matriculated wrote:lbuehler325 wrote:I find it interesting how the major arguments against Ron Paul are that he either never really had a chance or his foreign policy disqualifies him. Last I checked, he's the most Constitutionally sound candidate we've had in any of our lifetimes. How a strict Constitutionalist can have a disqualifying foreign policy is beyond me.
Well, the thing is, whether we like it or not, we have to deal with reality as it is, not reality as we'd like it to be. The reality right now is that the United States of America is an empire with many military installations spanning every corner of the globe, and basically controlling war and peace on any kind of level that might be considered "large" or "important." This is
us. This is the responsibility that we, as a country, have decided to take on. It didn't happen suddenly or overnight. It took many different governments after WWII, all basically leading in the same direction: more American hegemony, and more American control over the security situation of the rest of the world. As Americans elect their government democratically (small "d"), one can only assume that this is the situation that Americans over time had wanted to be in. Being "in control," so to speak, has its pros and cons, just like everything else. One of the major cons is the strain on our budget (we spend more on "defense" {control of the world} than the next 15 nations put together). On the pro side, well, we pretty much control the entire world and have the capacity to blow up the nations that don't conform to our will. Is that good or bad? Debatable. Whatever your opinion on the current state of affairs is, one thing is for certain: We cannot just suddenly depart from decades of stability and security, and abandon pretty much ever foreign policy goal that every president for the last 60 years has worked for just because we decided we want to do a "libertarian" experiment. Regardless of the merits of Ron Paul's foreign policy views, his desired changes would be too abrupt and would probably cause calamity of global proportions. Thus, he disqualifies himself from being president. Also, voters disqualify him.
OK....although I prefer a different word than "empire," because I take the word literally, this the first thing you've said that I actually agree with. Whether one agrees with or disagrees with the extent of our involvements around the globe, it would be irresponsible to the nth power to suddenly abandon all of those responsibilities we took on/dreamed up/assumed (however you want to phrase that). I would add that during the century of American ascendancy, the 20th century, and particularly the back half of it, there were three powers that were going to attempt hegemony. (I really don't like that word because it has a taste of the nefarious. I don't believe that our policies were ever motivated by nefarious intent.)
Anyway, those nations were going to be the USSR, the USA, and the Chicoms. And those hegemonies would have proxies, like Cuba for the USSR, Great Britain for the US, etc. Of the three hegemonous powers, the USA is the only one that at least
tried to carry a message of human liberty, free trade, and respect for the individual, and at least
tried to exert some influences in that direction. Imperfectly, yes. Unsuccessfully, often. But at least we tried. And to the extent that we were unsuccessful, it was as much attributable to the cultural inability of the other nation (Iraq, Afghanistan, for instance) to blend some of our values into their cultures. That benevolence of intent could
never have been attributed to the USSR or China.
Like it or not, even a more isolationist US is still going to be a major player on the word stage. Further, global politics abhors a vacuum as much as Mother Nature does. If the US willingly surrenders its preeminence (which the idiot in the White House seems bent on achieving), others
will rush in to fill that vacuum. That will most likely make life harder for us, not easier. So for better or for worse, we need to remain engaged in world affairs as a major player. Ron Paul just doesn't get that, which means that he lacks the intellect for the job. Mitt Romney may not be the ideal conservative. I'll actually concede that to you. But he has a much firmer grasp on the reality of America's place in the world than Ron Paul does, and Paul just comes off sounding like a cranky old uncle......definitely not presidential material.
Talking about his dad:
Let's all hold hands and laugh at the funny that the man we're supposed to vote for shared with us. Gosh, that'll connect with ordinary people, won't it? Shutting down factories, funny stuff. How is this man on the verge of securing the Republican nomination?
