2008 Presidential Race
Who do you like the most for President in 2008? Why?
posted by Chris Hill @ 6/19/2007 08:47:00 PM
118 comments
Who do you like the most for President in 2008? Why?
posted by Chris Hill @ 6/19/2007 08:47:00 PM
118 comments
118 Comments:
This should be an easy question but it's not. All candidates seem deficient to me in some way. Of all possibles I suppose Duncan Hunter is my favorite, because he's actually someone who likes America. That is a rare quality among candidates these days. That said, he is a very unlikely nominee, almost to the degree that Kucinich is on the Democrat side. He also has some protectionist tendencies--but that is relatively minor when you look at everything. Hunter seems to be the "purest" ideologically, and he has the votes to back up his claims (unlike Romney, Giuliani, et al., who are desperately attempting to portray themselves as something different from their respective pasts).
Of likely nominees Fred Thompson is my favorite of those suggested so far. Much higher than Romney or Giuliani. He has done some stupid things, like voting for campaign finance reform, but at least he wasn't an author and instigator (as McCain, the friend of Ted Kennedy, was), and he has also been vocal in declaring that his vote on that matter was a mistake. He could win and it wouldn't be so bad.
I don't know enough about Huckabee, Tancredo, and some of the others.
I think Ron Paul is perhaps a better choice for the "Republican Kucinich" but I get your point. I don't know enough about Thompson to have an intelligent opinion. He's the "conservative candidate" according to the news media... who I trust about as much as I trust Hillary Clinton's "conservativeness" (get it? cause they keep calling her conservative... anyway...).
Republicans need someone who knows how to communicate. Thompson seems to be able to do that.
I would prefer someone like Ron Paul as well. He's not a filthy pandering politician and he likes his constitution black, without cream, sugar or liberal amounts of socialism.
Ron Paul introduces legislation to abolish the Federal Reserve
Watch the "Money Masters" on google video if you'd like to understand why this is so great.
Tancredo? That sounds like Tancredi, which was the last name of the chick from Prision Break. Prision Break had that supremely hot guy in it - Wentworth. I'm voting for him based on these qualifications.
As a second choice, I'm writing in Wentworth.
I second that nomination of Wentworth. Wentworth for President!
When will we all outgrow this nonsense of needing a president? Every 4 years it's like I'm back in high school again ... ;~P
I would prefer someone like Ron Paul as well.
To clarify, I don't prefer Ron Paul due to his protectionist ideas, specifically regarding Iraq. Otherwise, he's not that bad.
I'm not seeing how his positions on Iraq make him a protectionist. I could maybe see that label applied based on his oppotition to large corporations that oversee/regulate free-trade and whatnot, but how does that directly relate to Iraq. I guess I only understand protectionism as it relates to economics.
I don't know if this is what Chris meant or not, but the one problem I have with Ron Paul (who, overall I would definitely support, despite this) is that his foreign policy views necessitate isolationism. I am not sure how practical this is in a world undergoing increasing globalization. To clarify, I am not opposed to it outright, I just see some barriers, which may or may not be surmountable.
Sorry, I think "isolationism" would be a better term, although they are somewhat intertwined philosophies. I don't like him for either, but specifically his views towards Iraq. He would not be my candidate as a result.
However, if it was between him and oh, say, I don't know, Clinton, Obama, Kucinich, Gore, Giuliani, etc. (you know, the left-wingers) I'd choose him very easily. I don't think, if elected, someone could pull US troops out of Iraq immediately. It's just not feasible anyway you put it.
From what I have gathered about Ron Paul, and it's not that much, it's that he was against the Iraq invasion because pre-emptive military action, especially in the way it was carried out, is not endorsed by the constitution and, in fact, undermines it. (Nevermind the fact it was bullshit from the start...) I think his votes against the war from day one exhibit that he actually had some genuine insight into the larger picture and was not simply influenced by his peers, emotional American patriotism, or whatever made so many people think gettin' Saddam was exactly what the world needed.
Dominic,
The majority of Americans supported invading Iraq, not on emotion, but because we believed it was the right thing to do. Paul is a libertarian, and as mentioned, an isolationist. As such, he does not support military action in many cases. I believe this is a flawed philosophy.
Regarding the Constitution, and while I am no expert, I have studied it in great deal, a pre-emptive military action without a declaration of war is in no manner against it. If so, then Thomas Jefferson violated it when he was President (read up on Barbary Pirates... just one reference, btw).
The fact of the matter is that Congress authorized the President to take whatever military action was necessary, and the President acted within those bounds. There was no violation of the Constitution whatsoever, and I challenge you to show me where in the Constitution I am wrong.
The majority of Americans supported invading Iraq, not on emotion, but because we believed it was the right thing to do….
By that logic, we should have left Iraq a few years ago. But I suppose I have to ask, why was it really the right thing to do? The terrorists we were after came mostly from Saudi Arabia, Saddam ignoring UN resolutions is not a constitutional reason for invasion, the Iraqi army was a tiny and insignificant threat to us, and there were no WMDs. Pakistan posed a greater threat to us than Iraq… I think most people would agree that Iraq was never a real threat, a scapegoat maybe, but invading it was certainly not the right thing to do and time has clearly demonstrated that.
Regarding the Constitution, a pre-emptive military action without a declaration of war is in no manner against it…
I believe the major difference here is that this war was not declared against any particular enemy. Like I mentioned before, Iraq was not a real threat and consequently the premise for going to war in Iraq was phony. Even if you play the humanitarian card, do you really think it’s possible to institute a true democracy in a county like Iraq that has 1000 year old Islamic roots? A true democracy in Iraq would produce something the likes of Hamas or Iran’s president. But anyway, I don’t think the constitution was directly violated, however, I certainly believe it was abused. I guess the bottom line is that the invasion of Iraq was unnecessary, wasteful, abusive and ironically, has created a much greater threat to the security of our nation than before.
This may be a fair analogy. The Pharisees were to the Law of Moses as the Bush administration is to the Constitution. Following the letter but not the spirit.
Also, labeling Ron Paul as an isolationist is really unwarranted. It sounds like something religious conservative have conjured up in order to make quick work of his presidential hopes. This was taken directly from a statement he made concerning economic sanctions. "While embargoes sound like strong, punitive action, in reality they represent a failed policy that four decades of experience prove doesn't work. Conversely, economic engagement is perhaps the single most effective tool in tearing down dictatorships and spreading the message of liberty."
The fact of the matter is that Congress authorized the President to take whatever military action was necessary...
However, after some browsing, it appears that this resolution essentially gave the president the authority to declare war. The first article of the constitution says that congress has the authority to declare war. Our country is at war with Iraq but no formal declaration was made, just like in Vietnam.
So technically, the constitution was violated, twisted, bent, shat on, whatever. Congress should have made a declaration of war themselves or we should have stayed out.
Dominic,
Ron Paul is an isolationist. It's not a "bad" word, like calling some a pedophile. It's simply a disagreement in terms of foreign policy. I just happen to think he's wrong.
Also, I have no idea how "religious conservatives" have anything to do with calling Paul an isolationist... most "religious conservatives" probably agree with a lot of what he says.
"Saddam ignoring UN resolutions is not a constitutional reason for invasion"
No, but firing at US aircraft (recognized as sovereign US territory by international law) is.
Dominic,
You're all over the place (hence my multiple responses). You say:
"I don’t think the constitution was directly violated"
Then, you say:
"So technically, the constitution was violated"
Bush never declared war in any manner. We never signed a peace treaty with Iraq (which we would have to if we had declared war). You have yet to show me where the Constitution was violated.
Again, if it was violated, Jefferson violated it in the same manner. What Jefferson did and what Bush did were essentially the same thing (against radical Muslims in both cases, nonetheless).
Regarding whether or not it was good to go into Iraq is another discussion. We had legitimacy, and most Americans thought it was necessary. Many still do think it was necessary, they just disagree with how it was handled. You are right in saying public opinion does not make it right. However, I was responding to your comment that it was an emotional response, which I believe is an incorrect analysis. People supported the invasion because they thought it was the right thing to do.
I do believe it was right, and lead you to this fact: there have been 0 terrorist attacks on US soil since we invaded Iraq.
I changed my mind after looking into it more, I do that quite often because I'm reasonable and enjoy learning. =)
You say Bush never actually declared war and that's precisely my point. We are clearly engaged in Iraq under war-like circumstances and are skirting around the definition of what is war, who really has the authority to declare it, etc, etc. Take a step back... our country is at war in Iraq, congress never made that declaration, and therefore, the constitution was not used as it was intended. It was abused, that's my point, it's very simple. Maybe Thomas Jefferson has a momentary lapse of reason, I have no idea, but it really doesn't matter if there is a precedent for the same folly or not.
I am curious though, how can you say invading Iraq was STILL the right move in 2002.
Dominic,
That's fine that you changed your mind. Your position was unclear, however, so thanks for clarifying it.
Please look more into how Jefferson treated a similar issue. It was not a lapse of reason. You're casually throwing out legal precedence (a foundation of our system of law). He even went to Congress regarding the issue (in a similar way that Bush did). There was no opposition to his acts from others at the time, including James Madison, the guy who wrote the Constitution.
By your reasoning, Congress also violated the Constitution by authorizing the President to use force against Iraq. Thus, Congress is, in fact, more at fault for authorizing an unconstitutional activity. The President merely carried out what they authorized.
Like I said, whether or not invading Iraq was a good choice is a separate issue. You challenged its legitimacy, which we're discussing here. I'd rather not confuse the two.
By your reasoning, Congress also violated the Constitution by authorizing the President to use force against Iraq. Thus, Congress is, in fact, more at fault for authorizing an unconstitutional activity. The President merely carried out what they authorized.
Yes, you could easily argue that congress violated the consitution by giving the president the authority to make war, whether expressly or not, because that is exactly what he did.
I'll look at what Jefferson did but I don't think legal precedent applies in this case. The constitution was either followed or it wasn't, regardless of events that preceded this action.
Yes, it was followed or not. Agreed. My point is that if Jefferson had violated the Constitution, there would have been great opposition from others (such as the guy who actually wrote it). Most (if not all?) of those who adopted the Constitution into law were still alive when Jefferson did what he did. Since there wasn't any opposition to Jefferson's actions (at least none of note), it is pretty clear that both he and those who approved (and wrote) the Constitution knew he was within its bounds. When speaking of "the Founders intent" (a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, which both you and I arguably have), there's no better way to understand it than looking to what the Founders did.
The article you supplied mentions war was declared on the US first and that congress voted for reprisals and military action to be taken. It doesn’t look like any counties were destroyed nor were any governments toppled. The US had very good cause to fight anyway, this was an aggressive nation demanding tributes without reason. I don’t think it’s fair to make comparisons between the two. The premise under which military action was taken was completely different.
Islamists have declared war on us. Saddam tried to assassinate an American President. Saddam fired upon sovereign US territory (as previously mentioned regarding US aircraft). In the Barbary Wars, war was implicitly declared upon the US by cutting down a flagstaff in front of the US consulate (did you read it closely?). Saddam did much more than this, so yes, the example is more than valid.
In addition, Jefferson took military action first, THEN "informed" Congress, then Congress authorized him to use power as necessary, which Jefferson did. The only difference with Iraq is that Bush had already received permission from Congress before the first military strike.
The Tripolitan government was not toppled because its leaders decided to sign a treaty with us (we DID invade their country). Saddam could have avoided the entire conflict by agreeing to US demands.
The events are not going to be entirely in sync - two events in history never will be. But in regards to the legitimacy of invading Iraq, they do align.
I said in my last post that the article mentions war was declared on us first, which is exactly my point. Iraq did not make any declarations of war, Al-Queda did. That is where the parallel between Iraq and Tripoli begins to fall apart. In the Barbary war, our country was forced to pay grossly unreasonable tributes and ransoms for captured vessels. Jefferson said enough, they still wanted money, conflict ensued. In Iraq, a case was made that they were a threat to the US, in the light of the recent terrorist attacks. In reality, Iraq posed an almost insignificant threat to this country. An assassination attempt in 1993 is a poor reason to start a war over a decade later. Saddam’s petty firing on US territory is an even poorer reason to destroy a country and topple its government. Also, the Iraq Resolution has nothing to do with the general threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Only defense in the context of national security and the enforcement of UN resolutions (which is arguable unconstitutional) are mentioned.
Yes, I see some similarities. However, because of some very fundamental differences, it is dangerous to justify the present war in Iraq based on the Barbary war. Seriously.
Anyway, we should talk about this:
Paul is a libertarian, and as mentioned, an isolationist. As such, he does not support military action in many cases. I believe this is a flawed philosophy.
He doesn't believe the constitution justifies the occupation of another country unless there is an imminent threat to the security of our own. Is that the flawed philosophy you refer to?
Dominic,
Yes, Iraq DID make declarations of war on us in the exact same kind of way that happened during the Barbary Wars.
OK
Out of curiousity, I googled "barbary iraq same" and this was the first thing I found...
It made me laugh.
I don't see the humor, but regardless... To say "Jefferson would have..." is mere conjecture (I really don't get how someone could determine what he would have done in such detailed specifics). He did what he did, and the parallels I pointed out are still valid.
Besides, the question here was never, "would Jefferson have decided to go into Iraq?" but rather whether it's constitutional (actually, it was "who do you like for President?" but I digress). The elitist professor's perfect knowledge of a dead man from centuries ago never implied Jefferson would have thought it to be against the Constitution.
There are a few things funny about that find. Beside the fact that my first google search found a page mentioning some of the points I brought up, it was funny that it was also a blog with people debating the exact same thing, like it must be a controversial topic...
But back to presidents, allow me to retort your previous comment about Ron Paul:
"Paul is not actually an isolationist. Isolationism entails a severing of all ties with foreign nations. Paul is in favor of lowering trading and diplomatic barriers (especially with countries that we have historically been enemies with for little reason, like Cuba and Iran). He wants to encourage dialog and trade as a means of spreading American ideals rather than the threat of brute force when nations reject our self-given mandate to police the world.
The recent history of American foreign policy has been one of aggression, threats, and imperialistic designs. Paul plans to reverse this trend, returning to the model favored by the founding fathers. This model is (in brief): "Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none" (Thomas Jefferson)"
Ok, fair enough. Where is that quote about Paul from? Regardless, I'll buy the description of his foreign policy that you put forth here. I think it describes him accurately.
I still think his policies are isolationist in principle. That's not necessarily bad (I wish our country were more isolationist wrt foreign policy), but I believe he goes too far. I've labeled this as "isolationist," which is perhaps too ambiguous of a complaint without more description. My problem with him is that he believes our interests are best served abroad when we merely talk with other nations. To him, as you mentioned, trade embargoes and military action are not useful diplomacy. I disagree.
Trade embargoes, while they do hurt economics, serve as a moral statement against countries such as Cuba and Iran. And without the threat of military force, we would be quite easily overrun internationally, as Teddy Roosevelt believed in his "speak softly but carry a big stick" mentality.
As such, I believe Paul's foreign policy to be very flawed. But, like I mentioned, I do like a lot of his domestic ideas. Does he support a federal ban on abortion, though? I'm not sure, but he's a libertarian and he might. If so, I disagree with him on that too.
Lastly, to your point (or to your mention of Paul's point) of American foreign policy being imperialist, I would direct you to a study of imperialistic nations in history. You will find that America does not fit the category.
*For the record, I was actually contacted by Paul's chief of staff a few years ago to get involved in Young Americans for Freedom. I do respect him, but I disagree to the point where I would not support him in the primaries.*
My problem with him is that he believes our interests are best served abroad when we merely talk with other nations. To him, as you mentioned, trade embargoes and military action are not useful diplomacy. I disagree.
I would agree that "our interests" are probably best served by the liberal use of trade embargoes and military action. These are very effective diplomatic tools. However, I don't believe "our interests" should be the driving force behind our foreign policy with other countries. Our constitution seems to suggest that the liberty of our citizens should be at the the driving force behind all government actions. While it may be in our interests to pursue greater economic prosperity, etc.., the protection of our liberty can easily be eclipsed when these other forces are allowed to dominate.
You mention that trade embargoes serve as moral statements, and I agree, but why exactly is that our responsibility? The Founders of this country spoke much more about being the moral example in the world than forcing other countries to fall in line. Certainly it is not governments responsibility to enforce moral standards on it's citizens, much less other countries. The only reason this tactic is even effective is because this country is far and away the king when it comes to the global economy. Imposing these types of trade restrictions on other counties is like the fat kid stealing your lunch money in grade school; simply because it is effective doen't make it justified. Trade embargoes hurt the citizens much more so than the governments they are supposed to be targeting. I might elaborate on the military aspect later.
As far as Paul's stance on a federal abortion ban, I don't know but I can almost guarantee he would be against any federal legislation aimed at governing a moral issue such as abortion.
Your last paragraph has no bearing on whether or not our country is operating with constitutionally appropriate foreign policies. I would try to avoid these kind of categorizations. As if comparing an ice cube to an iceberg would make it seem less cold.
Ron Paul really isn't isolationist in any way. You could fairly call him a non-interventionist, but isolationist implies he wants limited interactions with the international community which is simply not true. Paul's point is that those international interactions should be economic in nature, and not military or political. This country should lead the world by example, not by force.
Examples like Vietnam and Korea show us that no amount of force could affect the change we wanted to see in those countries, but that a few years of open trade with them won them over; now neither of them are threats to the U.S. Americans are making money there, and people from both of these countries actually want to come here to become Americans.
That's really the heart of Paul's suggested foreign policy. He believes that the U.S. can win good friends in the world by allowing individual Americans to be the honest, charitable, peaceful and prosperous people most of us are, and by spreading that success around the world through the use of free market principles.
Obviously strong and secure borders are key to keeping our government from being threatened from the outside. When real imminent threats arise, we need to be able to deal with them on our own turf, or elsewhere. From what I've heard, it doesn't sound like Paul is in any way opposed to the military, or denies it's necessity. However, it should be used for the defense of the nation, and not as a tool of aggression to try and reshape the world in our own image by the initiation of violence.
He also is specifically against the war in Iraq because he believed it would degenerate into a quagmire of a war that would be impossible to win. So far, events have proven him to be correct. No amount of force imposed by the U.S. military can restore order to a country so deeply divided as Iraq without resorting to Roman-style draconian tactics like grotesque executions and overwhelming retaliation for minor offenses.
You said, "My problem with [Paul] is that he believes our interests are best served abroad when we merely talk with other nations."
First of all, Paul never advocates the sissy democratic "kumbaya" mentality of the Nancy Polosi liberals. He believes that a strong military is important to keep our citizens safe from those who would do them harm.
Secondly, when you say "our interests" you seem to be referring to the government's interests. It's certainly good for those in power to subdue those elements in the world who oppose them by any means necessary. However, this has little or nothing to do with the best interests of individual Americans.
Individual Americans would have been well served after 9/11 by better intelligence, more secure borders, more effective security procedures in crowded places. I can't think of one single benefit I have enjoyed due to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Individual Americans have suffered much because of the invasion (loved ones KIA, skyrocketing debt, increased tax burden, etc.), but have reaped no benefits (we don't feel safer, we feel more bound to Middle-east oil interests then ever before, we're witnessing the irrational rage of thejihadists aimed at us without knowing the reason why).
I guess the main point of Ron Paul's foreign policy is that entangling political dealings with the world have repeatedly landed this country in the same situation that we're currently dealing with in Iraq, and they have never turned out to have good consequences. These situations always snow-ball out of control, and ensure similar situations occur in the future. Have any of our so-called "imperialist" episodes actually solved a problem (Cuba and Latin America, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, etc.)? Most of them have created self-perpetuating problems that generation after generation of Americans have to deal with.
Mmmmmmmm, liberty.
Well said, Leif.
Chris, I read your posts again and have to wonder if you actually understand the libertarian perspective. You said "Does he support a federal ban on abortion, though? I'm not sure, but he's a libertarian and he might." Most libertarians are not hard-lined pro-lifers and even fewer would support legislation of ANY kind attempting to regulate something like abortion through federal intervention. Maybe you knew that and it was simply a typo but I thought I would point it out.
Ron Paul is pro-life. He has actually introduced legislation that would define the moment of conception as the beginning of human life.
However, he is also a Libertarian. This means he would rather states decide contentious issues than the federal government, and he'd rather communities than states, and individuals than communities.
By trying to define life as beginning at conception, however, Paul is essentially trying to safeguard the helpless unborn against what he believes is murder, and it actually is at the federal level. Take that for whatever it's worth.
I didn't read most of this, but:
Regarding abortion: Is a fetus life? That is the question. If yes, then the destruction thereof is the same as the destruction of a human being and is inherently protected under the same laws that ban murders of adults. If no, who cares. Thus, an explicit abortion ban is unnecessary because it ought to be implicit within the definition of life. There are many pro-life libertarians who believe abortion ought to be "banned," without any need for extra legislation saying that, solely because of a proper definition of a fetus as life.
Regarding isolationism: the point has been missed here as well. Libertarians believe in open borders. Open borders are not possible for a country with distributed enemies, unless that nation seeks suicide. Either a country must give up the vast majority of its international involvement or it must give up any pretext of open borders. Ron Paul is called a libertarian. I haven't read enough to know if he truly is, but if he is, he seeks more open borders and therefore must of necessity have strong isolationist tendencies.
Finally, Dominic, given some of the views you have expressed in the past I don't see how you consider yourself a libertarian, if you do (a government aimed at protecting life and helmet laws, as specific examples). Although it has become popular for people generally to refer to themselves as such simply out of a frustration with the two mainstream parties, it is an inaccurate label in most cases.
"Libertarians believe in open borders [which] are not possible for a country with distributed enemies, unless that nation seeks suicide. Either a country must give up the vast majority of its international involvement or it must give up any pretext of open borders. I haven't read enough to know if [Ron Paul] truly is [a Libertarian], but if he is, he seeks more open borders and therefore must of necessity have strong isolationist tendencies."
I don't think this is strictly true. Market Anarchism, which many would argue is merely the logical extension of honest libertarianism (I'm still undecided on that one), does indeed advocate open borders since without a state, borders are meaningless (except when talking about the borders of private property).
Most libertarians are more accurately described as minarchists, and since they still advocate for the necessity of a state in some form, borders must exist.
Some of the reasons for strong borders, of which Ron Paul is a strong vocal supporter, are security from foreign threats both military, terrorist, and immigrant invasion. Another especially strong reason for secure borders is that the United States is a very generous welfare state, and without controls on the borders we will soon find ourselves bankrupt.
You know, I also used to think stories from Genesis were purely fictional and that smoking pot could make me think more clearly. Alas, my opinions have not been wholly consistent; thanks for taking notice. =) Clearly I am not one of those twenty-something-year-olds who thinks he has things figured out. I never called myself a libertarian in any case. Do you think I come close to fitting the profile?
Leif,
Thanks for reading and commenting here. I'm glad we're friends on facebook now, too.
I haven't read the rest of the posts, but in regards to Paul's isolationism, perhaps your description is a better one. My labeling is somewhat off these days it seems. I do maintain he is somewhat of an isolationist (as a non-interventionist inevitably must be), but I elaborated on the specifics I disagreed with him on, so I hope that the issue is clear.
I don't have time right now to respond to everything you wrote, but I would highly disagree that our involvement in Korea and Vietnam were in any way ineffective in stopping the brutal advancement of communism. Without involvement in Korea, for instance, we would not have a free South Korea (which, incidentally, has become the 2nd largest missionary sending nation in the world next to the US). And it is a hard argument to make that North Korea is no longer a threat. It would have been more so had we not been involved.
A couple other things I'd like to respond to:
He believes that a strong military is important to keep our citizens safe from those who would do them harm.
Then why does he support cutting the defense budget? The answer is, that while I agree with him on this principle 100% (who doesn't? It's an idea along the lines of "I support children not dying"... well... yeah, of course), we have very large disagreements as to when to use the military.
when you say "our interests" you seem to be referring to the government's interests.
No, I mean the collective interests of the people of the United States (i.e., the protection of US citizens).
Individual Americans would have been well served after 9/11 by better intelligence...
The intelligence was proved to be highly credible by multiple sources (Saddam's generals thought he had operational WMD's... some still think he did)
...more secure borders...
Very much agreed. This issue has been a failure thus far.
...more effective security procedures in crowded places...
That's kind of anti-libertarian, though.
I can't think of one single benefit I have enjoyed due to the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
We haven't been attacked in the US again.
Have any of our so-called "imperialist" episodes actually solved a problem (Cuba and Latin America, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, etc.)? Most of them have created self-perpetuating problems that generation after generation of Americans have to deal with.
How are the problems in any of those areas the fault of the US? That's like saying that a doctor that did surgery on a life threatening cancer patient but could only remove a little of the cancer is responsible for the patient's death.
Dominic,
Yes, a typo. My apologies. I meant to say "oppose" instead of "support." I understand the view many libertarians have on abortion.
I consider myself libertarian and wholeheartedly disagree with this stance. I believe it is inconsistent with the philosophies of liberty and the underlying principles of libertarianism.
And regarding Paul's position, thanks Leif for the info. I believe that position that you described is quite consistent with libertarian ideas.
I don't think libertarianism equates market anarchism at all. As Jordan alluded to, many call themselves "libertarian" out of frustration with Republicans and Democrats. However, the word has come to mean different things. For one, Libertarian and libertarian are two completely different words. I consider myself in the latter category, along the lines of those such as Locke, Jefferson, etc.
If you listen to some of the shows and debates in which Ron Paul has participated, a lot of the myths surrounding his "absurd libertarian ideas" disappear.
For example, he wants to cut the "defense" budget. He does not propose we do so by reducing the number of soldiers in the military or downgrading their equipment or anything of that nature. His plan focuses on actual defense. He is in no way a pacifist.
We have military installations in something like 120 countries in the world (don't quote me on the exact number). Our military is deployed on the whim of a foreign political body (the U.N.) to places which are no real threat to us (i.e. Kosovo).
You and I may have differing definitions of "threat". There is certainly room for debate. I tend towards a more narrow definition, and you may take a broader view.
Paul's idea is that our military is spread thin, and that it is used for purposes which aren't really under its purview. Paul wants to see our military consolidated and concentrated thereby increasing, not decreasing, its strength.
I do believe there can be a humanitarian application for military force (i.e. deposing Saddam because he was an evil despot) but it must come at the request of some kind of organized resistance if it is to have any chance of appearing legitimate.
These types of interventions are some of the stickiest because it means we get deeply involved in the internal political affairs of other nations. This is very dangerous policy. In places as different as the Middle East or Southeast Asia we really don't fully understand those politics. When we start interfering we can quickly make transient friends and lifelong enemies. History has shown these two groups to often be the same (Saddam and Bin Laden are good examples).
When I said
"Individual Americans would have been well served after 9/11 by better intelligence, more secure borders, more effective security procedures in crowded places."
I wasn't saying those things weren't there on 9/11, just that those are the types of things that actually would have/could have/did help.
I'm still not sure how invading Iraq prevented subsequent terrorist attacks on American soil, but we obviously don't have access to all the information we would need to really be able to tell. I suspect that going after Bin Laden has had a lot more to do with reducing the terror threat than invading Iraq. I'm open to a more detailed discussion of the topic though.
I agree wholeheartedly with the whole humanitarian stuff you said. Kosovo was, in all honesty, none of our business. We only did it because of NATO (and Clinton wanted to look strong/avert attention away from his scandal...?). It's ironic that those on the Left who oppose our efforts in Iraq call for us to send military troops to Sudan - another place we have no business. I would agree, however, that we could get involved if we were asked.
The role of the military is national defense. That means defending the US. I believe Iraq was in the defense of the US. Regarding not being attacked, I lead you to look into the number of terrorists that moved to Iraq. They have made it clear (in statements they've released, etc.) that they intend to make Iraq THE battleground. We have captured and killed numerous members of non-Iraqi terrorist groups in Iraq. Beyond that, Iraq has become a symbolic test of strength and will between America and the jihadists. For us to do something such as pull out immediately, as Paul has suggested, would encourage more terrorism on US soil. Besides, Saddam DID fund terrorist groups and was considered one himself. There is no doubt he would do what he could to attack the US when the opportunity availed itself.
I think the underlying philosophies of the role of the military are probably pretty similar between Paul and me. The way that philosophy plays out, however, is where we differ. And since Iraq is such a big issue (and us pulling out would cause very big problems), I still cannot support him in the primaries.
I wish I could remember which interview it was, but Paul did expound upon what he means by "bringing the troops home right away" and acknowledged that it can't happen overnight. It doesn't sound like Paul is a subscriber to the "cut-and-run" philosophy, but rather seeks to bring about the beginning of the end for U.S. involvement in Iraq. I'll try and dig out the source I'm remembering.
Well that's good to know. He seemed quite clear in the debates that we need to start a withdrawl immediately. That's just stupid, if you ask me. I don't think there's anyone who doesn't want to get US troops out of their policing of Iraq, however.
Here's the quote I was looking for:
Interviewer: "So you just want all the troops to come home? That's what you would do right now if you were president?"
Ron Paul: "Well, you can't do it in 24 hours, but you should design a policy of non-intervention. Why do we have troops in Korea for more than 50 years? Why do we occupy Europe? We're going broke ... We need to worry about our borders here at home, not worried about the borders around the world, between Syria and Iraq ... We ought to deal with our own national security."
Check out the YouTube video at 5:40. The rest of the clip is a good summary of Paul's politics.
Well, on that I guess I disagree with him still. Our bases in Korea are vital to our own national security. Our bases in Europe were vital during the Cold War, and still serve a role in terms of both diplomacy and forward deployment (although I wouldn't be too upset about getting rid of some of them in Europe, except that I couldn't get stationed there anymore). And to say we "occupy" Europe is pretty ridiculous.
At first thought, it sounds like a good idea to close our foreign bases and worry about ourselves--but the fact is, we need foreign bases because we worry about ourselves. If we want to be a power then we need to be able to utilize assets rapidly worldwide (I have learned a lot about this in the past couple years). Of course, we could choose to not be a world power... but again, we're really talking more of an isolationist view at this point. So it is possible that I am using the term too loosely, but I really think that if we take Paul's views to their logical conclusion, we are forced to take a much more isolationist perspective on our world. This may or may not be a good thing, that is open to debate, but regardless it is a fact.
I want to respond to the last two comments, because I feel there is something wrong there, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
If this discussion dies out, I'll try and post something on my blog instead.
Sorry for the long silence; life, you know?
Well I think what may bother you is the idea that a military should only really being utilized in war to overtly protect the United States. This is the principled idea. On the other hand, there is the practical issues, which necessitate forward presence, etc., which we have been doing since Teddy Roosevelt (and to some extent, since Jefferson, as previously mentioned). I think the principled and practical ideas cannot be mutually exclusive, and I don't think the practical need to fall out of line with the principled. It does serve to balance it, however.
That is... "there is the practical side, which necessitates..." I think that is gooder inglish.
I think my problem is this: just because something is convenient/strategic/practical, doesn't make it right. So the real question for me is, does our government have the right to be in Iraq, to invade Iran, to have bases around the world... to stick our nose into everybody else's business.
It seems to me, that our government only has the right to protect the three fundamental rights of its citizens, life, liberty, and property. It also has the right to engage in the defense of other's who request our aid. (The proper definition of defense is key for this reasoning to work.)
(The "you"s in the following paragraph are general, not referring to anyone in particular.)
To me, it makes a big difference who is the aggressor. If a bully attacks you, or you see him attack someone else, you have full legitimacy to engage in order to protect your rights or the rights of another. However, if you see someone who has a reputation as a bully walking down the street, but they haven't done anything specific or immediate to you or anyone around them, you have no right to engage. Also, similar to training a puppy, violence used to defend self or others has to be immediate. You have to respond to an immediate threat or infringement, not anticipate it, nor wait until the bully's not paying attention then sucker punch him. That makes you a coward, and no better than him.
So, the bottom line: If we're going to step in somewhere and use our military might, we need to be sure it's purely motivated by principle, and not by practicality or strategy or anything else. Is that the case in Iraq? Would that be the case in Iran?
I'm also not sure that our "regime change" policy is just even if these countries have proven ill intent towards the U.S. (which many of them definitely do). Let me elaborate.
There's a principle of self defense that says appropriate levels of force should be used when defending your self (life, liberty, property). In other words, if a bully takes your lunch money and gives you a wedgie, you're probably totally justified in socking him in the nose and taking your money back, but you would not be justified in pulling out a shotgun, blowing his head off, then plundering his home.
The attacks of 9/11 were terrible things. But we responded to those attacks by bringing about the complete annihilation of two sovereign nations. I'm not saying it wasn't justified, I'm just asking the question.
The president of Iran has stated publicly many times that we wants to see a world without the United States in it. That's blatant ill intent, but has their government done anything that has actually infringed upon the life, liberty, or property of American citizens? If so, are there ways we can prevent further infringements without engaging in an offensive war with them? Can we step up border security, immigration enforcement, intelligence gathering, missile defense, etc? If all they've done is trash talk, then I can't see how any kind of war with them would be justified.
Basically, isn't war the last resort when all other methods of preserving our citizens' life, liberty, and property have failed? Isn't the defensive protection of those rights the only justification for war?
Maybe one more analogy will help me illustrate my thoughts.
Say a bully has been verbally threatening to you, saying he's going to come into your yard and beat the snot out of you, and maybe he's even tried to trip you as you walk down the hall, or put a "kick me" sign on your back.
Are you justified in going to his house, breaking into his yard, and beating the snot out of him? It seems to me you'd only be justified in securing your own yard from intrusion (get a pit bull, or land mines), or your own person from attack (carry a tazer, or ninja stars). The only situation in which you'd be justified in actually duking it out with him is if he seeks out and initiates the fight. Once that fight has begun, you only pursue it if and until the bully relents.
Yes, sometimes the bully gets bitter and will try again, maybe when you're not looking. But does that possibility justify beating the bully senseless so he spends the rest of his days in a wheel chair, or dead, even if he did start the fight?
So the real question for me is, does our government have the right to be in Iraq, to invade Iran, to have bases around the world... to stick our nose into everybody else's business.
The obvious answer is no, this nation was not founded under these types of imperialistic principles. I think it is also obvious that our current foreign policy is no longer following the same spirit our constitution was written with.
Also, concerning Jordan's reference to the US being a "world power", I question whether this was something the Founders considered important, that is, should being or wanting to be a world power dictate our actions as a nation.
If you think about it, our rather aggressive and arrogant foreign policies actually serve undermine our country's liberty.
Leif,
I've wanted to respond (sorry for the delay) but don't really have the energy to write much of a response. I think I'm in agreement with you in the general, historical case. The problem is, that situation doesn't really apply any more. We no longer live in an era where the bully analogy you used applies to nations. India invades Kashmir and bloodies up a few villages. Pakistan invades back, bloodies up a few more. Not the end of the world. But we no longer live in such a symmetric environment. In a world of insurgencies with the very real possibility of WMD being used, you can no longer wait until after the fact to respond. With Iran now enriching uranium on an industrial scale, and North Korea already possessing limited nuclear weapons, it is only a matter of time before terrorists have free access to such weapons. No Korea and Iran (and historically China) are notorious for selling weapons to groups that openly declare their desire to attack western targets. Even today there was a report on the news about video showing Iranians bringing rockets into Iraq to be used against our troops. Anyway, back to the point--if a nuclear weapon is in the hands of terrorists we are talking about hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. You cannot just wait for that to happen and then respond. But how do you prevent it? By destroying regimes that harbor such terrorist groups. You cannot wait until they've already used the weapon.
The reason we must be a world power is simply the following:
there will be a world power. If we leave that role, someone else will fill it. If you look at the history of mankind you will have much difficulty finding a power as benevolent as the U.S. Dominic might condemn our foreign policy, calling it arrogant as Cindy Sheehan would, but it is born out of necessity.
Three options:
1. Isolationism
2. Be involved with the world, limp-wristed Democrat style.
3. Be a world power
The latter two will result in people hating us. We have our own interests. Others have theirs. If we are involved with the world then we will be at odds with someone. We will have enemies. They will attack us, whether politically, economically, or militarily. Option 2 brings this about as much as option 3. The important difference is that the latter allows us to actually preserve our existence while the former leads toward decay and ultimately our replacement by some other (probabilistically tyrannical) power. The only real options of these three then are the first and the third. Isolationism, or world power. I am open to hearing arguments for either of those--but I have not heard any arguments for the second.
Leif: our government only has the right to protect the three fundamental rights of its citizens, life, liberty, and property. It also has the right to engage in the defense of other's who request our aid.
I believe what we are currently doing does abide by these guidelines (which I also agree with). That's probably our difference.
Also, I think Bush did a poor job of explaining the reasons for the Iraq war (i.e., humanitarian reasons, etc.).
Dominic,
Please justify your use of the term "imperialistic principles" wrt Iraq.
Jordan,
You make a good point. I don't think we need to forget the principles of the role of government in this process, however (you're not suggesting this, but I wanted to elaborate on what you said). Like I mentioned, our involvement in places like Iraq DOES fit within the guidelines Leif set forth.
The issue is that, in today's world, the actions that necessitate defense of ones country are different. In the past, you would wait until there was an attack. Today, since one attack can be so massive, the threat of an attack can be sufficient grounds for taking action.
Look at the list of countries we declared war on in WWII. Were we attacked by all of them? Certainly not. But they were allied with our enemies, and as such, we had justification to declare war. By that rule, since Saddam was certainly allied (not officially, but in principle - and this has been well documented) with Islamic terrorist forces, we had justification to make war on him as well.
Chris,
I don't know what wrt means. These "to be in Iraq, to invade Iran, to have bases around the world... to stick our nose into everybody else's business" generally speaking, are imperialistic practices. (No Jordan, not absolutely, I'm saying these practices are often imperialistic in nature.)
Furthermore, thinking we could tear apart a country with deeply entrenched Islamic roots and establish a new democratic government in its place was arrogant, imperialistic, and foolish. That decision, as time has and will continue to show us, was short-sighted.
I'm not convinced that Iraq was a horrendously dangerous threat to us in 2002 like we were led to believe.
As an aside, I really have no opinion about future directions concerning Iraq, I'm trusting the current leadership. However, I think our initial actions in Iraq were a mistake.
Also, playing this card "reasons for the Iraq war ... humanitarian reasons" is silly.
Perhaps some of my words come off a bit too condemning. Honestly, when in really comes down to it, I don't know "the truth" concerning this stuff anymore than you do.
wrt = with respect to
Knowing the truth requires informing oneself and thinking things through. I have tried to do this. To say that neither of us knows it anyone than the other is a cop out argument.
My point:
We can only honestly debate about what we know. We can't know the entire truth concerning these matters so I/we should not use condemning language as if we knew all of the facts.
Ok, I understand what you're saying (re: not using condemning language). Thanks. However, what I have said I said because I believe it to be true. I'm not "guessing" at anything, and I think the discussion is worthwhile when parties speak from an informed opinion. The "fix" is not to not discuss, but to think the issue through, read up on it, and have informed convictions. I hope the discussion here helps to that end.
Sure, I am reasonably informed about this and stand buy everything I have said, I just didn't want to come off as judgmental; I'm emphasizing this is what I believe.
So basically the discussion has boiled down to this: is a preemptive strike by our government justified in the defense its citizens' rights or not?
You said we can't use the bully analogy because the magnitude of possible attacks is far more serious than a wedgie and a kick-me sign, or even a kick in the gut. With the possibility of terrorists getting their hands on WMDs, the stakes are raised too high to wait for an attack.
So, let me try another analogy: The bully at school threatens to get a gun, and murder you in your sleep. To make the analogy work for U.S. foreign policy, let's ignore the obvious solution: call the cops. There are no cops to mediate between nations (though maybe there should be; Heinlein's Space Cadet, anyone?). Are you justified in buying a gun yourself, and killing the bully before he has a chance to make good on his threat?
I would say no. You have the right to get better locks on your house, bullet proof glass/vest, hire a body guard, drive in an armored car, etc. You don't have a right to murder someone.
To relate this back to our topic, I believe the proper response to the threat of attack from terrorists, even terrorists with WMDs, is to increase our defensive capabilities. Control our borders, know who comes in, increase intelligence gathering abilities, develop a missile defense system, arm the citizenry, ditch the "diversity is god" mentality and unify Americans under our common bond - the American dream of freedom and self-determination.
The underlying philosophy from which I'm deriving my stance here, is that the individual has the highest value of all elements of society. As such, groups (governments, clubs, churches, etc.) are all merely collections of individuals, and have no rights that the individuals who make it up don't have. This is why I chose to illustrate my point with an analogy on the individual level. I maintain that if it isn't right for an individual, it can never be right for a group of individuals simply because its population is greater than 1.
I should add that I am not a pacifist. In the analogy, I would maintain that our protagonist also has the right to shoot back if shot at, even up to and including killing the bully.
I think we agree on principle. I don't think your analogy fits the situation with Iraq, though.
A better analogy would be a bully who has threatened to kill you for many years. He has sought weapons to do this, has shot at your house (although not killing anyone), and has had dealings with the same gang that murdered your brother. You have tried to talk it out with him for a long time. In fact, you had a skirmish with him years ago when he tried to kill another person who asked for your help, which you won. He agreed to not be so aggressive and get rid of his weapons. When you tried to check to see if he did get rid of his weapons (which he had been bragging about and no one denied he did have them at one time), he would only let you look in his kitchen. His own family (some of whom he abused - and some who had been asking for your help) suspected he still had them, and every bit of evidence pointed to it. If he used these weapons just once, your other brother would be killed instantly, and you have every reason to believe that he intends to do this by selling the weapons to the gang that killed your brother. In fact, he has been paying others to kill your neighbors. You have allied with others from the community and have asked him to stop repeatedly. He says he will but never does. Now, after that first brother of yours has been killed, you tell him he has such and such a time to get out of town. He refuses. Are you justified in breaking into his house and restraining him?
I think that's a better analogy.
Two things I thought I'd throw out there.
1) Iraq was not a significant threat to the US in 2002. (Have I said this before?) I think it would have been more appropriate to classify Saddam and his regime as a nuisance rather than the worst terroristic threat to the US.
2) The majority of the violence in Iraq today in generated by insurgents and sectarian conflicts, not the terrorist network Al-Queda. The majority of the munitions, bombers, and Al-Queda members travel from OTHER counties (especially Saudi Arabia) into Iraq. The presence of US forces has effectively brought the conflict into Iraq where, relatively speaking, non existed before.
Also, Leif, I like the point you brought up about the individual.
(2) The conflict has existed for over a thousand years, actually. Iraq has brought those who were trying to attack the west to the forefront. It's a pretty hard argument to say we "caused" any of the violence in any way (besides, compared to what Saddam was doing, less people are dying in Iraq today...). That's like complaining about a surgeon "causing" his patient to bleed because he has to make an incision to do the procedure.
(1)&(2) Read the opinions of many before 2003, as well as the evidence we had that made us initially go into Iraq, and you will find that what you're saying is along the lines of someone saying during WWII, "Hitler was never really a threat to the US." Regardless, no one said Saddam was the worst (a word that needs clarification) threat, only that the threat he posed was the easiest to take care of at the time, and it was necessary to do so. He was taken care of, and the result of Iraq has consolidated other threats so that we may fight the war on Islamic fanatics in one place at one time. It was either there (a country already oppressed by Saddam), or here.
Chris,
I agree with some of what you said (the conflict always existed and Saddam was the the easiest to take care of) but my last comments were rather objective statements; I wasn’t really making any point. But anyway, I never meant to imply we “caused” the conflict but we sure haven’t “made anything better.” I think civilian deaths are estimated at about 100,000+ so far.
Iraq has consolidated other threats so that we may fight the war on Islamic fanatics in one place at one time
Are you serious?!
(Also, no offense, but I think it might be a good idea to just kind of avoid making analogies about things… still…)
This brings up another related question: why do they hate us so?
At the moment, I don't buy the whole "totally irrational hate for all things American or white" theory. It seems woefully inadequate to explain what is going on in the Muslim world.
So the question remains: what exactly do they hate about us? Does it date back to European interference in the middle-east during the crusades? Is it because they envy our wealth and power? Is it because Budweiser and reality TV offend their religious sensibilities?
Or is it because we've been on both sides of every conflict in the area at least once? Nearly every individual has a personal reason to hate Americans, because they see us as responsible for the personal tragedy in their lives. It's not just one side who's against us; it's everybody. We've alienated the whole lot of them through our arrogance, our pride, and our "bull-in-the-china-shop" dealings with their own internal affairs. This is a great way to make everyone your enemy, and seems like a much more plausible explanation for the vitriol they express towards us.
If this is the case, then non-interference is the solution, and we don't want them all coming after us in Iraq or anywhere else. Getting out will satisfy their rage.
If there is no reason, if they want Americans dead just because, then there can never be a political solution, and we should just declare total war against anyone anywhere with that world view.
Right now, we're doing neither. We're riding the fence, neither committing absolutely to the irradiation of Islamo-fascism, nor leaving these people to determine their own fate.
We're like a kid picking at a nasty unhealed scab, neither going to the doctor to get it excised, nor leaving it be to heal on its own. In either reality, (they hate us for our interference, or they hate us because), what we're doing now is worse than just not helping the situation; it's actually making things worse.
Despite my harping on the same side of the argument here, I'm truly undecided what is right. You are all free to try and convince me.
vitriol
Word of the day.
Personally, I think this conflict goes hand in hand with Islamic fundamentalism. The only lasting solution would be to eliminate Islam. The conflict probably started around Genesis 27. Also, read Habakkuk 1 for an interesting description of the Chaldeans.
Politically, I don't know either. I would lean towards the non-interference side of things. Although, I don't know if they would ever leave Israel alone.
Just as an off-the-cuff remark, I think Israel has shown themselves to be quite capable of taking care of themselves. We do more to hinder them than to help them... again, an improper level of interference, in my opinion.
And another off-the-cuff remark, Israel has some of the most influential lobbying groups in this country, especially with respect to the US government.
(Also, no offense, but I think it might be a good idea to just kind of avoid making analogies about things… still…)
We've already talked about this. I don't know how to make this topic any clearer.
If you didn't have a point, why share that stuff?
Leif,
Why did Muslims bomb Spain?
Also, the Muslims invaded Europe first. Yes, there were many false reasons for battle, and many atrocious things happened. But the crusades are long past, and you can't blame anything on them today.
I would lean towards the non-interference side of things.
Sure. I agree. But they interfered with us.
Sarah (which Sarah are you? I can't see your profile),
We haven't been involved with Israel beyond what they have asked. They have helped us too. If we should be less involved with Israel, we should also be less involved with countries like England.
Getting out will satisfy their rage.
How? History has shown just the opposite.
Sarah is me, actually. I was signed in with Betsy's account by accident when I posted that comment. Lol. Oops!
"Or is it because we've been on both sides of every conflict in the area at least once? ... If this is the case, then non-interference is the solution, and we don't want them all coming after us in Iraq or anywhere else. Getting out will satisfy their rage."
Don't forget the "if" at the beginning of that statement. I could also have said "getting out and staying out".
Oh, ok. That makes sense, then. I just don't think that's the reason - not that it is irrelevant in any way (I think it is relevant), but that the problem would still exist without that history. Also, a lot of our response (including other western countries) in the Middle East has been reactionary, not initiating (initiary?... I can make up words too), so to put that blame on us is to ignore history.
Jordan,
I thought your "3 options" were a bit too tidy and convenient but I didn't really care to start a debate about whether the choices you created were accurate. However, I read this excellent short column on Ron Paul's website today that reminded me of your entry. (Sorry for the long post, links to this don't work.)
Exposing the True Isolationists
July 23, 2007
Last week, I wrote about the ideology of globalism and how it underlies certain government policies. Managed trade agreements, international military adventurism, and amnesty for illegal immigrants all emanate from this ideology.
Yet globalism has a consequence that is, if we are to believe the rhetoric of its greatest proponents, entirely unintended. Globalists often label those of us who resist their schemes as “isolationist.” Yet it is, somewhat remarkably, the globalists themselves who promote policies that isolate our nation from the rest of the world.
In terms of modern politics, isolationism is not so much an approach to American foreign policy as it is the result of the policies enacted by proponents of globalism. From offensive statements about “Old Europe” (as differentiated from “New Europe”), necessitated by the desire to justify a military presence in Iraq, to conflicts at the WTO, the flowery rhetoric of the neo-conservatives often takes vicious turns when unrealistic policies meet with reality.
In their hopes to remake the world in their image, the globalist elite who run much of America’s policy-making apparatus simply further isolate our country from the rest of the world. By claiming a moral superiority that is so evidently absent when the effects of their policies are witnessed, neo-conservatives have made America seem hypocritical to many abroad.
America is now held in low esteem in many nations, not because we follow our own interests, but because the elites make claims that are not reflected in reality. They have, for example, undertaken economic sanctions in an entirely new way in recent years. When they wanted to take aim at Iraq and Iran, they imposed sanctions against those countries, but also against countries doing business with those countries. This meant we were in no position to negotiate with our adversaries, and we also could not rely on support from our allies.
Yet this globalism often bumps into itself, because of our second party sanctions against Iran, our international commitments to the space station, for example, were put into jeopardy. Also consider the fiasco that happened as a result of sanctions on Iraq. Thousands of Iraqi children starved to death, causing (according to the 9/11 commission report) great resentment against America, yet some managed trade was allowed to continue, managed of course by the globalists in the UN oil for food program. This program resulted in yet another UN scandal.
Despite the protestations of the neo-conservatives, this UN program is not the only example of personal enrichment that comes to the mind of those who doubt America’s authenticity due to these policies. Does anybody remember Richard Perle’s resignation from the defense policy board?
To reset the debate in a way that reflects reality, it is important for us to reject the idea that the choice is between globalism and isolation. Instead we must stand firm for national sovereignty, constitutional republicanism and international cooperation. We should realize that America’s current isolation is simply a consequence of globalism gone awry.
here
Thanks? I would recommend reading some of the other columns at ronpaul.org (where I originally found this one), especially under the section called Texas Straight Talk, excellent stuff.
I am always fascinated by the ability of politicians to say absolutely nothing. The column you posted appears to do so. I am not opposed to Ron Paul, but his essay says nothing. "No, the choice is not between globalization and isolationism...uhhh...it just isn't."
As far as my three categories are concerned, there is nothing "too convenient" or simplistic about them. They required no special reading, no twisting of words. They simply stem from facts and 3 seconds of logical thought. They should be obvious to everyone. I'm not sure why it's a controversy to you. I guess this methodology of analysis is what I have been paid to do for the last two years, so maybe I am assuming things are obvious that can only be seen with practice...but I doubt it.
I should also add that most everything related to philosophy and ideals is "tidy," "convenient," and "simplistic" in every case where logic is used. It is only with the ambiguity of words (intentional or otherwise) and man's own deceit that reality deviates from pure, simple theory.
Jordan,
What you said seemed obvious to me, and I get paid to regurgitate and apply information in stressful environments without thinking.
Anyway, I think you are right in saying that this article doesn't really say much, except for accuse America's policies as killing Iraqi children. The reasoning behind that idea is simply absurd. If we had traded freely with Saddam, he would have built more palaces. In fact, we DID try to trade with him in the Oil for Food fiasco (as Paul's notes). All this did was give Saddam more money. Free trade is not free when the other side doesn't allow for it.
But, in all honesty, I really don't understand what Paul is advocating here. It seems like a generic anti-neo-con rant. Maybe I'm missing something...
I understand that you would like to see some more substance in these kind of political writings, however, I don’t believe these short columns are written with extensive details in mind, like the kind you’re looking for. They are designed to provide a simple perspective. I guarantee that if you searched for some of Ron Paul’s writings you would find plenty of articles that “say something” about this exact topic, just be prepared to read.
Anyways, this is one of the points I appreciated “it is important for us to reject the idea that the choice is between globalism and isolation”. You say the choice is to be a world power (I assume we agree this falls under the category of globalism), something that can’t work, or isolationism. It is very simple to understand and believe me when I say I understand your methodology; it’s just not applied appropriately in this case. He’s not saying that we must make a choice between the two. He makes the point that the globalist approach actually produces the isolationism these same people are rejecting. The argument, consequently, is not productive. You need to think about the problem differently.
On another note, regarding the type of methodology you speak of, I have a challenge of sorts for you. While it may be difficult or inappropriate to apply this methodology to things like disagreements amongst individuals or politics, it is certainly appropriate to use it when it comes to topics like science or the Bible. So my question is, “What should a local church look like?” Using this methodology, there are 3 simple, logical conclusions. First, you could say, God often speaks about and to local churches so there must also be a divine order or “blueprint” for these churches, if God, in fact, is claiming ownership. Two, the idea of a local church is unimportant, while they may have their uses, they exist for man and not for God. Three, a mixture of the two, dictated primarily by what seems to be most reasonable by the people who attend them.
"Three options:
1. Isolationism
2. Be involved with the world, limp-wristed Democrat style.
3. Be a world power"
I don't think these are the only choices, and the fact that you've boiled the debate down to these three options belies some substantial assumptions on your part that other's may not be making.
First of all, you break interactions with the outside world into two basic categories:
1. Rejecting all contact with the outside world, i.e. isolationism. This is clearly an impossibility (except for the odd mountain hermit) and therefore serves only as a red herring to the debate.
2. Adopting an interventionist policy towards other sovereign nations, either militarily, what you call being a "world power", or diplomatically, what you call "limp-wristed democrat style".
The assumption you're making is that American interactions with the outside world must be either military or diplomatic. As a libertarian flirting with anarcho-capitalism, I don't believe the government should have a role in most of what Americans do, if any. This philosophy applies to foreign relations as well as domestic issues.
According to such a philosophy, individual freedom of choice and action is what determines relations between individuals or groups. If I'm moved by the plight of villagers in Darfur, I am free to give time and money to charities I think could help, I'm free to open up business negotiations with the leaders there in an effort to influence their culture and way of life, I'm free to adopt orphaned kids into my family, I'm free to travel there and take up arms in defense of the defenseless.
In other words, there is a third option besides isolationism and interventionism: letting individual Americans influence the world by example. The idea is simple. Americans should conduct themselves in an honest, honorable, and prosperous fashion which causes other individuals to want to be Americans, or be like Americans. In this way we can inspire others to love liberty as we do, and when that happens, the politics of the earth with change.
As an illustration, imagine that Americans had outsourced labor or services to the middle-east like we have with China, India, and Mexico. Iraq would be full of strong industries, it would have a strong and growing economy, it would be intimately tied to America (not isolationism!) but not through military might, or diplomatic blustering. Iraq would be tied to America through prosperity. Saddam couldn't have risked upending his economy by threatening U.S. business interests, or by offending our sense of human rights and liberty. His regime would have been intimately tied to us with no U.S. government being involved, and none needed.
This is the key to Paul's point. Human beings are created to experience liberty, and once we taste it, we can never be content without it. This is why the most potent weapon we have in our struggle with those who would harm us, is our prosperity. If we can spread our prosperity and liberty to other countries, simply by being free, those who taste of it will not stop pursuing it until it is theirs also. Tyrants can't rule by force a people who will not stand for it. It is our job to change the basic human condition into one that cannot suffer a tyrant simply by it's most basic philosophy of liberty.
Chris,
I think your "better analogy" is a good one. Like I said before, I'm not a pacifist, and I'm not opposed to military action if it can be morally justified. If individual Americans are attacked by a group, it is morally justified for Americans to band together (in the form of the government or military) for the purpose of engaging and eliminating the ability of that group to harm Americans further.
Anyways, this is one of the points I appreciated “it is important for us to reject the idea that the choice is between globalism and isolation”
Yes, Ron Paul did write that--and then he did nothing to justify it, that's my point. It is just a plain assertion with no philosophical argument as to why. Again, I am not fundamentally opposed to a Ron Paul candidacy, but this is a very poor essay and it makes him sound more like all the other blah politicians who say nothing than anything else.
He’s not saying that we must make a choice between the two. ... The argument, consequently, is not productive. You need to think about the problem differently.
No I don't--rather, he needs to justify his argument. Mine is based in fundamental theory and logic. His may or may not be--i.e., he hasn't lent us any reasoning as to why his assertion is true.
While it may be difficult or inappropriate to apply this methodology to things like disagreements amongst individuals or politics, it is certainly appropriate to use it when it comes to topics like science or the Bible.
I don't think you understand the analytical methodology of which I speak. You seem to think it merely consists of a list of three, since that is the only thing in common with your local church analysis and my globalization one.
1. Rejecting all contact with the outside world, i.e. isolationism. This is clearly an impossibility (except for the odd mountain hermit) and therefore serves only as a red herring to the debate.
Actually it is quite possible, for all practical purposes. If you don't agree I don't think we're talking about the same thing.
In other words, there is a third option besides isolationism and interventionism: letting individual Americans influence the world by example.
No, I think you have muddled two separate things. We are, or at least were, talking about philosophy of government. There is absolutely nothing about an isolationist government that precludes its citizens from being involved internationally. You've made up a separate category for something that's already included in governmental isolationism.
As an illustration, imagine that Americans had outsourced labor or services to the middle-east like we have with China, India, and Mexico. Iraq would be full of strong industries, it would have a strong and growing economy, it would be intimately tied to America (not isolationism!) but not through military might, or diplomatic blustering. Iraq would be tied to America through prosperity. Saddam couldn't have risked upending his economy by threatening U.S. business interests, or by offending our sense of human rights and liberty.
It is interesting that we both describe ourselves as "libertarians leaning anarcho-capitalists" because we believe quite differently on this issue. Without any offense intended I have to say that the above seems like the height of naivety. You truly believe that tyrants will go away if we trade with them? This is mind-boggling to me. You believe that the genocide of the Jews in WWII would have been averted if we had traded with Hitler? That the tens of millions who were rounded up and executed by Stalin and Mao would have lived out their days in peace if we had held hands with those particular tyrants? Saddam didn't care about his economy. That's the point--his wealth was based entirely on his natural resource of oil, and he was able to build somewhere upwards of 30 palaces for himself while many of his people starved to death--because he controlled that one source of wealth by force.
Evil exists. I know we agree on that. But apparently we disagree on how to handle--I think it ought to be destroyed like a cancer as quickly as possible before it can destroy innocents whereas, correct me if I'm wrong, you think evil will quit killing innocents if we treat it as if it isn't killing innocents.... Please expound on your reasoning if I am in any way misstating your argument.
100 comments.
Jordan,
I think your last point was very good.
Leif,
Regarding that, I believe that us "exporting" our freedom is very powerful. However, the arguments you propose seem to suppose that everyone in the world logically seeks their own financial good. Some do, which is where anarcho-capitalism is effective. Unfortunately, however, much of the world seeks something else (power, influence, the glory of Allah). They don't "play by the rules" and as such cannot be treated by those same rules.
Yes, we need to "export our prosperity" to others, but if we don't kill the bad guys, which requires our government being involvement in the world, it will never work.
---
By the way, I just selected P-3's for flying for the Navy.
I want to reiterate again that I believe in military action if it can be morally justified. I think Chris did a good job of justifying our involvement in Iraq with his revised analogy.
I'm trying to make a broader point that maybe such interventions wouldn't become necessary if we adopted a different attitude about our interactions with the rest of the world.
"No, I think you have muddled two separate things. We are, or at least were, talking about philosophy of government. There is absolutely nothing about an isolationist government that precludes its citizens from being involved internationally. You've made up a separate category for something that's already included in governmental isolationism ... It is interesting that we both describe ourselves as 'libertarians leaning anarcho-capitalists' because we believe quite differently on this issue."
Being a libertarian, I believe that society is primarily shaped (and should be) by individuals interacting with one another in a mutually beneficial voluntary way. This applies to both domestic society and global society. In order to spread our ideals of liberty and self-determination, we engage in personal interactions with foreign individuals, not by encouraging our government to topple regimes, set up puppet governments, impose sanctions, etc.
"Without any offense intended I have to say that the above seems like the height of naivety. You truly believe that tyrants will go away if we trade with them? This is mind-boggling to me. You believe that the genocide of the Jews in WWII would have been averted if we had traded with Hitler? That the tens of millions who were rounded up and executed by Stalin and Mao would have lived out their days in peace if we had held hands with those particular tyrants?"
I believe you are misunderstanding my point here. I'm not suggesting that the U.S. government make nicey-nicey with tyrants. Tyrants should suffer the swift and terrible retribution of those they opress. I'm suggesting that if we want to get rid of tyrants permanently (an ideal, I'll admit), we need to create the kind of world which will not tolerate them rather than continuing to combat them in an endless battle.
Nazism in WWII era Germany is an extreme example of what can happen at the end of the political spectrum opposite libertarianism. Nationalism is a type of collectivism, the belief that the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. This kind of philosophy actually encourages tyrants by making absolute power over a people an attainable goal through a strong, centralized authority (usually government, sometimes religeon).
In contrast, libertarianism values individuality above all else. In a truly libertarian society it would be impossible for a tyrant to take power because there would be no power for them to take, no mechanism (a strong, centralized, nationalistic government) by which they could influence and control all men.
And this is really the point. If we want to end tyranny, we need to encourage societies to evolve towards the libertarian ideal. This can never be a top-down process (since government involvement is actually the antithesis of libertarian philosophy), but must come out of the personal interactions of individuals with eachother. It's the government's job to stay out of the way.
I do believe this process is achievable. Vietnam is a great example. Despite our bloody history with Vietnam, and their destructive run-in with French Colonialism, there are no Vietnamese terrorists who want to kill Americans or Westerners in general. Vietnamese society isn't hell-bent on destroying ours. It's because we backed off, and stopped interfering with the internal affaris of another nation.
Did they end up communist? Yes. Has that ever been a problem for us? No. Is communism a crapy model for society? Yes. Will it take American intervention to eliminate communism in Vietnam? No. Check out the wiki article on the Economy of Vietnam to see how all on their own the libertarian philosophy of a free market and a free people is beginning to take hold. Though still nominally a communist state, Vietnam is becoming more and more libertarianized (see, I can make up words too!) as the people taste freedom. Do you think a planned economy could ever take hold in Vietnam again? I think not.
What we're doing in Iraq with regards to "spreading democracy" is a naieve and arrogant blunder. As I said before, I think Chris has explained well how the invasion of Iraq was justified in the defense of Americans, but this whole political issue is something else entirely.
Humans were made for freedom. Does it matter that Vietnam is a communist state instead of an American-style democratic one? No, because their people want freedom all on their own, and once they taste it they can never go back. As such, would it matter if Iraq was monarchist, communist, tribal, or theocratic? No.
That's not to say Americans can't assist in the process of libertarianization(!). What I'm suggesting is that a war fought by individual Americans with ideas for arms would be far more effective long-term than the military war we're fighting now. Giving people a taste of freedom is all that's required to ensure they strive for it the rest of their days, and won't abide anyone who could threaten what liberty they've gained.
Chris, the Orion?
Yes, the Orion. You know much about it?
I think you err when you confuse cultural contexts. The Vietnamese don't have suicide bombers in America because it's not part of the culture. There was much more involved than simply us leaving. If we leave Iraq, we will only encourage more of these actions (as it is quite clear from history that when we retreat from countries because of terrorism, it encourages it even more), and since these actions extend to our shores, there is no reason to assume they will not continue even more so.
Also, I think the differences again come to idealism versus practicality. Not that the 2 need to oppose each other - rather, I believe they serve to balance one another. Unfortunately, the world we live in does not exist purely of people logically seeking their own financial gain. Libertarianism, in many regards, is a utopian philosophy - one that should be sought wrt governments, but one that should also be checked with the specifics of the world we live in.
It's nice to think that the individual (in regards to government) is most important, but many individuals desire comfort (or other things such as power, prestige, etc.) over freedom. Because this exists in our world, the perfect ideal can never exist. It should be sought for, but cannot be counted on. It's just like in engineering, where one seeks to have 100% efficiency, even though they know it's not possible, and they acknowledge they almost always have to give up efficiency due to other constraints (i.e., cost). The world is much better seen as an engineering problem (where imperfection is accepted and acknowledged) rather than a physics one (where perfection is required).h
Jordan,
Ok, this short column didn’t include enough supported reasoning to thoroughly convince most skeptics of his position. Agreed. I’ve told you I don't think that is the objective here. His objective is to provide a perspective, a different way to think about the problem. I think Leif has done a fine job at explaining some of what Paul simply alluded to. I really like these short columns because they allow the reader to draw their own conclusions/solution without being spoon-fed the rest of the details.
I mean, to me, this "I should also add that most everything related to philosophy and ideals is "tidy," "convenient," and "simplistic" in every case where logic is used. It is only with the ambiguity of words (intentional or otherwise) and man's own deceit that reality deviates from pure, simple theory." sounds like a bunch of conjecture to me. However, I’m not going demand that you elaborate on your reasoning for such a claim. Are you rejecting the points that Paul is making here or are you just dissatisfied with the column?
I honestly wanted to see how you would apply an analytical methodology to the idea of a local church. Surely there must be a right answer. I think my three groups have objectively characterized nearly all possibilities. 1) Scripture speaks of a specific church 2) Scripture speaks of no church 3) Scripture speaks of a church but it doesn’t matter what it is.
I really like these short columns because they allow the reader to draw their own conclusions/solution without being spoon-fed the rest of the details.
That works great for poetry, but this is political philosophy.
Chris,
I was going to let this one die but since, well, it hasn’t, I thought this was a rather naïve thing to say.
Iraq has consolidated other threats so that we may fight the war on Islamic fanatics in one place at one time.
?
I don't understand your point. That statement is factually true. Even the Islamists have declared that the battle between them and the West is in Iraq.
So when you say “consolidated other threats” you mean that the Islamic threat in other counties has decreased because of this invasion? Like the “terrorist supply” is going to be all used up globally and they’ll have to quit? And did you also say the war on Islamic fanatics is focused only in Iraq now? There is evidence to support these claims?
I never said "only," but yes, the war between Islamists and the west is focused in Iraq right now. Everyone involved agrees on this. If we lose there, we will only embolden our enemies. No, it doesn't mean all the terrorists will be killed if we just kill the ones in Iraq. But it does mean that our success there will help to kill off the Islamic movement, since most of them have focused their attention there with both personnel in country and their ideology.
Alright...
Sometimes there's only one way to learn.
Dominic,
Your comments don't make sense. Without any evidence or reasoning, you challenged a point I made as being illegitimate, to which I pointed out its legitimacy, to which you made a remark about falling.
Leif,
You said: libertarianism values individuality above all else. In a truly libertarian society it would be impossible for a tyrant to take power because there would be no power for them to take, no mechanism (a strong, centralized, nationalistic government) by which they could influence and control all men.
I completely agree with what you eloquently wrote, and have used similar words in countless debates and discussions. I don't think we have a disagreement philosophically. The issue is, given the philosophy to which we both adhere, what is and isn't consistent with it. We possibly diverge on the pragmatics, but not the theory. So the theoretical discussions in this thread are largely made up of preachers preaching to their own choirs...not that I'm totally opposed to that.
Thus, a governmentally isolationist country can still have citizens involved internationally, meaning that your extra category is not necessary. It is that point I'd hoped you would address.
Dominic said:
I understand that you would like to see some more substance in these kind of political writings, however, I don’t believe these short columns are written with extensive details in mind, like the kind you’re looking for.
You are equating substance with details. That is false. In general, I am looking for fewer details, not more. The problem with the Paul essay is that he excretes some rhetoric and never backs it up with reasonable evidence. He could have given an overarching theme in a paragraph. Length is not necessary, and is generally not preferred.
They are designed to provide a simple perspective.
If that is the goal then he failed. It is inane rhetoric without a simple, overarching theme, an assertion without support.
Chris,
You're right, my comments couldn't possibly be right. Maybe this would have been a more appropriate picture?
Jordan,
Ok, my bad. It's too bad words limit our communication so much. If only there was a way to understand one another without perfect language! Sigh.
If you are uncomfortable answering these questions, that's fine, I was only hoping they would serve to put us on the same page.
Ok, my bad. It's too bad words limit our communication so much...
Only when the words are not used correctly. That is why being clear and specific in what you say is vitally important. Jordan has posted on his blog:
"There is no greater impediment to the advancement of knowledge than the ambiguity of words." -Thomas Reid
I think there is a lot of truth in that statement.
It is not a matter of me being uncomfortable.
Is Ron Paul right or what?
Post a Comment
<< Home