Ron Paul and America - Part V

Ron Paul came in second in the Iowa straw poll, 200 votes behind Michele Bachmann and almost twice as many votes as the third place candidate, Tim Pawlenty. The pundit coverage afterwards dismissed Paul, and most didn't even mention his name. A couple of pundits said Paul always does good in the straw polls, although last year he came in 5th in Iowa's straw poll. Paul was in a virtual tie with Bachmann despite not spending much money in Iowa unlike Bachmann who was born in Iowa and spent a lot of money getting votes out, including giving out 6000 tickets to the event.

The point is that the media pretend Paul doesn't exist no matter how he good he does among grass roots supporters. Paul's message is resonating with more and more Americans as time goes on. One Iowan reporter, before the results were announced, said that she heard voters saying they would switch their votes to Santorum because of Paul's foreign policy position. Santorum hardly registered.

I will end this series by restating that Ron Paul is hitting a nerve among Americans who are tired of government intervention in foreign countries and in our economy. The media will make Paul look like an isolationist crank who would put America at risk of terrorist attack, but many Americans see through the constant fear mongering which supports the military/industrial complex. Paul realizes we need a first-class defense, but we have the technological proficiency to protect our country without nation-building and enriching defense contractors. The slogs in Afghanistan and Iraq speak for themselves, and our folly in Libya is hidden by the media because it's such a wrong-headed move. Once Americans can get over feeling as if they're betraying the military by demanding exits from the mideast, you'll see the underlying desire to bring our troops home and to close our military bases in rich countries which should be defending themselves.

Paul is on the right track with his foreign policy position, and he's the only candidate with enough courage to tell the truth -- the rest are either avoiding the issue or pandering to what they think is a hawkish American Right. The time has come for honesty and courage -- we've seen enough political spinning and propaganda. Perhaps Paul will be marginalized once again, but he's the only candidate with serious ideas and integrity in the race. America needs to do something radically positive for our country -- they need to elect Ron Paul.

Paul Ryan's confused foreign policy ideas

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/ryan-embraces-exceptionalism-rejects-isolationism-foreign-policy-speech_573194.html

In the article, Ryan is quoted as saying:

"A world without U.S. leadership will be a more chaotic place," Ryan said. "A place where we have less influence, and a place where our citizens face more dangers and fewer opportunities. Take a moment and imagine a world led by China and Russia."

What does Ryan mean by "leadership"? Who decides who leads and who follows? Is a lot of this some mental construct that has no validity in reality. I'm sure China influences many nations, as well as Russia. What does it mean to compete with China and Russia for a global leadership position. If it means war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, military bases all over the world, wasting money on the IMF, The World Bank and the UN, giving aid to countries in which the Head Thug steals it before it reaches those in need, then, yes, let me imagine a world led by China or Russia and find it unthreatening. We wouldn't be led by China or Russia. Which nations would Russia or China lead and how would they lead them?

I believe all this talk about allies in the world, and prevention of China/Russia leadership, is just a rationalization for the perpetual expansion of the military/industrial complex. I believe Ryan has bought the narrative developed decades ago by the power elite which needs an imminent threat to justify its power and control. I think Ryan is probably a good, patriotic man, but this type of rhetoric shows he hasn't thought very deeply about foreign policy, or very creatively. Later Ryan says we have to be careful and realize that our involvement can do only so much, so I know that he intuitively realizes that foreign intervention has caused problems.

America is a powerful nation, and in reality no nation can successfully subdue us, and neither China nor Russia can create any stable alliance of nations to threaten us. The real global action is economic, and this is where we're retreating and declining into has-beens. Ryan needs to trust his first instincts and accept that bringing our military home is not "isolationism" and "decline" -- it's a principled strategy to prevent coercive intervention abroad and economic collapse at home. Unless there is an issue of genocide which calls for all civilized nations to act, the internal squabbles within nations or between nations is none of our concern, and fighting terrorism will never be successful by putting military troops on the ground in nations like Iraq and Afghanistan -- terrorism is mobile in cells and is not the threat it's made out to be. Yes, a few radicals can kill Americans, but being in Iraq and Afghanistan can not prevent this, and any country that harbors terrorists will not actually terrorize America, because they know a truly terrorized America will destroy that country. The Terrorists are playing on our fears and pin-pricking us, and now they are draining us financially and taking way too many young lives needlessly placed in dangerous situations.

From the article:

Ryan spoke at length about American exceptionalism as it relates to America's role in the world. "America is an idea," he said. "And it was the first nation founded as such. The idea is rather simple. Our rights come to us from God and nature. They occur naturally, before government."

Our Founders warned against foreign entanglements. If America is great, then this is by actions, not through grand rhetoric and puffery. If America becomes the free and properous nation we can become, then so be it -- intervening in the affairs of others to get them to become like us is futile and immoral. Attraction rather than promotion is a much better principle. We have lessened our greatness through foreign entanglements, enriching brutal dictators, invading countries to stop communism when it wasn't our place to decide which nations should become communist nations. We found out later, that Russia had no imperialist ambitions, except in Eastern Europe, which had an affinity for communism, as a buffer from the West.

Any form of statism/socialism, including Islamist statism/socialism, will fail on its own -- we don't have to get involved and try to prevent it from rising. Dictators will be overthrown when the people become hungry and tired of being used.

The article goes on:

This belief in the American idea, Ryan said, should inform the nation's foreign policy. "Now, if you believe these rights are universal human rights, then that clearly forms the basis of your views on foreign policy," he said. "It leads you to reject moral relativism. It causes you to recoil at the idea of presistent moral indifference toward any nation that stifles and denies liberty, no matter how friendly and accommodating its rules are to American interests."

Ryan squarely rejected the position of increased isolationism. "Today, some in this country relish the idea of America's retreat from our role in the world," Ryan said. "They say that it's about time for other nations to take over, that we should turn inward, that we should reduce ourselves to membership on a long list of mediocre has-beens."

He continued, "Instead of heeding these calls to surrender, we must renew our commitment to the idea that America is the greatest force for human freedom the world has ever seen."

Who says we should "reduce ourselves to membership on a long list of mediocre has-beens"? Again, a policy of non-intervention doesn't mean that we accept decline and hide within our borders. We can be economically vibrant and globally open, but be militarily neutral regarding matters of civil wars and regional conflicts, unless we are threatened, or unless we are called on to stop another holocaust. We definitely have no business nation-building or "spreading Democracy" through military means. We can full-throatedly take stands on right and wrong and explicate our principles, but we can do it without military bases all over the world.

More from the article:

Regarding the recent civil unrest across the Middle East, Ryan spoke clearly about America's role and human rights. "We have a responsibility to speak boldly for those whose voices are denied by the jackbooted thugs of the tired tyrants of Syria and Iran," he said. He later continued, "What we can do is affirm our commitment to democracy in the region by standing in solidarity with our longstanding allies in Israel and our new partners in Iraq."

On the American military efforts both in Iraq and Afghanistan, Ryan said the United States can and must "remain committed to the promotion of stable governments that respect the rights of their citizens and deny terrorists access to their territory." Failure to win, he said, "would be a blow to American prestige and would reinvigorate al Qaeda."

Ryan also called for China to liberalize and become "integrated into the global order." But, he said, Chinese leaders should not count on the decline of the United States as a great power. "We must demonstrate that planning for the post-American era is a squandered effort on their part and that America's greatest days lie ahead," he said.

Yes, we can stand with Israel in spirit and principle -- we've been doing this for decades -- yet remain militarily neutral in conflicts. Israel can defend itself, and if for some reason they can't because a concerted Middle-East effort is over-whelming Israel, then we can decide based on this situation, but to have a military bent up-front, sitting on ready to intervene at a drop of the hat, is what gets us in futile entanglements.

When Ryan talks about Afghanistan and Iraq, I have to wonder what he sees that I don't. I don't see any way for these two countries to achieve and maintain stability -- we would have to be there for 100 years in order to see a real change. We need to leave Iraq, Afghanistan, the whole Middle-East, and if China and Russia want it, then they can have it -- they don't want it.

We don't need to be drastically anxious about terrorism or China or Russia -- we need to heed Pogo -- "I have found the enemy, and he is us." If America pulls in and limits our State machine, and if the American people are allowed to utilize resources without government siphoning off such a large chunk, the idea of America will be a good idea once again. Ryan is part of the way there, but he's on the wrong foreign policy track.

Meet the Press 5/1/2011 - Rubio and Bloomberg

On Meet the Press there were a surprising number of Republicans -- Michael Bloomberg, Marco Rubio and Bob McConnell, Governor of Va. Bloomberg is a Republican, but he is not of the Right -- Bloomberg represents a type of statist Republican which has practically made the Republican Party irrelevant. Bloomberg stated, during a conversation regarding the budget battle, that spending cuts should not be done without taking into account the need for government investment and what's necessary for a strong welfare state. The welfare state has failed, and it's time for new ideas.

McConnell talked about fiscal responsibility, but he didn't have any creative ideas. David Axelrod was on the panel, and he agreed with Bloomberg regarding government investment, which confirms Bloomberg's irrelevance -- we already have plenty of liberals and progressives.

Rubio was interviewed by himself, and Rubio was the most passionate about limiting the scope of government. Rubio did a good job answering David Gregory's questions about Medicare and the charge that Republicans will destroy Medicare as we know it -- Rubio said Medicare as we know it is going to be bankrupt in 6-12 years. Rubio challenged anyone critical of Paul Ryan's plan to come up with a better plan, and he said that the only ones proposing Medicare cuts so far have been supporters of Obamacare.

Rubio is the perfect Republican representative, except for his hawkish stance on America foreign policy. This has been a great disappointment, and I hope Rubio matures in the Senate and comes to realize that a non-intervention doctrine is needed, along with an innovative change in how we combat terrorism. I understand Rubio's concern that terrorist are plotting to harm America, but the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are not the correct responses. We have the intelligence and technological prowess to combat terrorism without ground troops in countries that hate us, suck us in, put young men and women in unnecessary danger and drain us of treasure and precious lives.

Rubio is a very smart man, and if he will put the same passion he has for limited government into innovating foreign policy, he'll be a great servant.

et tu, Rubio?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/265023/rubio-s-foreign-policy-robert-costa?page=1

I can't tell you how diappointed I am in Marco Rubio's emergence as a John McCain/Lindsay Graham hawk. Rubio has more potential than anyone in the Senate but I can't support his foreign policy positions. Rubio can't say that America shouldn't interfere everywhere in the world then support our continued presence in Afghanistan and Iraq and our bombing in Libya. He's delusional if he thinks we can turn Afghanistan or Iraq or Libya into stable democracies which are anything different than "democratic" dressing for tyranny.

Rubio is right that America can have an influence in the world, but our military influence has been wrong-headed since WWI. I also want to be part of an exceptional America, but one that trades peacefully in economic freedom and becomes the model of non-intervention. It's past time to get over the idea of a void in the world if we don't send our military here and there overseas. We're all connected and space is not an issue. We can have all our troops home and still have a response plan to any emergency -- and we can also have international agreements that Europe and Asia will now defend themselves. We're not living in the Russian Bear world when military might was the macho thing -- it turns out that Stalin and subsequent leaders never had any real intentions of world dominance, just eastern Europe and a little here and there in other places, but they saw us as controlling the rest of the world, and in many ways we have -- now it's about economic freedom and efficiency. The best trader wins -- the most ballistic countries lose. Yes, there are still dangerous nations, and we should have the best intelligence and military possible, and we should stop any attack that threatens America, but we have to end futile and wasteful long-term engagements like Afghanistan and Iraq, and senseless "kinetic military action" like in Libya. Rubio should use his great mind to innovate in foreign relations, not follow the failed interventions of the past.

Foreign policy

I'm not buying the "realist" position that our relationship with Egypt has been necessary. I don't even see it as a "realist" position. First of all, from my perspective, whether what developed in our relationship with Egypt became a trap we had to continue is beside the point, because it doesn't help us analyze how to carry out foreing policy in the future. It's obvious we became trapped in our relationship with Egypt because at some point we felt that they were instrumental in maintaining peace in the region, so we accepted Mubarack for what he is with some periodic shows of disagreement with his repressive regime to maintain the image we're not supporting a dictator, but as long as there were no problems, we turned our heads to the human rights abuses and sent him checks. Now we are in the awkward position of supporting a dictator for thirty years with no courage to honestly support those who want freedom from Mubarack's repressive regime.

Had we made it clear long ago that we don't support dictators who repress and violate the rights of the people, we likely wouldn't be in this position and we wouldn't have wasted billions of dollars in the process, and the Egyptian people might have been freed from Mubarack before now. It at least should have been clear to foreign policy experts that dictatorships such as Egypt can't maintain the type of control they've enjoyed, not in the Information Age and not in these changing times in which it's difficult for command and control statism to avoid economic collapse. 

It's not too late to change our foreign policy and let the world know that our past "realist" approach has now become untenable, that what we thought was necessary to make the world safe is now an obstacle to liberalization and economic freedom. "Democracy" is not the key word, because unless there are classical liberal principles at play, democracy is simply mob rule, the rule of the majority to replace the rule of a dictator. Freedom is the key word, and economic freedom under a limited government in particular. This is what I propose, anyway, from my realist perspective, because, in reality, all forms of statism in which the eonomy is controlled by an elite few, economic growth, widespread and equal opportunity and prosperity are not possible. People all over the world want an opportunity to advance, and now that the worldwide economic situation has brought obstacles to the light, people are beginning to demand opportunity and, freedom to act. America is either on the side of freedom or it's on the side of statist maintenance of the status quo in which the elite few still rule.

We have an opportunity to lead on this movement, yet we hide behind fear of Islamist extremists in the Middle East. I propose that Islamist extremists are the rulers who benefit from the War on Terror, that most people in the Middle East only want a chance to live a good life without a iron fist in the face at all times. Maybe the ordinary person in the Mid-East doesn't know what all economic freedom entails, but they deserve to find out, and I'm sure they will make their way just fine without our patronizing, realist advice to give it time and hope for incremental reforms.