Posted by
Bert Chapman on Tuesday, December 27, 2011 5:44:50 PM
Texas Congressman Ron Paul is enjoying what will hopefully be an ephemeral ascension in public opinion polls leading up to the Iowa caucuses. Paul, a perennial presidential candidate, has been able to ride the wave of populist dissension with the Obama presidency and its concomitant increase in federal spending and power, to the upper echelon of political polls monitoring Hawkeye State opinion on GOP presidential candidate flavors du jour. Paul's ability to raise significant quantities of money online and his fanatical followers (Paulbots) have taken him farther than any other eccentric protest candidate would normally get.
Unfortunately, for America, Ron Paul would not offer any substantive improvement in public or economic policy than Barack Obama. Let's start with his unique view of the constitution. While the idea of a "living constitution" is a discredited proposition that has been used by liberals of all persuasions to advance federal power and incorporate moral dissolution such as abortion and same-sex marriage into our jurisprudence, Ron Paul's version of the constitution makes it a static document frozen in the year of its creation in 1787 and unable to adapt to the domestic and international political realities of the 21st century. No one individual or organization of any ideological or partisan perspective has the right to be the ultimate arbiter of constitutional interpretation. In Ron Paul's fantasy land, only Congress has the right to declare war but Paul and his followers fail to understand that contemporary international security and technological realities make it extremely rare that Congress and the American public will have the time to properly debate security threats that may be delivered by terrorists or rogue governments in the form of ballistic missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction.
Paul talks about abolishing several government agencies, including the Interior Department, which he claims are not constitutionally permitted. How does Paul propose replacing these agencies functions? Will he turn these over to state governments, public or private sector partnerships, or the private sector? Foreign companies or even foreign countries? You won't find this information coming from Dr. Paul since he's congenitally incapable of thinking through the consequences of his policy proposals.
Another bizarre aspect of Paul's platform is his antipathy to the Federal Reserve System. This system does need to be subject to greater congressional scrutiny including auditing. It could even be trimmed by closing down one or two banks. For instance, do we really need federal reserve banks in Chicago, St. Louis, Kansas City, and Minneapolis? My state of Indiana is served by the Chicago and St. Louis feds. Paul fails to realize that 1913 legislation creating this system is constitutional and his hostility toward a national bank, an essential prerequisite for setting monetary policy in a globalized economy, reflects the xenophobic idiocy toward large financial institution initially espoused by Andrew Jackson during his presidency as personified by his virulent hostility toward prominent American banker Nicholas Biddle whom Jackson and his cronies dubbed "Tsar Nick." Does Paul want the national money supply and interest rates to determined by 50 state banks or some other banking system? Do Ron Paul and the Paulbots really want to be associated with yahoo like thinking such as espoused by one of the Democratic Party's luminaries?
Paul is most dangerous in his foreign policy and national security utopianism. Republican candidates should criticize him for being incorrigibly stupid on the serious Iranian threats to global security if that regime acquires nuclear weapons. I once described Paul as belonging to the Noam Chomsky wing of the GOP. Noam Chomsky is a prominent MIT linguist who also publishes actively on international politics. Chomsky's viewpoint on global policy issues was once described by Jeanne Kirkpatrick as "Blame America First." Ron Paul's delusional conspiracy views on Iran aid and comfort that country's mullah regime from his idiotic view that our overthrow of the Mossadeq regime in 1953 has produced "blowback" against us and that the Iranian government poses no threat to us despite their efforts to promote anti-American terrorism and subversion in global arenas as diverse as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Afghanistan, and Venezuela. Does Paul think Kim Jong Un and the Chinese government will respond favorably to his libertarian version of constitutional government in the geopolitically critical regions of the Western Pacific, South China Sea, and Indian Ocean?
Ron Paul appeals to what 20th century historian Richard Hofstadter described as the "paranoid tradition" in American politics by seeking to blame abstract forces such as big banks and big government for current societal difficulties. He is an ideological kindred spirit of William Jennings Bryan, George McGovern, and Howard Dean who promote intellectually simplistic pablum to simple-minded followers at times of acute societal stress and is not worthy of inclusion in the party of Lincoln.
While financial institutions and government fiscal recklessness are partially responsible for our problems, Paul and his followers fail to consider how personal financial recklessness is also responsible for these problems and fail to promote credible alternative solutions other than taking a slash and burn mentality to government programs they disapprove of. Our country's economic stability, international credibility, and national security would actually become worse under Ron Paul than they are under Barack Obama. Throughout his political career, Paul has demonstrated no ability to build coalitions beyond the narrow and fanatical political base which worships him with fervor rivaling that of the the cultish followers of North Korea's regime. Instead of representing an economic libertarian strand within conservative thought, Ron Paul actually represents an ideological leftism that has more in common with Occupy Wall Street protestors and Noam Chomsky seditionists than with mainstream Republican ideology. Its time for voters in upcoming presidential primaries and caucuses to throw ice water on his delusional paranoia.