Ron Paul Can’t Win Foreign Policy Points

by Richard Young | December 21, 2011 8:15 am

[1]This past Friday, The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel wrote[2] that “Ron Paul is, in many ways, the ideal candidate for a conservative electorate hungry for a principled GOP nominee.” She continued by saying despite this, “there is only one bar to a Ron Paul victory: Mr. Paul.”

Ron Paul is favored by many for proposing to slash $1 trillion from the budget and eliminating five federal cabinet agencies, proposing to cut the corporate tax rate (I would cut it to zero) and cutting the tax on capital gains and dividends — absolute musts in my book. He also is held in high regard by many for his plans to dump Obamacare (most Americans want this) as well as Sarbanes-Oxley — both absolute musts, too. Despite this, Strassel still writes that Ron Paul is neither timid nor inconsistent, and these characteristics “ought to” make him a star. This is false, because Paul is not merely an “ought to” candidate. He clearly is a star with any American who believes in the Constitution as written.

So where is the real rub for Strassel? It is in Paul’s “noninterventionist” approach.

Strassel might have a problem with Ron Paul’s stalwart stance on international politics, but I do not. With historical perspective, no one in their right mind would have put American troops on the ground in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan, so I am unsure why having a noninterventionist stance casts Paul’s foreign policy views as unpopular. Sure, the foreign policy hawks and military/industrial complex crowd hate Paul. And I would guess that K Street, Wall Street and the public sector unions won’t be hosting any Ron Paul fundraisers anytime soon. But this is no problem because these are the folks largely responsible for getting us into the mess we are in today.

Securing the City by Christopher Dickey is the most informative book I have read on homeland security and counterterrorism so far. It explains what national defense is all about, and it has nothing to with invasions, nation building and counterinsurgency. To the contrary, the book by former Newsweek Paris Bureau Chief and Middle East Regional Editor Christopher Dickey concerns NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. Dickey refers to “the dangerously ill-conceived, mismanaged, and highly militarized global war on terror” that has taken the U.S. into the gruesome occupation of Iraq and has inspired a violent loathing of America. This is pretty much just as Ron Paul called it[3].

Dickey continues, “Invading faraway lands is the worst and should be the last option when fighting to make ourselves safe at home.” Dickey recommends more pragmatic responses: effective diplomacy and espionage abroad, including covert action and reliable real-time intelligence on every front. In the excellent Ghost Wars, Steve Coll writes, “The United States needs a new counterterrorism strategy — one that is vigilant, creative, sustainable, and aligned with the country’s constitutional values.”

To me, all of the above sounds accurate and travels in the direction of Ron Paul’s views. With that said, Paul’s foreign policy views still are seen as can’t-win propositions by the likes of Strassel and many others. This, readers, is nonsense.

When you have considered all of the information I have outlined here and in previous articles[4], it should be clear to you that the only candidate running for president who offers any hope for a return to a truly constitutionally strong federal republic form of government defined by our founders is Ron Paul.

  1. [Image]:
  2. wrote:
  3. as Ron Paul called it:
  4. previous articles:

Source URL:
Short URL: