While I'm not a great fan of Dr. Ron Paul as an effective politician, I do respect Dr. Ron Paul as a consistent representative of hands-off conservatism.
Dr. Paul's position on illegal immigration is correct:
If you have read this blog for any time, you will see that Dr. Paul's positions are not that far from what has been written here.
Dr. Paul's position on illegal immigration is correct:
His fiscal conservatism makes great sense:
... but I'm not sure that claiming our fiscal woes are all due to military spending is necessarily correct. While such spending has increased since 2000, it is below pre-1990 levels. The military, in fact, has been required to do more with less for quite some time.
A larger percentage of federal spending has been for social programs over the past 2 decades. If there is borrowing needed, it is to cover mandate after mandate... program after program.
Regardless, one has to question what Dr. Paul's interpretation of "defense" is rather than "military spending." Without a doubt he is correct that the military expenditures... for all reasons... have increased due to the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. That, I would argue, is from the misuse of the military due to politically-correct, media-focused, directed-by-civilian strategies than the military wasting money intentionally.
A larger percentage of federal spending has been for social programs over the past 2 decades. If there is borrowing needed, it is to cover mandate after mandate... program after program.
Regardless, one has to question what Dr. Paul's interpretation of "defense" is rather than "military spending." Without a doubt he is correct that the military expenditures... for all reasons... have increased due to the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. That, I would argue, is from the misuse of the military due to politically-correct, media-focused, directed-by-civilian strategies than the military wasting money intentionally.
With regard to Dr. Paul's position on "military" versus "defense," I find his proposed dichotomy a bit simplistic.
I absolutely agree with his position that the military should never be used for nation building or policing. Our politicians' approach to Iraq and Afghanistan was that we were deploying engineers and social workers who happened to wear military uniforms... and they better not do anything impolite. Not a way to conduct military operations. This situation is the reason why so many military personnel back Dr. Paul. It's their way of telling our politicians that this is not what they signed up for. But it goes beyond fixing a misuse of the military to a position of military isolationism.
Dr. Paul wants to believe that if we just walk away militarily from the rest of the world, we will be left alone. Sorry, Dr. Paul, the world doesn't quite work that way. He doesn't have that same attitude with regard to trade. Quite the opposite. That's pretty much open borders.
The military's global presence is a factor in the overall defense of this nation. Do we need 80,000 military personnel in Europe? I think not. Do we need naval ports and air fields in strategic locations for our Navy and Air Force. I think so. They serve as a very strong reminder that any attack on the U.S. or its allies is not an action without consequences... and provide the means to back up that implication.
There is a difference between nation building and policing... and peacekeeping [not the Peace Corps version, but the "speak softly and carry a big stick" version]. This is not a furtherance of Obama's Libyan policy. Our goal should not be to fix every political system... just keep their armies in check and their missiles out of Venezuela.
So, while I agree in part with Dr. Paul, I disagree in general regarding military spending and defense spending.
Dr. Paul may be a Republican, but he is facing an uphill battle convincing Republicans that he really represents them... especially in matters of national security where the President is the key figure. But he's not that far off the mark on many other things. That's part of it.
(AP photo) Dr. Paul, on the other hand, suffers from an image of a whiny eccentric because of the way he speaks, his tailored-by-Walmart suits, and his visually and verbally rambling style.
He can get people's minds nodding yes to what he says while a visceral reaction to him being the President of the United States is, "No, not him, no way." That's not fair and certainly not a reasonable way to choose a leader, but it is the case.
He is like that odd professor we had as a sophomore in college who never quite seemed to be talking to us... but we were never sure if he was talking to someone else either... someone only he could see. He made a lot of sense, but ... maybe he'll grow on us... like that professor. Or maybe not.
I absolutely agree with his position that the military should never be used for nation building or policing. Our politicians' approach to Iraq and Afghanistan was that we were deploying engineers and social workers who happened to wear military uniforms... and they better not do anything impolite. Not a way to conduct military operations. This situation is the reason why so many military personnel back Dr. Paul. It's their way of telling our politicians that this is not what they signed up for. But it goes beyond fixing a misuse of the military to a position of military isolationism.
Dr. Paul wants to believe that if we just walk away militarily from the rest of the world, we will be left alone. Sorry, Dr. Paul, the world doesn't quite work that way. He doesn't have that same attitude with regard to trade. Quite the opposite. That's pretty much open borders.
The military's global presence is a factor in the overall defense of this nation. Do we need 80,000 military personnel in Europe? I think not. Do we need naval ports and air fields in strategic locations for our Navy and Air Force. I think so. They serve as a very strong reminder that any attack on the U.S. or its allies is not an action without consequences... and provide the means to back up that implication.
So, while I agree in part with Dr. Paul, I disagree in general regarding military spending and defense spending.
He would argue, "It's not our job to be a global peacekeeper."
I would answer, "Who then?"
He probably would respond, "It's the responsibility of each nation."
I would ask, "And if the strong, anti-individualism, dictatorial powers want to prey on the pro-individualism democracies, must they stand alone?"
And he would respond, "Let them work it out. It's not our problem."And that's where I have a problem... because it eventually becomes everyone's problem.
My wife astutely pointed out that, as President, Dr. Paul would have only some say in matters economic... programs and spending being the purview of Congress. But in matters military and foreign policy, President Paul, as Commander In Chief, would wield enormous power.I'm not prepared to back a foreign policy summarized as "see you later," nor a military strategy that says "everyone go home and we'll call if we need you." Can the military be pared back? Yes, but not Obama style. A major concern is approaching cutbacks the post-Vietnam manner... cutting fat, muscle, bone, and spirit.
Dr. Paul may be a Republican, but he is facing an uphill battle convincing Republicans that he really represents them... especially in matters of national security where the President is the key figure. But he's not that far off the mark on many other things. That's part of it.
Another part of the process of being electable, however, is displaying the presence, the image, the tone of someone in charge. Obama has done that well... even when he has no idea about that which he is expounding. Sure, Obama occasionally gets to stumbling without the teleprompter, but for the most part he displays the presence, the image and the tone expected of someone in charge. Obama can make stupid ideas sound perfectly reasonable and logical because he knows how to play to our eyes and ears.
He can get people's minds nodding yes to what he says while a visceral reaction to him being the President of the United States is, "No, not him, no way." That's not fair and certainly not a reasonable way to choose a leader, but it is the case.
He is like that odd professor we had as a sophomore in college who never quite seemed to be talking to us... but we were never sure if he was talking to someone else either... someone only he could see. He made a lot of sense, but ... maybe he'll grow on us... like that professor. Or maybe not.