I am digging through Obama’s SOTU address to see if I can find anything new…no luck so far. Perhaps I can find a slant that no one has covered and bring it to you. Sure I can find something. Here are the Heritage Foundation’s initial stabs at what was said. I briefly skimmed through it, but they are usually pretty good.
But speaking of the Heritage Foundation, they had a very good post on the Ideology of Isolationism and the misguided notion that the founders believed in this philosophy.
It points out an ad by Ron Paul supporters that promotes this ideology. There are a lot of things you can take from the post and the subsequent comments…That Paul supporters have not lost their ability to mass post his talking points…that very few people have truly seen how his group operates…that very few people seem to have looked at historical defense spending numbers…that people will promote lies if it furthers what they want to believe, many of these people would argue with the founders themselves…and I would add I do believe many people have found themselves an idol. There…done with my rant. Here is what I took from it.
People, including Mr. Paul, do in fact take the founders statements out of textual and historical context to promote an ideology that they want to believe in…and secondly people did not read the two research reports linked to in the post. Here they are:
For me, it is not that Mr. Paul does not have some valid points that should be considered when developing a foreign policy, it is both the extreme he takes them to and irresponsible way he promotes them that I have an issue with. An obvious misunderstanding of the threats that face this nation adds to the case against him. That is why I was glad to see that he did not get as much support in the last primary. But back to the topic at hand. I would encourage people to read the two reports I linked to. I think we can learn a lot from the balanced – common sense approach to foreign policy that the founders demonstrated. We can withhold the scare tactics and bloated facts.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
1) Dr. Paul would agree with the Heritage Foundation article. Nothing it said contradicts his foreign policy position. The author of the article does not understand Dr. Paul’s foreign policy position. See article by Bruce Fein below.
2) What do you make of this endorsement of Paul by former CIA analyst, Michael Scheuer? http://youtu.be/Aiz85NejIyE
3) Bruce Fein explains Dr. Paul’s foreign policy: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/06/billions-for-defense-but-not-one-cent-for-empire/
Mr. Fein concludes:
“The cornerstone of peace and the common defense is deterrence. Ron Paul would embrace a retaliatory capability sufficient to destroy every living thing in any country complicit in an actual or imminent attack on the United States. He would deploy troops and weapons systems capable of foiling any acts of war targeting Americans on American soil.”
Emily…sorry, your comment got caught in my spam filter….a quick response…
I am not surprised that Michael Scheuer would endorse Ron Paul. He is pretty much in lock step with Ron Paul’s antiwar position, specifically in Iraq. Like Paul, he did not recognize the threats in Iraq as threats, did not recognize the obvious connections to terrorism, and appears to try to secularize the reasons behind terrorism. He also has been critical of our relationship with Israel. Granted this is from a limited reading on him and his positions, but it does not surprise me one bit.
I disagree with your assessment. There are many examples that come to mind. One is that the Washington Farewell address is one of the quotes that Ron Paul has taken out of context in order to support his foreign policy position. That is why the article I referenced targeted him. (as a side note, Heritage has been going after positions of the other candidates as well so they are not picking on him) Secondly would be Ron Paul’s reaction to the 9/11 attacks.
From Salon.com
“Then came the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Two weeks later, Paul took to the House floor to advocate a complete reexamination of American foreign policy. “An economic issue does exist in this war,” he told the House on Sept. 25. “Oil!” By Paul’s reading of history, the rise of Islamic fundamentalists who targeted America resulted from U.S. interventionist policies in the Middle East. He was also one of the first to warn about expansions of federal power in the name of war. “The heat of the moment has prompted calls by some of our officials for great sacrifice of our liberties and privacy,” he said. “This poses a great danger to our way of life.” At the time, such pronouncements were unpopular, even to many on Paul’s own staff. Eric Dondero, a former Paul staffer and Navy vet who now plans to challenge Paul for his House seat in 2008, said that the staff had to work hard in 2001 to convince their boss to support the authorization for the use of force against the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. “Everybody on the staff was just baffled and befuddled,” said Dondero. “It was a last-minute thing, and it kept us all on edge.”
I just saw this quote again in that same article (been a while since I looked at it)…off topic, but it should really scare people.
“Last week, he flew to California to do HBO’s “Real Time With Bill Maher.” “He’s my new hero,” gushedthe liberal Maher to his viewers.”
One of the biggest problems here is that you set up a straw man and then knock it down. Ron Paul does not advocate isolationism. He advocates having international relations and free trade with all nations. What Paul and most of us libertarians want is for the US to not try and rule the entire world. We cannot afford it and it does us no good in the world.
Bruce Fein? (Who is, btw, a Jew.) Did you read his article?
You missed my point about Scheuer. I know what thinks about foreign policy, so of course it is no surprise that he is endorsing Paul.
My point is, does it mean anything to you that a 20+ year CIA analyst and expert on Osama bin Laden thinks what he does about foreign policy??? I’d say he knows more about this stuff than you and me put together.
When it comes to foreign policy, frankly, I’m going to take his word for it over yours, Fox News, etc. Unless you can direct me to an equally qualified expert on foreign policy who advocates your view.
(Also, does it mean anything to you that several months ago Benjamin Netanyahu himself told Congress that Israel doesn’t need our aid??? Can get you the video if you want.)
Here is a longer radio interview with Bruce Fein discussing Ron Paul’s foreign policy in more detail. Well worth listening to: http://youtu.be/xw7lWUmt-yc.
PS: The quote from Salon is a distortion of the truth. We can go into that later if you want…
Well, I thought no one was reading the links and it appears I may be correct…considering the second paragraph of the first link says the following:
“There are, however, many misconceptions about America’s early foreign policy. Perhaps no misunderstanding is as widespread as the belief that the Founding Fathers of the United States were isolationists who made non-interventionism their guiding principle.”
People are trying to make the isolationism vs non-interventionism argument as if there is some vast gap between the two ideas. That is not exactly the case. This is one of a few areas where libertarians feel like they represent the founders views when they in fact do not. Another one is the very idea of freedom vs. liberty…there is a distinct difference just like between Democracy (which they did not believe in) and the Republic (which they did). As Matthew Spalding explained,
“There is a difference between these two terms that helps us understand the Founders’ concept of the principle. Freedom is understood as more expansive, and suggests a general lack of restraint, especially a lack of political restraint, as when we speak of the United States as a ‘free society’. It is often used to suggest a more open-ended sense of autonomy, meaning that we are free to do whatever we want. But from the Founders’ view, freedom must be understood within the context of constitutional and moral order, which meant reasonable limits and cultural bounds[Liberty]”
This misunderstanding by many libertarians can especially be seen when topics like homosexual marriage comes up…but that is a bit off topic.
Like I said, I am sure there are some rational elements that could be considered from his views, but his foreign policy as a whole is pretty naive. Like I said before, I believe the CIA endorsement he received is based upon the secularization of Osama Bin Laden and a misunderstanding of their cause (Islamic terrorists in general). Expert or not, he is ignoring most of the history of Islam and its interaction with other nations. I am not disagreeing with the tactics he says Bin Laden was using to win the fight, but that does not explain the why. That is the important question to understand your enemy. His job was to find and kill Bin Laden. In that effort he probably did not have to delve into the why. Of course he blamed Clinton for the failure in that effort. Considering Ron Paul’s more recent comments on Bin Laden, Scheuer would probably be just as frustrated with Mr. Paul. That is what made the endorsement a bit odd and leads me to believe it has nothing to do with terrorism, but a non-interventionism ideology that he shares. His comment that “the war in Iraq that was instigated by U.S. citizen Israel-firsters and their evangelical Christian allies” shows a true lack of knowledge of threats that existed…not only that, but the history of that whole situation. Reminds me of Ron Paul statements that are also inaccurate. Those are the initial thoughts that come to mind…take them for what there worth. Him being called an expert doesn’t do it for me…not when he is ignoring so many obvious things.
But of course there are numerous reasons other than this one issue that will keep me from voting for Ron Paul.
Sorry, but I just have to add the following which I am sure will not go over well with his devote followers…This is the guy you want to be President?
“Think of what happened after 9/11. The minute before there was any assessment, there was glee in the [Bush] administration because now we can invade Iraq, and so the war drums beat.”
“There’s been a coup, have you heard? It’s the CIA coup. The CIA runs everything, they run the military. They’re the ones who are over there lobbing missiles and bombs on countries. … And of course the CIA is every bit as secretive as the Federal Reserve. … And yet think of the harm they have done since they were established [after] World War II. They are a government unto themselves. They’re in businesses, in drug businesses, they take out dictators … We need to take out the CIA.”
“We have a foreign policy where we blow up bridges overseas and then we tax the people to go over and rebuild the bridges overseas and our bridges and infrastructure are falling down. We have a $1 trillion foreign operation to operate our empire.”
“You can’t discuss energy without discussing our foreign policy. Why do we go to the Middle East? You know that oil is very important about the Middle East and why we’re there. ”
“All drugs should be decriminalized. Drugs should be distributed by any adult to other adults. There should be no controls on production, supply or purchase for adults.”
“In my opinion it has come from the neo-conservatives who demand continual war in the Middle East and Central Asia and are compelled to constantly justify it.”
“They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill conceived preventative wars.”
Although only the tip of the iceberg…they are inaccurate statements, irresponsible statements, and not those of a true statesman. Not any more Presidential than what we have in office now. While I do not really have a dog in the race, Mr. Paul is on the very bottom of my list. I feel we need a better leader at the helm…if we have that and a stronger conservative Congress we can start to change the course of the country. Ron Paul should be in an economic advisor type post.
I am still a Ron Paul fan. Here are the main reasons:
He is the only one who can win against Obama. If you think Obama has not bought enough votes to win the election again, you are mistaken. Paul will take votes away from normal Democratic voters and independent voters.
There are occasionally some things that I find out about Paul that I have to hold my nose about, BUT until the Republicans decide to confine themselves to the Constitution, the government will grow. Either we live under the law or we will not. It is high time we start talking again about Constitutional principles. Our country has not seriously talked about the Constitution for over 100 years. We cannot win as conservatives when we also propose legislation about the health system. The Constitution gives the federal government no authority to make laws about our health care.
To defend ourselves our country can get more carriers and more subs and a defense system against ICBMs, which are sorely needed and will do the job of defending our country. We do not need 900 bases in 130 countries. If our country needs to go against another country, let it be with the consent of the Congress and the Senate, as written in the Constitution.
Obama has copied George W. Bush’s Patriot Act and, as Benjamin Franklin said, those who give up liberty for security, we deserve neither. If we get another Obama who is a Republican, we are not better off.
We HAVE to get rid of the Fed, which has sucked the life out of our economy. This will get worse. Only Paul understands this and will move in that direction.
As an older American, Ron Paul scares me. Remember Pearl Harbor? That disaster was a direct result of Ron Paul-ish ideas. Leave them alone and they will leave us alone.
Pretending that bad guys don’t exist has never made them go away.
Paul’s supporters claim he is for defense, but there is no evidence of it.
Even when we were directly attacked (9/11) he saw no need to do anything about it.
The best way to bring out the worst in any bully is to look weak.
The other issue with Ron Paul is that everyone seems to think that he has a good handle on economics. I have to disagree. Listen to his statements and you realize that he believes that economics is a zero sum game. He doesn’t realize that if we work together we can grow. He has been in Washington too long and has bought into the fallacy that you have to take from one part of the budget to give to another part.
For all their talk, both he and Newt are Washington insiders. They don’t really get the real world.