I got the feeling that all the questions directed towards Paul were in the line of "How can you be a Republican?"
Isn't this the Republican party - the party of conservatives?
How can you, on the one hand say "I believe all life is sacred" and on the other hand say "We need to kill more people to make the world SAFER?"
We're not any safer - it's foolish. It's a toxic response to fear. What makes America great isn't fear - it's Crossing the Patomac. It's the battle of Midway, the War of 1812, and the defeat of Hitler.
The Iraq War has nothing to do with those wars - they're not even in the class. It's an unreasoned response, based on lies. It's not a Just War, in any reasonable discussion. That's not to say Iraq was a haven of peace - but our tactics of an all-out war are only leading to a larger threat of growing terrorism. Our own CIA has recently come to the same conclusion.
I supported Bush when we attacked Afghanistan - it was the right thing to do. But where are we headed now?
The only thing that makes us as a People safe is our liberty and freedom. The more we vote against these two inalienable rights the less safe we become. We are safer because we demonstrate to the world that WE THE PEOPLE will die for these ideals. Not just the Army, but all of the Republic. And that means sacrifice.
It's the American way. We may have to die for freedom, but our famlies and children will reap the benefits.
Which brings us about to Islamic Fundamentalism. We can't ignore this - but at the same time a War in Iraq is not the solution. We can't win this battle on foreign soil. And in all honesty I believe the only way to win is to stand for Freedom, respond to threats and attacks, and most of all leave Iraq.
We should leave Iraq because there is no principle reason to continue. We have no further obligation to the people of Iraq, because we have already won their chance for freedom. The operation is complete. Sadaam is gone. Let them win their own freedom now.
And lest we forget - we did not win the Cold war by winning in Vietnam, nor North Korea. We won by sharing our freedom and liberty foremost to the Soviet people. We won by having a strong defence, and extremely prudent use of our offence.
All people respond to freedom and liberty with joy. All people respond to war with hatred and revenge. You can't defeat human nature.
Lastly, Dr. Paul is right - our foreign policy is one (of many) of the causes for 9/11. That doesn't make it any better - but let's at least be honest. Osama stated these same reasons in his 1997 Fatwa against the USA.
Be a Real Conservative.
3 comments:
You might want to know that at least one GOP leader wants your guy barred from future debates.
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/news-44/117935695635230.xml&storylist=newsmichigan
Why would some GOP leaders snub "one of their own"? Probably because he's not really "one of their own".
Former Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate (in the 1988 contest) Ron Paul only joined the Republicans so he wouldn't be snubbed by House leaders as an LP member. The presence of a competing party in government rallying around one of the RNC's putative ideological centers threatens their stability. The DNC does it too; look at David Obey, the Wisconsin Progressive who quietly joined the Democrats a few years back. Now he's the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
No, Ron Paul is in fact _not_ a Conservative; he's a libertarian. He originally ran for the House seat as a Libertarian, and _won_ as a Libertarian, but then abruptly changed parties to the one that appeared to him least hostile to his principles.
I estimate that at least a third of the Republican party is not actually conservative. The DNC lost the libertarians when Reagan left that party on libertarian grounds. The sad thing is that the RNC has held Reagan up as the paragon of conservatism when in fact he was not a pure establishmentarian. The has led to the American voting public being unawware of what conservatism actually represents. We would all do well to look back at Samuel Huntington's article "Conservatism as an Ideology" from 1957, or else the writings of Edmund Burke, Michael Oakeshott or Russell Kirk to gain a clear view of conservatism itself.
I think what gets me is that the GOP isn't conservative - they're neoconservative. They hold up Abortion, Small Gov, and Free Trade as the "gold standard" of GOP Conservatives.
Problem is that few of them practice this in reality - they're too busy proclaiming Wilsonian freedom and putting chickens in pots.
Conservatism vis-a-vis Libertarianism is not a hard and fast boundary. The Lib idealogy of "allowing complete freedom of action as long as they do not infringe on the same freedom of others" is not so different Kirk's principles.
The real difference is that Kirk adds respect for "tradition, norms, and institutions" - but this is simply undefined by the Libertarian stance.
So many Libertarians are Conservatives, but few Conservatices are Libertarian.
And perhaps that's why they don't like him after all, at least on principle.
The question that we should be asking though - is why the GOP has allowed Paul to participate in the first place.
This says alot about the silent uncertainty in the party with continued, unequivocal support for Bush.
Post a Comment