Ron Paul For President...of What?

Updated: Response to commentators at the end. Updated again at 8:47 a.m. 12/31/07.

I've watched, and participated in, this primary campaign with an acute feeling of disappointment in almost everyone involved. The coverage has been overwhelmingly superficial, focusing on the gaffe of the moment, or the fund-raising acumen of the candidates, or on conflicting and meaningless polls. Very little attention is paid to anything of substance. I want to know what a candidate's qualifications are, and how to weigh them.

Ron Paul is a candidate who has gotten a lot of attention, compared with his poll numbers. A lot of that has to do with his record-breaking efforts at fund-raising, clearly an indication of a loyal support base, as are the army of Ron Paul commentators on this and other blogs, who weigh in with their support no matter what subject is being discussed. The poll numbers don't measure the zeal of respondents, and there will surely be no Ron Paul supporters staying home on election day, so I expect he'll do better than those numbers indicate. He's been tarred by association with certain of his supporters.

I care little about any of this. I want to evaluate Ron Paul based on the merits of his own argument, something I think is the first step we should all take in evaluating any candidate. If you don't know what they're trying to accomplish, how can you evaluate their ability to accomplish it, or whether you want it accomplished? So, join me for a tour through Ron Paul's policy positions. One of the things I really like about Paul is his immunity to simplistic, butt-headed arguments, exemplified by his defense of his anti-war positions at the Republican debates. Similarly, a lot of Paul opponents employ hyperbole about his positions, as if he intends to carry them out to their most extreme conclusion. It's a tactic common to political campaigns, and it does the process a big disservice. The word on Ron Paul is that he intends to completely dismantle the Federal Government, while adopting a purely isolationist foreign policy. Let's examine his real positions, and form our opinions based on those, shall we?

Foreign Policy - "No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution... Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised...Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations."

I agree with 100% of this, with a caveat on the trade details. Why is it still an open question in this country as to whether the Congress is needed to declare war? Are we still debating the sum of 2 plus 2? (hint: it ain't 22) Ron Paul's straight talk about the war is probably what most Americans who've heard of him know him for. Rudy Giuliani tried to tar him in the debates by saying that his accurate analysis of foreign polocy blowback amounted to saying that we brought the attacks of 9/11 on ourselves. I think Americans are too smart for that kind of "duck, duck, GOOSE!" game. None of the victims of the terrorist attacks were involved in formulating Middle-Eastern policy, that I'm aware of.

Taxes - " Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending... We cannot continue to allow private banks, wasteful agencies, lobbyists, corporations on welfare, and governments collecting foreign aid to dictate the size of our ballooning budget. We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It's called the Constitution of the United States."

He's referring to a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Look, if you're a fiscal conservative, you probably love the sound of this. I'm not part of the audience for this. I believe in cutting wasteful spending, but I also believe the government has a larger set of responsibilities than Paul does. More on that later. I would support a balanced-budget amendment if those responsibilities were also so codified. There's no reason we can't do both. (See also "Taxes and Tips", a position that is sure to please Steve Buscemi)

Immigration - Ron Paul has a six point plan. Not one of them addresses companies that employ undocumented workers. That, plus the fact that Paul's trade policies do nothing to address wages or working conditions in these workers' home countries make this a losing position for me, but one that's sure to appeal to the conservative base.

Reproductive Freedom - While many Republicans cloak their hostility toward reproductive choice in "State's Rights" euphemisms, Paul is openly hostile to the notion of choice.

" In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life."

While I respect Dr. Paul's, and anyone's, deep personal struggle with this issue, and for having the courage to actually spell out his opposition in legislative deed, I must disagree with his position, as most Americans do.

Privacy - "The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens' personal matters."

He goes on to enumerate threats to privacy, such as the PATRIOT Act. I could not agree more.

Healthcare - "The federal government decided long ago that it knew how to manage your health care better than you and replaced personal responsibility and accountability with a system that puts corporate interests first. Our free market health care system that was once the envy of the world became a federally-managed disaster."

His plan basically involves reducing Federal regulation, and tax cuts. None of the candidates have gotten the healthcare question right, but this is just inadequate. Stil, his position is consistent, and for the type of plan it is, not bad.

Education - "I support giving educational control back to parents, who know their children better than any politician in D.C. ever will."

This to a nation that made Sanjaya Malakar a star. A key reason why we need free and fair public education is that most people, having to pay for education, could not and many just wouldn't bother. The kids can't make their parents pay.

Free education is vital to an informed and empowered electorate. Paul's plan of tax cuts and State control would aggravate already glaring imbalances in our education system. I agree that the current system is inadequate. I disagree strongly with his solution. If he proposed to fully fund "educational choice". I'd be on board, but a tax cut to someone who doesn't make enough to pay taxes isn't going to help.

I encourage you to visit his site, make up your mind for yourself. Having read everything that Ron Paul wants me to know about him, I would not vote for him. I believe that government has an obligation to help its citizens do more than just police them. Although Paul doesn't support dismantling the entire government, the reductions he does call for would leave a government unable to carry out even the duties he ascribes to it.

I do think that his unvarnished views on important issues of liberty would be a great asset to whatever administration takes over from the current resident of 1600. It is obvious from the zeal and loyalty of his supporters that he speaks for many who feel they do not have a voice in our current government.

Update: I forgot to say, to all the Ron Paul supporters, while I have you here, please, if you're leaving a comment on a non-Paul related story, please comment on that story and then say "Ron Paul For President!" We work really hard on these stories, it's just good manners to let on you've actually read them.

Here's my comment, in case you have trouble finding it in the thread. This is as of 10:59 pm 12/29/07.

Wow.I knew I'd get a lot of comments, but this is incredible. First of all, I am gratified that so many of you judged my piece to be fair, that was my primary intention. I want to address a couple of commentators very briefly, because I stand by my analysis and opinion and don't want to belabor them. What matters is your opinion, and that it is well-formed and well-informed.
Several of you took exception to my analysis of his position on education. Let me clarify. While many of Ron Paul's positions work wonderfully in the abstract, when put into practice they would be acted upon by outside forces. His education plan would cause de facto segregation by economic class at best, and a permanent, uneducated underclass at worst. Someone asked if I thought the government could do a better job than parents in making educational decisions. My answer is yes, some of them. If people were given the choice of educating their kids or pocketing the money and parking them in front of "Sesame Street", a lot of them would choose the latter.
Some others of you questioned the "legality" of my opinions and made assumptions about my beliefs. This article was about Ron Paul, not me. I didn't make any assumptions about him, please don't make them about me. The extent to which I explained my own beliefs is the extent to which you should presume to know them.
Finally, it is correct that the Pentagon was hit on 9/11, but my point was that Mr. Paul's assertion that blowback was a factor did not amount to "saying we invited this." The victims of those attacks were innocent and did nothing to invite them. That includes employees of the Pentagon. The blowback to which Dr. Paul referred had nothing to do with any of them, that I know of, but rather policymakers from administrations long gone.
Anyway, thank you for a great discussion. I do hope to do pieces like this on other candidates, but I started with Dr. Paul precisely because he's gotten such a raw deal in the press, and because I, myself, had written nothing about him. Sometimes, when people call somebody a kook, he is a kook, but very often, he's not. Very often, he's exceptional in some way that threatens the status quo. Ron Paul, president or not, has certainly shaken a lot of people up with his movement.

Update - 12/31/07 8:47 a.m.

OK, I first want to say that, as a whole, this is the most eloquent bunch of comments I've seen on this or any other blog. Especially the ones praising my story. Seriously, though, I commend you all for your passion and eloquence, on both sides.

I wanted to clear up a couple more things. My main purpose here was to provide an overview of Dr. Paul's candidacy, in his own words, and my personal evaluations of it. I couldn't possibly provide detailed support for every one of my opinions, I won't even try, because that's not the idea here. The idea is for you to form your own views based on accurate information.

I only say this because a lot of the comments are arguing points with me that I didn't even argue, and don't want to. I will give you an example. My views on education could fill a hundred of these posts. I said in the piece very generally why I disagree, not to be persuasive but simply to share my thought process, so that you, the reader, could judge the fairness and credibility of my evaluation, and in your disagreement with me, perhaps solidify your own differing opinion.

It's not fair to attack my position on education when you don't know it. The same is true of all of these issues. I would ask that you stick to your own opinions, and tell me why you agree with Dr. Paul, rather than disagreeing with me. I'm not running against Ron Paul.

Additionally, I don't dispute most of Dr. Paul's assertions with regard to the problems facing our country. In fact, he has a keen sense of this and is skillful at communicating them. Where I differ in places is either in his analysis of causation, or in the solutions he identifies.

Having said that, I must again congratulate you all for largely making substantive and productive comments. Keep up the good work.

Tommy's Youtube Channel

Tommy's Mom's Blog, The Lady of Light

More Tommy at:

BarelyPolitical

The Specious Report

The Young Turks

Brave New Films