In light of the second, and now somewhat infamous, republican debate in South Carolina, I thought I should revisit my earlier post on Ron Paul. In that post, I mentioned that I didn’t know a whole lot about Ron Paul and his philosophies on issues besides the ones quickly noted on the “About Ron” page on his presidential campaign website. And I wanted to revisit it since neoconservatives are trying desperately to paint him as a quintessential “conspiracy theorist” with regard to 9/11, including everyone’s favorite Patron Saint of Terrorism Aftermath™, Rudy Giuliani.

It seems that, in the debate, Ron Paul made the “controversial” implication that our actions have consequences. :what: And because of that, he is catching a lot of flack from “true republicans” who cheer anyone that threatens a free society and demands that government have the power to do all they can to protect us, even if it is at the expense of that freedom.

Ron Paul made the implication in response to a question about terrorism and 9/11. Here’s the exchange:

REP. PAUL: … Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we’ve been over there; we’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We’ve been in the Middle East — I think Reagan was right.

We don’t understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we’re building an embassy in Iraq that’s bigger than the Vatican. We’re building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us.

MODERATOR: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I’m suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we’re over there because Osama bin Laden has said, “I am glad you’re over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.

Saint Rudy jumps on this as an opportunity to remind everyone where he was on 9/11:

Wendell, may I comment on that? That’s really an extraordinary statement. That’s an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don’t think I’ve heard that before, and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn’t really mean that. (Applause.)

Why is it that Saint Rudy suggests he answered the question with a resounding “Yes”, and gets away with it? I’m pretty sure Ron Paul could have said anything besides the word “No” after Wendell’s question, and it wouldn’t have mattered to Rudy.

Anyway, in the wake of the exchange, Ron Paul has given Saint Rudy a reading assignment to help educate him on what he means, instead of telling Rudy he didn’t mean what he said. The assignment includes Chalmers Johnson’s Blowback, Robert A. Pape’s Dying to Win, and Michael Scheuer’s Imperial Hubris, and the 9-11 Commission Report - the very report focused solely on the day Rudy was there to… well… be there (remember??? Remember, damnit!).

He even provided Cliff Notes to make the read a little easier and understandable for Giuliani, including among others:

“The suicidal assassins of September 11, 2001 did not ‘attack America,’ as political leaders and news media in the United States have tried to maintain; they attacked American foreign policy. Employing the strategy of the weak, they killed innocent bystanders, whose innocence is, of course, no different from that of the civilians killed by American bombs in Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.”

– Chalmers Johnson, Blowback, page XV

(More Cliffs Notes in this article)

Since I admire anyone who suggests we take responsibility for our actions instead of creating an external locus of control for everything except the most desirable consequences, this prompted me to take a closer look at Ron Paul. And after some searching I came across what basically amounts to a blog. It’s called The Ron Paul Library.

So I spent some time reading through the library, and I must say that my original inclinations were correct. I certainly don’t agree with him on everything, but the underlying philosophy on the role of government and all that it implies is something this country has desperately needed for at least 7 years, if not longer.

I’ll give a couple of examples.

Example One

In my original post on Ron Paul, I briefly mentioned that I probably don’t agree with him on the Women’s Rights - Abortion Issue. But again, it seems his underlying philosophy is a healthy one for the nation. He states unequivocally that:

My own pro-life views were strengthened by my experiences as an obstetrician. I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society.

But as a policymaker, “Pro-lifer” doesn’t really fit his stance in the traditional sense. He would more accurately be described as a anti-Roe v. Wade-er. In most of his writings on the abortion issue, the overriding tone is that it shouldn’t be up the the federal government to decide social issues. He describes government’s role in the issue like this:

Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal “right to abortion” exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court…

…The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.

While I would personally fall on the other side of the pro-life/pro-choice (i.e. anti-forced-maternity) issue, I can’t say I’d be unhappy with the idea of taking the federal government out of the equation.

Example Two

Even though, in the simplified world that most political lackey’s like to dwell in, Ron Paul would be defined as Pro-Gun or Pro-2nd Amendment, he is able to recognize the real issue that lies at the heart of our Bill of Rights…

…the debate about certain types of weapons ignores the fundamental purpose of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It’s convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying “That could never happen here, this is America”- but history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish ten, thirty, or fifty years from now.

In other words, “People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.”

I will admit, however, that the last sentence in that quote is a slippery slope argument, which some might point out as a logical fallacy. But the fallibility of the slippery slope argument is directly proportional to the number of steps required to get from point A to point B. And, under the current neoconservative regime, the distance between those two points - in Ron Paul’s argument, in our minds, and in reality - has grown infinitely smaller than it was 10 years ago. It is no longer difficult to imagine how the usurpation of the liberties guaranteed by our Constitution can easily lead to an all-too-powerful individual in control of everything.

Ron Paul also wrote about the Virginia Tech terrorist incident, and provided a much more convincing argument against more gun control than the oft-cited letter from Ted “I love my guns” Nugent…

The Virginia Tech tragedy may not lead directly to more gun control, but I fear it will lead to more people control. Thanks to our media and many government officials, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism.

But instead of relying on the false assumption (like most gun-ho people do) that armed citizens will always prevent such a tragedy, Ron Paul recognizes what it means for the role of government…

I fear that Congress will use this terrible event to push for more government mandated mental health programs. The therapeutic nanny state only encourages individuals to view themselves as victims, and reject personal responsibility for their actions. Certainly there are legitimate organic mental illnesses, but it is the role of doctors and families, not the government, to diagnose and treat such illnesses.

Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

We don’t need to protect the Second Amendment from those evil liberals because the criminals will run roughshod over an unarmed law-abiding electorate, we need to protect it because government will. And we don’t need the government to protect us from the card carrying NRA members or other nefarious individuals with guns, we need the government to (at most) do everything it can to educate those people, and everyone else, on gun safety.

See For Yourself

There are writings and transcripts on a number of subjects in that Ron Paul Library, have a read for yourself. All in all, I think Ron Paul embodies, better than any other republican candidate for president, the very oath that the president takes when he (or she) assumes office…

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

…an oath that was forgotten shortly after it’s recitation by the current president.

NOTE: It turns out, Ron Paul is going to be on tonight’s episode of Real Time with Bill Maher.

Share This