I recently reconnected with an old high school classmate (Class of ’64—you do the math) and we've had several very enjoyable exchanges over the past few weeks, although we early on determined that our politics were a little different. He isn't exactly conservative, but he seems to be one of those who has fallen under Ron Paul's spell based on a narrow sliver of Paul's positions. Here's a note he sent to me the other day:
Hi Rod
I know you don't agree with Ron Paul on economic and social issues but you do on his foreign policy. Above is a good video on his reasoning for wanting to bring the troops home. It offers a little history of the middle east which is usually overlooked but is very important. It helps to know why we're there in the first place before you try to convince someone why we should leave.
This is the video in question:
Paul video (sorry to send you there)
My reply once you come out of the orange chute:
I will try to distill my feelings in as detached a manner as possible, because I don't want to create any ill will if any of what follows is anathema to you. I have been delighted in our contact and our conversations, and if our politics are truly polar opposite, I'd fervently wish they not poison the well of otherwise pleasant interaction. So, please keep an open mind. It's not about you.
I have a few thoughts, and one of them is dramatically illustrated in watching that video. I'm sure you've heard that old saw about Mussolini, one of the most virulent fascists of all time—not good for the country, hanged in public by his own people because of what he did to them. The single defense anyone ever made of him was that he made the trains run on time.
That is a variation of the saying about stopped clocks—even they're right twice a day. That aphorism exactly applies to Ron Paul. And no, I don't agree with his foreign policy. He admits to things that indicate he's better informed than other politicians wish to admit, however the reasons in each case have to do with defending other positions.
Our (and most nations) foreign policy is rooted deeply in history. All countries have records of allegiances of immediate convenience (my own phrase—that's some serious wordsmithing there), such as ours with the mujhadeen, for example. And as bad as ultimate outcomes (or blowback, if you prefer—it's not a new concept) may be, there are usually compelling contemporary circumstances which are defensible, even in retrospect.
The Soviet Union was certainly our biggest boogeyman in the '80s, so it's not at all unsurprising or debatable that we would generally have to ally with those who were in need while fighting against them. Paint "communism" with that wide brush for the reasons we were in Vietnam.
The point is, there are no easy solutions to foreign entanglements. They have tentacles that we (the public) won't ever know, and in many cases, we (our government) may not be wholly aware of.
Incidentally, if you want an example of alliances and enemies that are deep in history, yet ought to be easy to solve, look no further than the Balkans. Several years ago, when we were living in Illinois, there was an incident reported in Chicago where a young lady and a young man were to be married. It happened that one was Serbian and other was Croatian, although they were at least 3rd generation American. When the brother of one of them found out the heritage of the other, there was a ruthless and bloody result, based solely on the "your great grandfather once did something to my great grandfather" notion of forgive and forget.
But, since nothing in our foreign policy, Ron Paul's ideas or anyone else's, can magically resolve long held animosities, I don't lend a lot of legitimacy to Paul regarding his foreign policy. Moreover, it's actually just a visible segment of his general political philosophy which is utterly repugnant to me, no matter how good his "bring 'em home" rhetoric might sound.
His philosophy is grounded generally in the libertarian side of the spectrum. Now, I don't like to paint one generalist label on anyone, but for discussion purposes it can be valuable. For example, it is safe to say "most conservatives decry taxes" or "most liberals support social programs" and I will do so, understanding that not all of one group fully embraces all of the characteristics of the group that otherwise best fits them in general terms.
Libertarians are the same—there are small 'l' libertarians as well as large 'L' libertarians just as there are similar gradations in any label of political philosophy. Here's where Paul fits in. He's a large 'L' libertarian, and libertarians can best be understood by imagining a four year old only child going to the playground for the first time. They are unaccustomed to not being the center of attention. They are utterly unfamiliar with the concept of sharing with other children. Essentially, their mantra could be described as "mine, mine, mine".
I'm not a religious person, In fact, I've gradually come to understand and embrace just how far along the spectrum I am in that regard and I'm good with it. However, that doesn't mean I don't have principles, ethics, or morality. In fact, I don't believe those are particularly religious dictates, at all. I think they have been part of the fiber of social beings since we first walked erect. Religion, from pagan to organized, didn't invent them—they adopted them, because they are necessary constructs to the community of social beings.
Libertarians, not having matured, politically or socially, are underdeveloped in principles, ethics, morality. If you watched the 2010 campaign season, you must have seen Paul's son, Rand, running for the Kentucky senate seat. The question of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came up and he, and later his father, danced a tightrope trying to reconcile their 'no government regulation' philosophy with the black letter reality of segregation. We grew up in that era. I would be very surprised if we weren't affected by the notion that Walgreen's lunch counter wasn't as available to everyone as it was to us.
We were probably affected by the absence of a single black classmate in Perry or McArthur [our junior high and senior high schools, respectively], despite there being an entire [black] community just on the other side of State Road 7—the same side of State Road 7 that Donna Xxxxx and Kathy Xxxxx (names redacted for privacy] lived on, I might add. The Pauls and their followers seriously support the notion that those times were okay because they represented a circumstance in which the government was hands-off and "the market could solve the problem." I don't believe in that.
The libertarian's mantra is leave me alone, let me do what I want. If one is an individual, living in isolation, that is a reasonable position. But as soon as one has a neighbor and has to share resources, whether it's land, water, or infrastructure, then libertarianism is anti-social, immoral, and unethical.
So, taken on the whole, while there might be an attractive aspect of Ron Paul on some of his foreign policy pronouncements, when you examine them from the perspective of a libertarian, they sound more like, "I don't want to have to pay taxes for stuff I don't want" than any moral aversion to who we support(ed) and why. Every one of his stated principles comes down to "I don't want to have to share and I don't want someone telling me what to do."
That's not how society works. You won't see me quoting the bible very often, but it's pretty clear in there What Jesus Would Do about society. Our founding documents had a pretty clear grasp, too. Just check out the desired pursuit of separating from Britain of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," or "…in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The last, of course, is the beginning of the very document which authorizes what Paul and his ilk want to avoid, curtail, distort, or ignore. I believe it happens to be in lockstep with the age old notion of the contract we, as social animals, have been trying to practice since we walked erect, to bring us back full circle.
So, yes, Mussolini got the trains running on time and Ron Paul swears he'll bring the troops home, but the entirety of the rest of their vision for the nation they wish to lead is repugnant to the precepts I believe are most important.
Rod
His reply was:
WOW! A simple, “I don’t agree.” would have been enough.
but we've had a couple non-political and friendly exchanges since. Good for him for not taking terminal offense.