Thanks to commenter Frank who alerted me, I left a couple of comments at Jade Haven discussing the coming election and Ron Paul’s place in it. I liked my last comment so much I’m repeating it here (narcissism only a blogger could love).
Daphne,
The US has taken over the role of the British Empire as the protector of commerce. Libertarians (mostly) just hate that. But OK. It is a thankless job and the pay is bad besides. So the US should quit. Fine.
That will leave a power vacuum. Who exactly would you prefer to fill it? China? Russia? And you will recall that the US took the attitude you favor (Not Our Problem) from late 1919 to late 1941. The results were not pretty. The system we have today (bases everywhere) was the response to that failure.
Domestically Ron is just brilliant. Foreign policy wise he is out of his league.
BTW why the viciousness towards Israel (people who actually share our values) when the US has not only been fellating the Saudis but rimming them as well for over half a century. In fact the pact with the Saudis is one reason oil development in the US has been less than aggressive.
You know that the Saudis have spent quite a lot promoting an ideology that is quite aggressive towards the west.
And yet being too friendly with Israel is a bad thing. Despite the medical advances, despite Raphael Mechoulam, despite where your last Intel Chip was designed, etc.
I’d vote for Ron again. But that is because I think our domestic situation is dire and Foreign Policy messes have a way of forcing themselves on you. Like it or not. If Ron gets elected he will have to deal. And theory will be of no use .
As long as I am at it: Ron’s Foreign Policy is perfect for dealing with Western Nations. But that is not where the problem lies. It lies in the other outlaw gangs that call themselves nations. And Ron has grown up in gentility. He should have spent a year or three living with outlaw bikers. Just to get some real world experience.
That is what I think about Ron Paul. For now.
Comments
9 responses to “Stepping Into The Ever Popular Ron Paul Quagmire”
I agree. If I had my way, no one would be elected president who hadn’t at least seen a bar fight.
I’m not sure any country is rich enough any more to “police the world” if/when we are forced to stop. While Paul is a little too isolationist for me, the other candidates are much more too hawkish. (If Paul is 0 and they are 100 i consider myself around 25.) but I’m thinking about voting for Paul for no other reason than to cast support for Civil Liberties, as he is the only candidate strongly for them and thy are becoming even more pressing than our debt (see Wars on Terrorism, Drugs, Piracy, etc.) I just wrote a blog post explaining more detail.
You can read josh on the topic at:
http://www.postlibertarian.com/2011/12/getting-pummeled-by-the-war-on-drugs-the-war-on-terrorism-and-the-war-on-piracy/
[…] want to amplify on some remarks I made in my very short discussion of the Ron Paul Foreign Policy. What I said was: Ron’s Foreign Policy is perfect for dealing with Western Nations. But that is […]
Simon
Several points to make on your comment:
First, your discussion of Saudia Arabia and Israel is spot-on.
The alternative you present between not being isolationists (not my problem) and having bases all over the world (over-extension in foreign policy) is a false one. The USA simply went from one wrong approach to another wrong one.
Also your statement that: “And you will recall that the US took the attitude you favor (Not Our Problem) from late 1919 to late 1941” is false
It’s commonly stated that the US had an “isolationist” stance 1919-1941. At best this is an oversimplification
Marines occupy Nicaragua until 1933:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nicaragua#United_States_occupation_.281909.E2.80.931933.29
Navy and Marines in China and the Philippines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Asiatic_Fleet
Then there’s the destroyers-for-bases deal, Lend-Lease, escorted convoys, the Flying Tigers, etc. Long before Pearl Harbor, the US was actively in a shooting war in the Atlantic and preparing to get in one in the Far East.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Reuben_James_%28DD-245%29
If the US was “isolationist” why was the Navy patrolling the Yangtse in 1937?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panay_incident
Also your statement that: “And you will recall that the US took the attitude you favor (Not Our Problem) from late 1919 to late 1941? is false
You are correct. It only lasted until ’38 or ’39 – but the vote on the draft in Nov of ’41 was close.
The deal is: there is going to be a #1. Who do you want it to be? I’d like it to be he USA for as far as the eye can see. Say another 50 years. Until the place gets moderately civilized.
The thing is Foreign Policy will be more or less screwed for quite some time to come. Disasters are inevitable no matter what policy is chosen. Too many variables.
It is why we have a State Department and a War Department. Each to correct the mistakes of the other.