Ron Paul

Out of curiosity, what major cons do you see from taking on an isolationist mindset?

I just see a lot of money floating freely to other countries while we're still mired in debt. I also see a lot of countries pointing at us with their shiny new guns and political rhetoric because although we might be trying to do the altruistic thing, we're making unilateral decisions to be in quite a few places without the support (or funding) of the international community.

Ultimately, in the end, if we took on a stance of, everyone take care of your own problems, I think the international community's expectations of the US as an international police force might lessen and they'd learn to be a bit more self-reliant and even possibly look towards the UN to do what it was intended to do.

 

Curious. How do you think you are substantively better aligned with Ron Paul, than other foreign policy doves on the other side of the aisle, like Dennis Kuchinich or Bernie Sanders who along with being against war, don't believe in a complete withdrawal from non-trade foreign affairs?

I agree that Ron Paul sounds good in his campaign website issues page, and in his 2002 statement, A Foreign Policy for Peace, Prosperity, and Liberty

I mean Paul is on the money that at times we use these international instruments as they benefit our interests, but his conclusion that we must therefore abandon these organizations is not because they are misused, but rather because they abnegate our sovereignty. He uses the misuse of international instruments as an argument as to why he would have us abandon them, but he doesn't really care, he would have us abandon them even though they can be used and frequently are used to promote world-wide human rights in a way that no nation alone could do.

I'm not sure that that position necessarily follows for people like Kuchinich and Sanders, because they do not believe that these instruments will necessarily be used in an inappropriate manner or that it matters that we abnegate our sovereignty since it is a decision we made voluntarily.

Since our level of non-trade foreign involvement is one of the main areas where Paul diverts from other leftist doves, is that what tips the scale for you toward his views over theirs?

 

I think Paul's point covers both objections you've stated- one, that these organizations are routinely misused, and two, that they abnegate state sovereignty.

Take for instance the universal declaration on human rights- the stipulations therein are subject, like any legislation, to a wide array of interpretation. Beyond that, real-world implementation of such rules are always going to be uneven, and in doing so, will perpetuate an asymmetry of justice.

Appeals to human rights through the UN will never prosecute an IDF member for violations of human rights against the Palestinians, or US political officials authorizing torture, or Iranian legislative bodies for authorizing death sentences against 'blasphemers'. No appeal to human rights will grant an Iraqi citizen a day in court against a foreign army, or a Saudi citizen his rights against a regime that regulates his freedom of speech and belief. So long as such asymmetry exists, the councils that exist to perpetuate and guarantee such rights will routinely be undermined, ineffectual, and perceived as nothing more than contemporary neo-colonial instruments.

And if they were to possess the wherewithal to prosecute and regulate those affairs, they would indeed be undermining the sovereignty of the state. US political officials would argue that torture is a necessary evil in the war on terror (and IDF arguments would fall along similar lines), Irani/Saudi officials would argue communitarian needs, and soldiers would argue the nature of war. In short, any state/state actor would object to the need to justify its affairs to the world committee, and rather than be lauded for the goals its seeking to advance, these councils would (if they arent already) be seen as operating under the persuasion of political entities.

 

Maybe I'm missing your point here or you are missing mine, I'm not sure. I'm probably missing your point, but just in case I am not, I'll just re state.

I didn't disagree with Paul's position that they abnegate sovereignty. If international bodies were indeed functioning with enforcement powers, then of course they would. Even if they function simply an instruments for propounding non-binding guidance, then once again they would still be limiting state sovereignty at the margins. I do not believe this is a problem, but Paul does. I do not believe this is a problem because we as a country voluntarily have chosen to give up some portion of our sovereignty while maintaining sovereignty in other areas.

From reading his positional, it doesn't appear like Paul cares not these instruments do any good or have any capacity for good. Because they inherently result in the U.S. countries giving up sovereignty, he thinks that we should not participate in them.

I personally do not think that the UN at this moment should be using its enforcement capabilities. I think the way it exercises enforcement power, for the reasons you mentioned is problematic and should be limited. I do however think that the UN is effective when acting as a guidance creating instrument. I don't really think it matters that countries pick and choose parts of the International Declaration on Human Rights or the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Countries aren't expected to enforce these documents in their entirety or even enforce them in identical manners. They are however effective as guides in that they influence the creation of laws in signatory states and add heft to any international dialogue on the subject or any future two state dialogue. This is where the United Nations is at its best.

Paul would have us abandon these instruments because he thinks that they take away from state sovereignty and because they can possibly be used in a negative manner. I would acknowledge that he is correct on the first point and say, so what, we signed on. As to his second point, I would also agree and once again say, so what - any enforcement or policy making body can have negative effects - what matters is what is the overall sum effect. I don't think the negative outweighs the positive. For those reasons, I do not reach his conclusion.

 

Canada would still be our hat though, right?

 

At some point, doesn't the US have the right to be selfish and worry about our own domestic issues rather than the problems around the world? I agree that humanitarian rights/needs should always be at the forefront of the international community, but if we continue to make unilateral decisions than we'll continue to be painted the villain regardless of our altruistic rationale. You mentioned earlier regarding the UN as a guiding force. I would love for the US to participate in supporting the UN's decisions, but I certainly don't want our country to be the only one who has to put our citizens at risk and utilize our now limited resources to assist in these endeavors.

 

I find the isolationist views of some of you astonishing. You seem to have completely ignored the fact that the world has grown smaller, and that our economic health is joined to the hip with the rest of the world. That there are nations in that world who wish us ill, who would love to see the United States withdraw to the "Fortress America" that was so popular before Pearl Harbor. Isolationists had immense influence in this country right up until those Japanese planes dropped their first bombs on the Pacific Fleet. America cannot simply return to the 1930's. It would be suicide.

Everyone seems worried about our national debt, about the value of our currency, about "the health of the nation." What keeps us from being the largest dartboard on the planet for those who wish us ill? What prevents economic blackmail? Yes, we've created many of our problems ourselves. The previous President did enormous damage to this country during his eight years in office, and the rest of our leaders are not blameless, but the situation is what it is. So what keeps us relevant, besides our 300 million consumers? The military we spent decades and untold amounts of money creating. The bases that remain around the world. Our carrier battle groups that can project our national power, and national will, anywhere on the planet if need be. Throw all of that away and we won't be better off, we'll be worse off. We'll be dictated to. I would rather be feared.

Why? Because the world remains a dangerous place. The United States has no one we can depend on other than ourselves. Our allies have reduced their own militaries so much that they are a shadow of what they once were. I'm not talking about the monarchies of the Middle East that we keep selling billions in arms to. They're more interested in preserving themselves from their own people, and preserving themselves from irrational countries like Iran. I'm talking about our traditional allies. We cannot depend on them to help us if need be. Not because they wouldn't want to, but because they have made themselves so weak. Until the world changes one hell of a lot, our own power is all we can depend on. We can be far more efficient. We can reduce our footprint around the world more than it is today. We can reduce our military budget, and should, but what we cannot do is toss it in the dumpster and think things are going to work out all right. Not only would that be foolish and naive, in my opinion, it would be criminal.

Isolationism is madness in today's world.

 

We can still have the most powerful military in the world and have people fear us with half the defense spending that we do. Let us take an example: China. How many military bases do they have around the world? Does anyone dare mess with them?

We spend more on defense than the next 10 countries combined. If we cut it so that we spend more than the next 5 combined - believe me - no one is going to threaten us militarily...

I don't think anyone wants to be isolationist - they just want the US to stop invading and attacking other countries. I agree with Paul here, we should only attack other nations if they pose a threat to our national security. And these wars should be declared by the people through their representatives in Congress (as is demanded by the Constitution)...

 

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wQs5hoHW_Qc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I'm sorry, but Deckard is right here. We live in a world that is more interconnected that it has ever been, with enemies that enjoy unprecedented ability to target our homeland. Never mind other countries, who while not directly opposed, do not act in our own best interests (ex. Israel). We are not being unselfish by being involved internationally, nor are the domestic solutions to our problems to turn inward. For example, if Iran and Israel attack each other, it would likely create a ruinous oil shock that would force us into a double dip recession. It's in our best interests to stop this, but we can't do it alone. To really limit the chance for a crisis or to mitigate its effects we need to be involved with other countries and international bodies.

You act like we are the only one who assists in UN endeavors; we are not. It wasn't our weapon inspectors in Iraq that said they didn't have WMDs. Also you don't seem to see the difference between the UN as an enforcement body or UN as a guidance body.

We should not be attacking other countries until it is justified - that's great I agree. However, you misunderstand Paul's position, he is isolationist and wants to be an isolationist. He doesn't believe we have anything to gain by alliances with other countries (because they require us to give up our sovereignty), that "we have sacrificed our sovereignty to world government organizations, such as the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO," so we shouldn't be in those either, nor does he believe that human rights are a legitimate goal for foreign involvement. Source on his own website. At the same time he says we shouldn't be giving up any of our sovereignty he says we shouldn't act unilaterally. It's pretty difficult not to give up sovereignty when not acting unilaterally. This is an isolationist position and it is a contradiction in Paul's foreign affairs position.

Paul would have us conduct foreign policy on a world field where we are more and more interconnected, dependent on other countries policies for our economic well being at home, and where other countries will not act like us if we simply choose to look inward; they will form alliances, trade blocs, and they will promote their imperialistic goals. This would put us at a enormous disadvantage in not only our exercise of soft power, but also hard power. It would also likely result in a quicker decline of US world power than the present course.

On a somewhat related note to Paul's railings against the U.S. as a world policeman, does anyone else feel like Republicans have it good. And let's not forget that at the end of the day that, while Paul is a Republican of a different shade, he's a Republican nonetheless given his proclivities for being anti-homosexual (by saying it should be left up to the states), his support for racism, his strong views against abortion, and the issue which matters most to him, taxes. Republicans paralyze this country's national government, water down legislation limiting it's efficacy, pass tax breaks that make the country unable to provide services it has historically provided, and give us presidents who convince the nation, based on faulty intel which had already been disproven, that we should be in countries we have no reason being in. And then, at the end of the day, they get to say, "see we told you so, government can't do anything well."

Republicans, Paul included, run on the platform of it can't work, they directly and indirectly make it not work, and then at the end of the day say "see it didn't work." It's pretty sweet to be able to fail upwards.

 

My apologies for the belated reply. I havent had much time to get online as of late, and this is the first opportunity I've had to respond fully.

In stating Paul's objection to collaborative organizations, I got the impression you found the argument of compromised sovereignty untenable, whereas although I may not entirely agree with it, it is not wholly unreasonable to see it as such. Having read your response, this is clearly not the case.

The key point here is advocating international organizations serve as guidance seeking instruments, and in doing such essentially becoming international lobbyists. To this, I will again have to disagree.

Firstly, what you are calling for these bodies to do is drastically different than its current function, so we're not only talking about minor 'tweaking' but in effect a fundamental shift in objectives and purposes.

Secondly, many of these bodies and declarations speak in increasingly universal terms about matters that are informed by specific historical, cultural, or ideological perspective. In short, they purport to represent ontological realities ('human rights', 'womens rights', etc.) rather than an understanding resulting from historical phenomenon that have been internalized to the point of having been forgotten as history altogether.

And Thirdly, is the fickle nature of moral imperitives in determining the functional operations of these organizations. For example, in the lead up to the Iraq War, a major objection cited was the lack of UN approval. The implication being that a war of necessity need possess international approval for any sense of legitimacy, and once granted approval by assemblymen who are indeed corruptable- through promises of increased aid, backdoor deals, and the like- then the invasion suddenly obtains the moral justification and legitimacy it needs to be prosecuted.

Personally, I do see a need for international boards to have enforcement authority in only the most serious cases- preventing genocide, large scale human/organ trafficking, and comparable crimes are issues that the world community should seek to eradicate together. In order to do so, the organization would need some enforcement authority, as well as oversight to maintain its limited scope of operations. Further, I think the UN serves its purpose when it works as a forum for international leaders to come together and collaberate, facillitating communication across international leadership that would otherwise be logistically impossible to correspond with in-person.

You can read an article on Ron Paul's position on the United Nations at this link.

On a final note, let me state clearly that I dont agree with Paul's entire platform or premises, even those stated in the above article. That said, it is hard to argue that there is a better candidate running purely from a perspective of foreign policy and civil rights. I would strongly encourage reading Robert Wright's article in the Atlantic on why bombing Iran would inevitably escalate to invasion and occupation. Seeing the war hawks out in full swing on Iran, the media overload in building the case to go to war, and the heightened rhetoric from Obama and administration officials, it is unsurprising that Paul's foreign policy has gained the level of acceptance that it has.

 

You mean like this guy?


Seriously, you've described Rand Paul to a tee.

 

Ron Paul: Tornado Victims Should Not Get Federal Aid

Ron Paul has a message for victims of the tornadoes that killed dozens of people in the South and Midwest: buy insurance.

"There is no such thing as federal money," he said Sunday on CNN’s 'State of the Union.' "Federal money is just what they steal from the states and steal from you and me. The people who live in tornado alley, just as I live in hurricane alley, they should have insurance."

 

As difficult as that is to stomach, it's the awful truth that eventually everyone has to stand on their own two feet. The area is called tornado alley, not happy fun smurf village. If the Federal Government were to assist everyone in dire circumstances, which seems the humane thing to do, then there would be little incentive for anyone to hedge against misfortune. Ultimately, I think people have created this misguided notion that the Federal Government has to help anyone who faces adversity and when the Federal Government is unable to provide this aid, the people take to the streets in moral outrage. To me, it's just impossible for the government to continually assist in these endeavors without hemorrhaging money and bleeding the tax base down.

 

With all due respect, please tell me your kidding. I won't argue with anyone that people should be insured for "acts of god" like this, but some people simply can't afford the insurance. So what would you have them do? Turn some of the most productive regions in the country, a vast area, a "ghost town," by moving away from "danger?" Americans, believe it or not, elect a government that they expect to help fellow Americans during and after a disaster, and when that doesn't happen, not only do the people involved suffer and get pissed off, but the rest of the country gets pissed off. You might have noticed that after, oh, any number of disasters that have struck this country. Look at Katrina. The entire country grew angry from the bungled response.

"bleeding the tax base down" What does that even mean?

 

I agree it's really heartwrenching to think about and I'm not a soulless monster by any means, but if people go through a scenario like this and the government doesn't act than no one will live in that area without insurance. Thus forcing employers to either pay a higher wage so people can afford insurance or provide the insurance themselves. Also, I'm not saying that people don't need short term assistance until they're safe and out of harm's way, but beyond that, I'm not sure you're doing a service by continuously helping people who didn't prepare because after you continuously assist beyond necessities, people tend to feel entitled to this assistance regardless of the circumstance.

Another way to look at this is that if a tornado touched down and only one house was affected, do you think people would be up in arms regarding the government helping that one person? No, they'd say, it would probably have behooved you to have insurance prior to that horrible event. Since these tornadoes affected quite a few people, it somehow becomes a different scenario.

Katrina was a debacle because there was no immediate action and the government wasn't able to focus on bringing people out of harm's way. I'm not trying to justify any of the actions of the government, but it was definitely not the easiest situation to handle. I know if they would have acted quicker things would have been much better, but from a long term solution, I'm not sure what a perfect scenario would have been.

"Bleeding the tax base down" was just my way of thinking of limited federal tax dollars being utilized for items where I think the federal government sometimes oversteps its bounds.

 

Weslinder. seriously, you don't view Rand Paulas prfesidential material, do you?

 

Yes. In fact, if Obama wins re-election, I'll predict that Rand Paul will be our President in 2016.