The Paul Revolution
Wednesday, November 21, 2007 at 08:04AM by Richard 'Dick' Olson
Some of us 'older folks' like to break a few rules like backing a candidate who's outside the established mold. I ask readers of this letter to read it with an open mind to consider making a huge change in the upcoming primaries
10-term Congressman Ron Paul is the only acceptable candidate among the 11 Democrats and 12 Republicans. Others represent the "statusquo".
Ron Paul does not rely on lobbyists and special interest groups to fund his campaigns. His campaign is funded by ordinary Americans like you and I. As a doctor, he has delivered more than 4,000 babies, has been married for 50 years, and has 5 children and 18 grandchildren. He has the "life experiences" to lead us into a new dimension.
Congressman Paul has never taken a government-paid junket, nor voted himself a pay raise, has not participated in the lucrative congressional pension program, and has given back a portion of his pay to the government. This is radical?
Paul's absolutist anti-war position and his call for a foreign policy that is non-interventionist, but not isolationist are refreshing. He has called for withdrawal of troops not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but from all other U.S. bases abroad. For the last hundred years government has created an American empire we can't afford and needs to "regroup and rebuild". We need to become humble rather than arrogant. Dr. Paul supports protecting our borders from those that will do us harms both physically and financially. This can be done if we are not deployed all over the world.
Paul is quoted as saying "Washington has forgotten about it, but the people in this country haven't. You ought to have a natural right to keep everything you earn and not give it to the government to spend wastefully around the world." He also says that the people in this country are sick of the status quo."
Ron Paul served our nation as a flight surgeon in both the Air Force and the Air National Guard and has received more donations from active military personnel than any other candidate.
As a long term registered republican voter, veteran, patriot, and family man, I ask that you join the revolution by supporting Congressman Ron Paul . On December 16th, Ron Paul supporters will lead another "Boston Tea Party".
More information is at www.teapartyo7.com .
Reader Comments (12)
"Paul's [....] call for a foreign policy that is non-interventionist, but not isolationist are refreshing."
What in the name of Jehovah does this sentence mean? I would genuinely like to know how these two "principals" would serve as a strategic guide to the challenges we and the rest of the civilized world currently face. Is this just the conflation of two pleasant sounding and mutually contradictory sound bites, or is there a shred of intellectual integrity behind it?
For example, if Pakistan goes jihadist, what would the Obstetrician do? Follow his non-intervention bent or refuse to be isolationist and do something?
been there, done that, it didn't work then, it won't work now. But, it will make some mad people happy for a short time.
The interesting thing about Buchanan is that everything he said back in the early 90s would come true did in fact come true. He was discarded by his own party only to be later proven to be right on the money on many issues.
I hope the same doesn't happen to Ron Paul. I hope even if he doesn't win that Republicans (and the country as a whole) are smart enough to actually take some of his advice and listen to his messages for how we can improve this country. Even if it's only the little things that he's put out. After all even a small step in the right direction is still a step in the right direction.
Here's one good link to get you started:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=40
Ron's own words "I am committed to supporting troops and believe the only way to completely support soldiers is to not put them in harms way except to defend our nation."
"Unfortunately, Congress has refused to acknowledge anytime recently that the proper and constitutional role of the U.S. military is to provide for the national defense and not the security of all foreign entities against attacks by all other foreign entities."
Can you seriously say you disagree with that view?
Can you explain how a foriegn policy can be non-interventionist and at the same time also not be isolationist? That was the gist of my question
As for the two quotes, I absolutely agree with them, and I am also absolutely sure that Dr. Pauls's assertion of them makes him un-nominatable by the Republican party of George Bush.
The foreign policy can be non-interventionist and non-isolationist quite easily. Thomas Jefferson said it best. "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none." Ron Paul advocates trading with countries instead of trying to own them.
I am sorry, but I have never been a person who is impressed by quotes from famous people who lived in a different time and were talking about a different subject. I think that comes from hearing the Bible-thumpers mis-quote Jesus in the service of whatever ideological nonsense they were serving out that day.
I grant Thom Jefferson made the statement that you quote. So what? He said many things, some smart, some not; some applicable to today, and some not. Merely pulling out a quote as if this settles the discussion is not very useful.
If you believe that simply having commerce with a nation satisfies the dictum of being both non-interventionist and non-isolationist, I think you have added very little to the discussion. There is not a single candidate on either side that would say the proper policy is to own other nations rather than trade with them.
The answer to my question is that, for the most powerful nation in the world, you cannot be both non-interventionist and at the same time be isolationist. Like it or not, there are consequences if we unilaterally declare that we will not intervene in any situation in the world. I think Dr. Paul is an intelligent man, and he purports to be a man of the world, so to issue a call for a non-interventionist and non-isolationist foriegn policy is contemptible. It is the equivalent of calling for a democratic and peaceful Iraq.
Here are his own words on the matter:
"A non-interventionist foreign policy is not an isolationist foreign policy. It is quite the opposite. Under a Paul administration, the United States would trade freely with any nation that seeks to engage with us."
...
"It is not we non-interventionists who are isolationsists. The real isolationists are those who impose sanctions and embargoes on countries and peoples across the globe because they disagree with the internal and foreign policies of their leaders. The real isolationists are those who choose to use force overseas to promote democracy, rather than seek change through diplomacy, engagement, and by setting a positive example."
Your post sent me looking at the definition of isolationism. And what I found is there are two definitions, at least according to wikipedia. Here is what they say:
"Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:
1. Non-interventionism - Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
2. Protectionism - There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.
Not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries. This "libertarian isolationist" view is best defined as a policy of nonparticipation in foreign political relations, but free trade and affability to all."
So I guess in this unusual meaning of the phrase, it is possible to be both a non-interventionist and not be an isolationist. Dr. Paul said as much in the debate this week when he said he was not an isolationist because he favored free trade.
Still, the good Doctor's comments about who are the "real isolationists" should strike any rational person as absurd at the very least. People who use force overseas rather than seek change can be called many bad names....but "isolationist"? Give me a break. And while your at it, give our common language a break, too.
Now that we have gotten over the definitional hurdle, do you really support Dr. Paul's foreign policy ideas? I think it is as dangerous as his bizarre economic ideas. Here's what I think:
It would be incredibly risky for world stability if the strongest nation on earth, and the one that still represents a powerful force for good despite all of Bush's efforts to the contrary, were to turn our back on international affairs.
There is no other nation that can be the natural leader of the free peoples. There is a cost to world instability, and we would rapidly find out what that cost is in terms of decreased trade, more spending on weaponry, and more wars.
From a selfish perspective, our international position makes us the economic center of the world. This has many consequences, and one of them is that other peoples are happy to send us their goods in exchange for our dollars, to the tune of $3000 per person. Absent ourleadership position, this disappears, and we all become several thousands of dollars poorer in real terms.
When avery smart man a few years ago had a problem with what "is" meant, it is not surprising that couple of 15 letter words could be so open to opinion either separately or in conjunction with each other.
As a man who came of age in England during WW2, it was very easy then to understand what effect "foreign affairs" had on my Country's security, and why that war needed to be fought and won.
Now,as an American, I see many parallels in a world brought much closer by technology and electronics. The 'isolationism' and 'non-interventionism' of Ron Paul etal, however expressed or qualified, can only lead to the demise of Western civilization as we know it.
I interpret your comments as meaning that if Dr. Paul had been our president during WW II, his strategy of non-intervention but promoting free trade with Germany might not have been totally succesful in ridding the world of Hitler!
I don't think Dr. Paul is a fool, just hopelessly naive. I think he is correct in arguing that our occupation in Iraq is counter-productive to our interests there and elsewhere. While I haven't heard him say it, we need to rollback Bush's doctrine about the right to use pre-emptive force, because it is dangerous for us and for the world. But Dr. Paul generalizes his views on Iraq to a policy of never getting involved anywhere. This is an open invitation to the bad guys to commit their mischief. It is about as responsible a policy as that of Dennis Kucinich.