empty rhetoric

In this series, I have spent a great deal of time criticizing Ron Paul– from his immoral foreign policy to his outdated thoughts about the gold standard, and most recently to his dishonest and manipulative characterizations of the USA PATRIOT Act. It might seem like I am wholly against Ron Paul’s platform, or that I disagree with everything he says. (I have already been called a socialist for daring to criticize this so-called advocate of “freedom” and “liberty) This is untrue– I actually agree with Ron Paul in many areas, including (but not limited to), his notions of securing the boarders of the United States, the right to keep and bear arms, rejection of the International Criminal Court, huge reductions in fiscal spending (which have skyrocketed under George W. Bush), and lowering federal taxes.

So why would I expend so much effort and time criticizing a candidate with whom I agree on so many issues? Firstly, because most of the rest of the Republican field also agrees with Paul on these issues– which once again highlights an important fact: Paul is not popular because of his message of fiscal restraint, which is not controversial amongst Republican candidates– rather, he differs from them on only one or two issues, the chief of which is the Iraq War– which also happens to be immensely unpopular at the current juncture. Is it so much of a logical leap to thus assume that rampant fanboyism and fanaticism that Paul inspires is only due to this key issue? Let’s compare Paul’s “conservative” message with the “conservative” messages of other candidates, and observe the difference– or rather, lack of it.

Paul writes on his “Debt and Taxes” page:

Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.

But today, too many politicians and lobbyists are spending America into ruin. We are nine trillion dollars in debt as a nation. Our mounting government debt endangers the financial future of our children and grandchildren. If we don’t cut spending now, higher taxes and economic disaster will be in their future — and yours.

For comparison, let’s look at the platform of Rudy Giuliani, who is currently beating Ron Paul like a naughty schoolboy in most objective (read: not internet) polls:

Rudy restored fiscal discipline by controlling spending and cutting wasteful programs. He cut the size of city-funded government bureaucracy by nearly 20%—excluding the number of cops on the street and teachers in the classroom. Rudy’s record proves he can deliver results and return fiscal discipline to the federal government.

And let’s look at Mitt Romney’s page:

The Federal government must stop its borrowing and spending binge. The debt is a burden on our economy, our currency, our foreign policy, and our future. This is beyond pork barrel spending. We must address entitlement programs – not just to save money – but to give Americans confidence in their future.

And John McCain’s:

Year after year, powerful members of Congress divert taxpayer dollars to special interest pet projects with little or no national value. This practice is especially egregious during wartime, when any federal spending wasted on parochial programs to satisfy special interests represents a failure by the federal government to properly steward tax dollars. John McCain has steadfastly fought to reform this broken system and end the self-serving largesse that defines the current budget process.

As president, John McCain will oppose spending money on projects that siphon away tax dollars collected to fund these important commitments. Setting priorities, and keeping them, is a crucial step toward fiscal restraint and an important priority for a McCain presidency. Every dollar irresponsibly spent by Congress is a dollar diverted from pressing national priorities including lowering the tax burden on working Americans, supporting the men and women fighting the war on terror, making good on the nation’s financial commitments at home, including to senior citizens, and paying down the national debt.

As should be obvious, Paul’s message regarding fiscal conservatism is echoed widely amongst the other Republican candidates. Examining other issues, there are likewise a great deal of similarities in other arenas: border security, property rights, etc. So why are we constantly bombarded with rhetoric that pretends that Ron Paul is really different than anyone else?

There really is only one possible answer: Iraq.

This is also the reason that Ron Paul is wrong for the GOP. Despite the fact that the party faces an enormous challenge in Iraq, following the principles of Ron Paul (and, it is worth noting, much of the Democratic Party) regarding a troop pullout would not only mean real defeat and disaster for the United States, but also a massive political blow to the party at large.

Much has been written about the death of neoconservatism in the wake of the problems that the United States has faced in Iraq, however, the recent success of the surge– which I recently noted, seems to vindicate some of the core principles of neoconservatism– should put to rest such a notion. Conservatives have long posited that the United States should position itself as a broad worldwide military power– to “carry the big stick”, as it were, in our dealings around the world. In the wake of 9/11, one of the core principles of the resultant Bush Doctrine was the notion that not only terrorists themselves, but the states that support them would be subject to the wrath of the American military. Bush, who began his tenure with significantly less neoconservative leanings, has transformed his foreign military policy to match that of the neoconservatives precisely because such an agenda makes sense in a world where terrorism is not a vague, abstract political idea, but rather a harsh reality.

Ron Paul’s major fracture with the GOP is indeed this so-called “War on Terror”. Rather than actively engage in the protection of the United Sates– and indeed, the West in general– Ron Paul instead promises to disengage from one of the most crucial conflicts of our era, dealing not only a blow to the security of the United States, but also to the GOP, which has, for better or worse, staked its political fortunes on the success or failure of Iraq. He is, in a sense, a modern-day Neville Chamberlain in that he advocates abandoning the nascent democracy in Iraq to be swept under a tide of Islamofascism– just as Chamberlain left European states to be destroyed by the Nazi movement.

If this seems familiar, its because I addressed many of these issues when I discussed why Ron Paul’s foreign policy would harm America. The question than then must be asked is why the GOP would benefit from the disastrous future of a Ron Paul presidency? I have already written why I believe that Ron Paul’s views on Iraq would be a major blow to the security of the United States as a whole, however, on a purely political front, it is clear that conservatism in America could be greatly hurt by Ron Paul’s shortsighted and dangerous views regarding Iraq, and indeed, his foreign policy in general, which would leave key U.S. allies abandoned in Europe (if, indeed, he was successful in his plans to pull out of NATO) while emboldening terrorists on their very doorstep. Ron Paul is wrong for America– it thus follows that Ron Paul is wrong for the GOP as well, especially given that so many well-qualified candidates are available as alternatives.