With CNN’s Glenn Beck.
The leadup of issues is a mixed bag, including some libertarian themes and some odd views on “securing our borders” [read: controlling the movement of people] and “transferring” sovereignty to “unelected foreign elites,” i.e., signing treaties that reduce trade barriers and that include adjudication procedures. Well, no one’s perfect. The war is Ron Paul’s strongest issue and I hope that he pushes that relentlessly.
Tom on the mixed bag: “. . . and â??transferringâ? sovereignty to â??unelected foreign elites,â? i.e., signing treaties that reduce trade barriers and that include adjudication procedures. . . .”
I guess that’s why Pat Buchanan likes him.
The war is also Dennis Kucinich’s strongest issue. So what?
I think that Tom’s point is that the war is a very important issue and the primary reason that Paul has gotten attention. The answer to so what? may be that it matters whether the US stays in Iraq or leaves and having a Republican candidate who wants to leave helps to put the choice before the voters.
Paul is the only candidate worth supporting from a libertarian point of view. Yeah, ok, some stupid views on immigration and some out-of-step views on sovereignty. But aside from that, what’s the problem?
On the key issue of the day, he’s an articulate spokesman for non-interventionism. Add to that his very good views on federalism, on the drug war, on civil liberties, on campaign finance reform, on taxes, on spending, and on monetary policy (even though he’s got this thing against the Fed.)
Yeah, but there are some things that worry a lot of people who are libertarian or have strong libertarian leanings. Paul’s statements are sometimes very nationalist and protectionist (and free trade is a really traditional libertarian principle) and very anti-immigrant, ie., more of a far right agenda than a libertarian one.
And there’s this issue that worries me personally: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/10/is_ron_paul_a_dominionist.php
This quote from Ron Paul was really disturbing:
“The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.”
The Declaration mentions only “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them” (pretty much an open-minded and deist approach) and then concludes with “And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.” That does at least mention “nature’s God” (not a “personal God”) once and refers to Divine Providene once. Not really “replete with references to God.”
I checked the Constitution and couldn’t find any references to “God” at all. There are references, however, to religion, as in the little “wall” between religion and state established by ARticle VII (“no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”) and the other “wall” established by the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”)
It doesn’t use the word wall, but it creates one by saying that “Congress shall make no law…”
Brayton leaves the question of whether Paul is a Dominionist open, but there’s enough to make me wonder about whether he is as libertarian as he sounds.
Christ. We’ve just been through an administration that has launched what will be a 30 year war in the Middle East, engages in extraordinary rendition, has tortured prisoners in Gitmo, skirts laws that require warrants for electronic eavesdropping, and you’re worried about some views on separation of church and state?
Do you not think Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee hold similiarly absurd beliefs (or at least articulate similiar absurd positions for the benefit of their supporters)?
Huckabee is a southern evangelist. Romney is part of a religion invented by a guy who was convicted in the 1820s of conning people out of money in upstate New York. And Thompson is four square behind the war in Iraq.
So he’s not as libertarian as I would like him. But he’s more libertarian than any other candidates by a country mile, and more libertarian than any other candidate on the crucial issues of the day.
You have a really good point. So when I get a chance, I think I’ll vote for Ron Paul. And I’ll encourage others to do likewise. The other choices are terrible. I don’t think he’ll win, so it’s a protest vote. And I’m still worried about the problems of linking libertarianism with ultraright anti-libertarian, nationalistic, protectionistic, and extremist religious forces.
Brady, That’s one of the things that makes me nervous about his libertarian philosophy as well. Of course, I’m not a Libertarian, but neither am I a statist neocon neofascist bureaucrat hysterical tree hugger. Not to belabor the obvious, but I think deism rather than true-believer Christianity characterized the religious leanings of Thomas Paine and several of the founders. I have to read more of the copious Ron Paul library writings to try to find out what his stance would be in a Judge Moore, Ten Commandments-in-the-courthouse conflict.
His “life begins at conception” and opposition to Roe v. Wade makes me wonder if fetal or zygote rights would take precedence over the human rights of pregnant women who want an abortion. I am ignorant concerning the reason for so-called partial birth abortions, but I can see how the concept would be repugnant to a former obstetrician (and a lot of other people). However, his “pro-life” stance makes me think that he might be in favor of state by state banning of abortions at any stage of pregnancy. A fetus is not a child and neither is a zygote.
I also wonder how Paul can at once call for abolishing the IRS and building that hideous anti-environmental fence along the country’s southern border. This is probably politically incorrect to say here, but there is an argument floating about from Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader (please don’t ban me from the blog, Tom) that NAFTA (“free trade”) has led to the influx of Mexican immigrants, who can no longer support themselves through farming and other traditional occupations that were “downsized” with NAFTA. Also, Ron Paul wants to change the rules for citizenship so that being born in this country would no longer qualify one as a citizen, i.e., one’s parent(s) would have to be a US citizen.
It seems that Sinclair Lewis’s It Can’t Happen Here has just about happened, with Paul Jacob’s case as one more manifestation of government gone berserk. abc, what do you think Ron Paul would do about “corpo” by default rule? I hope he wouldn’t be in favor of privatizing torture that the United States or the CIA has “allegedly” been outsourcing or engaging in in Guantanamo.
You might disagree with Ron Paul on NAFTA and trade deals, but he is a free trader. He thinks these are corporatist managed trade. Either way, his record on trade is on balance great and his principles are sound.
His views on immigration are somewhat nuanced. I disagree with them, but he’s not really excited about borders or mass deportations.
If his only objection is that free trade agreements and the WTO are merely “corporatist managed trade,” why the “black helicopter” rhetoric about losing our sovereignty?
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst103006.htm
His remarks can all be spun as libertarian, but is it libertarian to talk about the need to “protect our borders and protect our national sovereignty.” A real free trader doesn’t think that borders need any protection from trade and travel. The rhetoric about “our borders” is just jingoism. And his opposition to “amnesty” for illegal immigrants (“Texas Straight Talk,” June 11, 2007 – the broadcast is harsher than the writtenversion) is also not libertarian. Does he want to use violence to arrest thousands and thousands of honest people who work in the USA and aren’t violating anyone’s rights? What is libertarian about that? “Enforcement of our borders is our highest priority” doesn’t seem libertarian to me. But I’m just an American citizen whose family came from the other side of “our border,” so who cares what I think, right?
Manuel,
Would you favor the construction of that highway? I don’t know, but I think when referring to sovereignty in this instance, he may be thinking of people’s sovereignty (as in government of, for and by the people) versus nationhood, because he says plans for the highway have been made extra-legally, so to speak, without congressional oversight. On this particular point, I would have to agree with him.
I worry, however, about his conviction that illegal immigrants, especially children, be denied government benefits that they may be receiving now. If they are starving in Mexico and can’t make ends meet here, what are they supposed to do? Somehow a superhighway through the middle of the continent doesn’t strike me as being an answer to anyone’s troubles in any country, except perhaps the relatively few people who would benefit from the increase in resultant commercialization.
A quick note between chores. I share the worries about Ron’s rhetoric and some of his positions, which I consider incompatible with liberty, but it’s true that he’s the only candidate on the GOP side who can honestly say that he was against the Iraq War from the get-go, which is one reason he’s getting attention. Moreover, he’s raising important questions in the debates. I’m glad he’s there and that he’s bringing out people who don’t go for statist adventurism all over the globe. Most of the critics of neo-conservative adventurism only disagree on where they want to send the troops. They may want them out of Iraq, but they also want them in Bosnia and in Darfur and in Burma and on and on. At least one candidate doesn’t merely differ over the question of what nations should be invaded.
I agree that he is raising important questions in the debates. Thank you for providing an opportunity to discuss some of them here.
Ron Paul regularly proposes dramatically and unilaterally slashing tariffs. He didn’t even support the drug reimportation ban. He is a free trader, but believes that programs like NAFTA are Constitutionally problematic.
And besides, he is great not just on the war, but is the most solid candidate by far on civil liberties regarding detentions, habeas corpus, torture, the 4th Amendment, the War on Drugs, the 2nd Amendment, freedom of speech, taxes, spending, central banking, bureaucracy, regulations and the welfare state. Even on immigration, he emphasizes that a freer society would probably be able to handle more immigrants, and says we shouldn’t scapegoat them. Unfortunately, he doesn’t believe in unilateral and immediate open borders — but not even Cato tends to go that far.
And besides, he is great not just on the war, but is the most solid candidate by far on civil liberties regarding detentions, habeas corpus, torture, the 4th Amendment, the War on Drugs, the 2nd Amendment, freedom of speech, taxes, spending, central banking, bureaucracy, regulations and the welfare state. Even on immigration, he emphasizes that a freer society would probably be able to handle more immigrants, and says we shouldn’t scapegoat them. Unfortunately, he doesn’t believe in unilateral and immediate open borders — but not even Cato tends to go that far.
Word. Come on. Let’s get our priorities straight. He’s got some odd views on Sovereignty, but are odd views on sovereignty really where it’s at when this government has launched two wars in the Middle East and imprisons and tortures people in Gitmo?
I think the concern about Ron Paul’s free-trade stance is way overblown. As was earlier mentioned, he is indeed a free-trader. It seems as if those who believe he is not a free trader lean on the very strong assumption that anyone who is opposed to highly regulatory “free trade” agreements is thus against free trade.
Given Paul’s record on other trade issues and an oft-stated desire to decrease tariffs and eliminate protectionist tariffs, I cannot rely on such an assumption.
Let’s not become so caught up in titles that we completely miss the realities here. There is a valid free-trade, pro-liberty argument against treaties such as NAFTA and CAFTA, though many may disagree with that argument.
Meanwhile, if Paul’s stances draw this much concern, then we should all be terrified of every single one of the other candidates. Their policy stances (or non-stances on issues such as monetary policy) are absolutely hideous.