat about our immediate withdrawal from "un-declared and un-winnable wars."

Apparently he is stuck in 1941 with regard to creation of a formal document in which the Congress assembled comes together in majestic prose to initiate hostility against a threat or in response to an attack. Unaware that the appropriations power of the House and the legislative budgeting for military operations which have supported wars for the last 70 years are effective "declarations." If post-911 wasn't a declaration of war against terrorist forces without regard to borders, I don't know what it would take.

As for "un-winnable", as a career warrior I will never support any Commander-in-Chief that fails to accept the core premise that when the US enters conflict it is by definition winnable. It is the leadership that makes it winnable and Mr. Paul lacks that.

I could go on, but a review of Ron Paul's long and detailed history of policy pronouncements will tell you much more. His positions on immigration, illegal drugs, the death penalty, public education, economics, energy policy, etc. are all superficial and initially appealing to the naive, idealistic and dedicated followers. The only question remaining is why they were wearing red T-shirts in Ames. I've always thought the brown shirts and dark brown ties with the armband insignia was so much more impressive.