Posted by
The Iowa caucuses will gather tonight in the first electoral event for the Republican presidential nomination. It is anyone’s guess which way this contest will go.
But the most noteworthy development up to this point may be Ron
Paul’s emergence as a legitimate candidate receiving serious media
attention. Much of the coverage has been critical, and rightly so on
some issues. Yet, despite attempts to dismiss him as a viable national
candidate, Ron Paul matters.
Cato’s president Ed Crane explained why in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal
and emphasized, among other things, Ron Paul’s appeal to
limited-government Republicans and independent voters on foreign policy
and military spending. The Republican establishment should rethink its
positions and recognize that Ron Paul has been speaking truth to power
on these issues.
In the 2000 presidential campaign, candidate George W. Bush argued against
nation-building. Unfortunately, President George W. Bush chose
arrogance over humility as his foreign policy. Since then virtually
every Republican presidential candidates has embraced his philosophy of
endless war: in effect, the GOP mantra is “we’re all neoconservatives
now.”
Only Paul (and Gary Johnson, excluded from most of the debates)
challenge America’s role as World Policeman. Paul observed that
conservatives enjoyed spending money, only “on different things. They
like embassies, and they like occupation. They like the empire. They
like to be in 135 countries and 700 bases.”
All of Paul’s establishment GOP opponents support defending rich
nations around the world. Rick Santorum warned: as commander-in-chief
Ron Paul “can shut down our bases in Germany. He can shut down the bases
in Japan. He can pull our fleets back.”
Why would this be bad? The European
nations have a larger GDP and population than America. The U.S. faces
fiscal crisis: after 66 years, it is time for the Europeans to defend themselves. Japan, long possessing the world’s second largest economy, also could take care of itself.
The other Republican contenders, except Ambassador Jon Huntsman, have
mostly defended Washington’s endless nation-building exercise in
Afghanistan. Santorum demanded that we achieve “victory,” whatever that
means. Romney said that he would listen to the counsel of the military
commanders–as if that would relieve him of making an independent
decision as president.
Most Americans agreed with the original objective of wrecking al Qaeda and ousting the Taliban but now want out. And rightly so.
No “conservative” should sacrifice Americans’ lives and wealth in an
attempt to create a strong, effective, and honest central government in
Afghanistan, something which never before has existed.
But the most ardent criticism of Paul’s foreign policy is directed
toward his position on Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Paul is against a
pre-emptive strike on Iran, an action that Romney and Rick Perry are
willing to consider. There are good reasons to try to keep nuclear
weapons out of Iran’s hands, but the costs of military action likely
would be horrendous. Moreover, every additional threat to attack Iran
only more clearly demonstrates to Tehran the necessity of developing nuclear weapons.
Paul’s willingness to rethink U.S. foreign policy means he is the only candidate to propose a realistic military budget,
one that supports the “common defense” of America, not the rest of the
world. The other GOP candidates decry nonexistent spending cuts. Military outlays under President Obama are higher than under President Bush. Only in Washington is slowing the rate of increased called a “cut.”
Most of the GOP contenders—again other than Paul and in this case
Huntsman—endorse torture. For all of their talk about American
exceptionalism, the Republicans see the U.S. as a beleaguered, virtually
helpless giant, which must sacrifice its very being to survive. This depressing picture is unworthy of America. This may be why service members (at least who have contributed to candidates) have overwhelmingly backed Paul, one of only two veterans in the race.
The response to Ron Paul’s foreign policy views raises the question:
Can the Republican Party any longer be taken seriously on national
security issues? Over the last decade the GOP has needlessly sacrificed
Americans’ lives, wasted Americans’ wealth, overextended America’s
military, violated Americans’ liberties, and trashed America’s
reputation. As a result, we are less prosperous, free, and secure. If the Republican Party refuses to learn from Rep. Paul, it does not deserve the public’s trust.
No comments:
Post a Comment