Stossel on Dr. No
Written by Sam on December 27th, 2007U.S. congressional representative and Republican presidential contender Ron Paul has been called “Dr. No” because he repeatedly votes against legislation he believes gives government too much power. If it’s not in the Constitution, he says, the federal government has no business doing it. He even votes against appropriations to his constituents. Here’s Part 3 of my edited interview with Rep. Paul.RealClearPolitics
I recommend reading the responses of Congressman Paul to Stossel’s questions. His answers are dead on. I truly believe that Ron Paul is the only candidate running who will make a serious concerted effort to take us back to the Constitution. Some of the others may make some small changes in that direction, but I don’t think that any of them will make it as high a priority as Paul would.
27
PM
I read all three parts. Parts 1 and 3 are very good, although admittedly idealistic and not achievable in a short amount of time.
Part 2 (Paul’s thoughts on Iraq and foreign policy, in general) is why he is seen as a crack pot. He acts like a ostrich with his head in the sand. His position that it is unconstitutional for us to have troops in other countries in peacetime is absurd. The Constitution does not say that if it is not explicitly stated, then it cannot be done. It says that if a power is not given to the federal government, it is reserved to the States.
There is a place for Paul’s thinking. But it is certainly nowhere close to the White House. And it is also nowhere near anyplace responsible for foreign affairs.
27
PM
If you want to get technical, the Constitution does not permit us to have a permanent standing army, but that would obviously be absurd.
Regarding Paul’s positions on foreign policy I am not ignorant of the fact that it leaves a lot to be desired in today’s day and age (though I do agree that we don’t need to have as many bases as we do all over the world). That being said, I suppose I am ignorant as to why everyone seems to feel it is more important to deal with threats abroad while sidelining the threats we face everyday from our own government. What good is it to fight for freedom in Iraq when Washington D.C erodes our freedom more than any Islamic terrorist could every single day?
27
PM
I would say that Article I section 2 clearly indicates that there would be a “standing” Army. It delineates that from militias, which is the non-standing variety.
You are talking about two different threats. They both need to be addressed. And addressing one does not preclude addressing the other.
Yes, our government has issues. But addressing those issues while “sidelining” the world situation will result in more 9/11s–and the important aspect is that it would be happening on our soil rather than overseas.
The reality is that Paul’s foreign policy in a President would be UN-constitutional because he would be failing to provide for the common defense.
28
AM
I’m sorry, but I do think he is a crackpot. To say we asked for it on 9/11 is stupid. He may be outstanding on federal spending, but totally whack on the rest.
28
PM
Some executives like to surround themselves with managers of different viewpoints and strengths to have “creative tension” in a business or organization.
Putting Ron Paul in the White House would be a move by the American people to have such creative tension — a wall against the runaway spending and power grabs of the neo-cons in the federal bureaucracy and the liberals in the U.S. Congress.
It would be the greatest of “corrections.”
29
AM
The Bhutto killing should illustrate the weakness of Ron Paul’s foreign policy. Of course, his disciples will never admit that he could be wrong about anything, but Paul’s “let them sort it out” mentality is totally absurd in a country like Pakistan. A nice set of nuke weapons and plenty of skilled islamic extremists in the Pakastani army ready to hand them over along with launch codes. I am afraid Paul’s 15 minutes are up.
29
PM
You crazy libertarians are right,
That big government is a terrible fright,
But if we’re in a war,
We’re gonna be sore,
If we put you in charge of the fight!
Ron Paul clearly demonstrates the reason I can’t make the leap from “Libertarian Leaning” to outright libertariansim. You can’t be the world’s only hyper-power and have a foreign policy from the 1800’s.
We can be isolationist all we want. It won’t stop wacky jihadists from getting wepaons, or make them think twice about using them. It won’t prevent counties from falling under the influence of Islamic fundementalsm. It won’t stop North Korea from nuclear testing. It sure as hell won’t stop them from selling nuclear materials.
And no, none of the above examples are “America’s fault”, either.
Welcome to the real world, Ron Paul-ites. It looks a lot scarier once you pull your head out the sand, doesn’t it?