Super Tuesday is upon us. At the end of the day we might have a better picture of who the Republican nominee could be. At this point it is pretty much a two horse race with Romney and Santorum while the other candidates are just hoping for a miracle. Since these dark horses are still officially in the race I thought I would pick on one of my favorite targets, Ron Paul. Not because I think he has a realistic chance of making it back in the race, but rather because he gives some good opportunities for teaching points while he is still in; especially with regards to today’s topic.
Eric Dondero, a former Ron Paul staffer, has made some pretty enlightening comments about his former boss’ foreign policy stance. In this article he talks about Mr. Paul’s conspiracy theory leanings as well as his position that we should not have intervened in World War II to stop the Holocaust. He has stated elsewhere that it is not as a result of any kind of racism, but rather his extreme Libertarian principles that he refuses to waver from. Of course Ron Paul’s current staff repeatedly dismisses him as just a ranting disgruntled employee. Maybe he is disgruntled, but it does not mean what he is saying is not truthful. The problem the Ron Paul camp has is that the things this disgruntled employee says have been confirmed elsewhere. A reporter from BigGovernment.com gave a similar story (a linked to a blog that has the story embedded in it because BigGovernment is playing some game with its links). What Dondero said is in line with what Ron Paul says and does anyways so the answer to the question below should not come as a surprise. For those not following the link, here is that question:
“And so I asked Congressman Paul: if he were President of the United States during World War II, and as president he knew what we now know about the Holocaust, but the Third Reich presented no threat to the U.S., would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany purely as a moral imperative to save the Jews?”
And the Congressman answered:
“No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.”
So to the question of whether or not America has a moral obligation in this world, Ron Paul clearly answered no. But is that right? Is that what America should be? I would say no. Every time I think of these extreme non-interventionism ideas I am pulled to Obadiah 11. In that verse God rebukes Edom for not helping as foreigners took Jerusalem. God said they were no different than those who attacked. Using systematic theology this position is further supported through a variety of ways. But it really goes back to the Biblical role of civil government, which is to promote good and punish evil (Rom 13, 1 Peter 2) and also its obligation to protect its citizens in the process (Ps 82). Promoting liberty and other Christian values in a multitude of ways only helps this goal. Even more specific for this scenario are the ideas that we are to love our neighbors (Matt 22) and value life (Gen 1 among many). It is hard to reconcile these Biblical ideas with the idea that we should not help stop an atrocity such as the Holocaust when we have the opportunity and ability to do so.
Unfortunately evil seems to be everywhere in this world we live in. We do not have the ability to take on all the issues of the world, but that does not mean we should never intervene. It does not relieve us of all moral responsibility in this world. All I wish for is a little less extreme and a little more balance. Hopefully my overly simplified Biblical basis will give you a starting point to think about it.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
You are correct about evil being everywhere. When will you figure out that the greatest evil of all is the globalist Neo-Con cabal that has taken over most of the U.S. government and is stripping the citizens of their life and liberties. The current administration has merely continued to expand the program set forth by both Bush’s and the Clinton administration. This is not a left-right issue. Moral obligations need to be prioritized no matter what your spirituality. The endless wars are bankrupting this country, removing civil liberties and crushing the value of the dollar in our own back yards. I believe that it is our obligation to clean this mess up first and protect our neighbors and friends and children from financial disaster before even considering the ability to help ANYONE overseas.
Mick,
Thanks for the comments, but unfortunately I think you have completely missed the point of the post. I believe your comments are misleading to the extent that the wars have effected our financial situation and our loss of liberty. There are much more pressing issues that have much more influence on those concerns. Fortunately, Republican voters seem to be seeing that according to the state of the current primary race. Hopefully the American people will continue that trend during the general election.
Explain to me why our civil liberties are being stripped and our country is in such a financial mess. Explain how the republican party who controlled everything under Bush did not spiral this country into a financial abyss by spending and expanding government. Explain to me how fighting senseless wars that were started by a Republican president and continued by a democrat are not bankrupting our country. Explain to me how both parties continue to serve special interests rather than the citizens of this country. Explain to me how Bush was better than Obama on foreign policy. Explain to me how bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians spreads democracy and goodwill. Explain how the Patriot Act, the NDAA ,the Homeland Security Act and the Consolidation of Powers Act make us safer. I would really like to know.
Mick
We are most definitely in a financial mess. No disagreement there. I also agree that the Republican Party did a horrible job of being good stewards of our money and at times our liberties under the Bush administration. But the foundations for such political philosophies were planted long before the Bushs’. They were even implanted before Hoover and FDR. The consequences are evident today.
First to address senseless wars. It is really a moot point at this time, but there were valid reasons for going to war. It is constructive to have discussions on the threats that existed. Bashing it with vague comments is not in that category. Here is a post I did on it a long time ago that shows my position with regards to its Constitutionality and Just War Theory.
http://thesteadyconservative.com/wordpress/2010/01/28/ron-paul-and-foreign-policy/
That is where I stand. I am pretty sure I know where you are on the issue. However, I would appreciate if you would refrain from spreading the impression that the military indiscriminately kills innocent civilians. It is an inaccurate portrayal of what we do as a military. It completely disregards the military targeting protocol that is required before a target is hit. Sometimes civilians are unfortunately killed, but every effort is made to avoid this.
While I believe the Department of Homeland Security is pretty much unnecessary, I do not see it as a significant threat to our liberties. The Patriot Act is not quite as terrible as people try to make it out to be. There is one article in the Act that is a bit controversial (number escaping me at the moment). I think discussion on that article is healthy. Protecting the nation and protecting liberties is always a delicate balancing act and should be carefully done. To pre-empt the infamous Thomas Jefferson quote…the very idea of government is balancing liberties with protection and services. It should be done by the people, which is why legislation is written by elected representatives.
Since the war is a bit of a moot point…I would like to quickly explain why I think there are other issues that are more pressing.
First, defense spending. Even with the wars, defense spending is hovering around its historical average. Here is a graph of Historical Defense Spending vs. Entitlement spending
http://www.heritage.org/BudgetChartBook/defense-entitlement-spending
The wars will wind down and that spending will likely stay the same or reduce a bit. But Mandatory spending that is on autopilot is not going down anytime soon without major reform. Here is a chart on mandatory spending.
http://www.heritage.org/BudgetChartBook/mandatory-discretionary-spending
Regulations are another big one in terms of both cost and loss of liberty. This is one area where I thought the Bush administration did a poor job, but Obama has taken it to new levels. Here are some numbers on that.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/red-tape-rising-obama-era-regulation-at-the-three-year-mark
The bureaucratic state is also out of control. It’s got to be reduced. I believe that all the newly created positions need to go as well as several other current cabinet positions. Congress needs to take back the reins.Tax structure is way too progressive and way too complicated. Needs to be fixed. And I believe the Judiciary is the most dangerous to our overall liberty right now. We need a President that will appoint and Senators that will confirm judges that understand the Constitution. Activist judges are a real detriment to our nation.
As you said, the government has a responsibility to fix things in house. And these are the things that I think we can realistically address now that will do that. More pressing and more productive than continuing to rant about a war that, whether you agree with it or not, is already there and needs to be finished the right way…less we make the same mistakes we made there before. Just my two cents. Take them for what they are worth.
Very well put on all points except for defense spending. The defense budget has nothing to do with the spending on Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria. These expenditures are wholly separate from defense and not included in these numbers. As well read and reasonable as you are, you MUST know this. It is terribly misleading for you to include this in defense spending. Military spending and defense spending are two completely different things. I agree that entitlement spending is outrageous and should be drastically cut. Liberty is about the government realizing that people can take care of themselves and citizens defending their right to live their lives the way that they see fit as long as they are not PHYSICALLY harming or infringing on another persons liberties. Remember that this is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy. Thanks for the comments and my respect for you continues to grow. Although we may not agree on all things, the fact that we live in a country that still (thankfully) allows for this honest discourse is precious. I will defend your right to maintain this site and speak your mind until my dying breath.