There’s absolutely nothing wrong with Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy, but there’s everything wrong with the way he has been presenting them in his public appearances and in the debates.

Paul basically believes that national defense should focus on defense and that overcommitting our resources in foreign wars and foreign aid missions weakens our ability to defend our own nation and undermines our credibility and effectiveness in foreign policy. Secondarily, the huge cost of our foreign wars has helped put us into a vast pit of deficit spending and weakened our economy, and that economic vulnerability is as big a threat to national security as all the missiles in China. This is a reality-based and absolutely reasonable foreign policy position to take.

However, because of the way he presents his positions, detractors have been able to paint Paul as an isolationist, as anti-American and even as a Muslim sympathizer – largely unfairly – but nonetheless pretty effectively.

Paul’s downfall comes in his apparent fascination with the theory of “blowback,” a not very insightful foreign policy meme derived from the CIA’s use of the term as presented in the book Blowback by Chalmers Johnson. Johnson’s development of the idea is naive and simplistic and basically comes down to the unsurprising notion that sometimes when people are angry with the United States it’s precipitated by something we did to them. Our foreign policy hasn’t always been terribly gentle and not surprisingly we’ve made some enemies. Blowback is more like payback, when people or nations try to get revenge for wrongs we’ve done them in the past.

As part of a comprehensive view of foreign policy the idea of “blowback” certainly has a valid role. But if you lead with it, as Ron Paul has an unfortunate habit of doing, it creates the impression that it is the entire basis of your understanding of foreign affairs and that you are essentially saying that whatever happens to America, from the events of 9/11 to the latest bombing in Afghanistan, is not the fault of the terrorists, but has to be blamed on the United States because we wronged them first.

This is a view which is both logically fallacious and offensive to a lot of people. If it’s the only part of your foreign policy which registers with an audience, then it’s not surprising that some of them conclude that you’re sympathetic to the terrorists. Even Neoconservatives can see the fallacy in concluding that primary responsibility for any action lies with someone other than the actor himself. While motivations are worth considering, no matter what they are, the person who consciously chooses to commit a new and original act of violence still gets most of the blame. No matter how he was provoked he could have chosen not to do wrong.

The problem for Ron Paul as a candidate is that you cannot explain the nuances of an idea like this or put it in the larger foreign policy context in a sound byte or a 30 second debate response. So the result of bringing it up without enough time to explain it is that all that gets through is that you’re blaming the United States for provoking whatever attacks it has received. Paul is not wrong to raise this issue, but if that’s all you’re going to be able to communicate about your foreign policy it’s not going to play well with a lot of people.

That being the case, it would be far wiser to express a simple and positive position on foreign policy and leave issues like “blowback” on the back burner to be explained in a position paper in the proper context. Leading with a controversial issue like this is a bad idea, no matter how much some of your followers cheer when you stick it to the neocons by bringing it up. Ron Paul doesn’t need to win over the folks at Antiwar.com. He needs to win over the borderline War Hawks who are far more numerous and influential in the Republican Party.

More recently Paul has faced a similar problem to the controversy he created over “blowback” with his apparent defense of the right of Iran to have nuclear weapons. On this issue he’s largely correct. Iran is a sovereign nation and we really don’t have any more right to tell it what to do than China does to tell us. And if someone is going to try to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons it should be those who are most threatened by them and the international community, not the United States acting unilaterally. But all of that doesn’t make a good sound byte, so he ends up being portrayed as wanting Iran to have nukes.

Tonight’s debate on CNN is specifically focused on foreign policy and, assuming they give him more than the 89 seconds he was allowed in the last debate,  it would be a wonderful opportunity for Paul to counter some of the negative impressions he has created in the past and offer a simple and positive foreign policy statement which would win supporters he needs instead of being misinterpreted and taken out of context and used to fuel attacks against him.

He should avoid bringing up ideas like “blowback” which he won’t have time to explain and focus on short, clear and positive statements about how the role he would have America play in the world. Here are some simple statements which would fit with his beliefs and serve him much better than the things he has said in the past.

For a general statement on our role in foreign affairs he could say:

“I believe that America should lead by example and pursue peace through strength. A great nation does not need to meddle in the affairs of its neighbors.” (throwing int he right buzzword here could win a lot of points with GOP primary voters)

If asked specifically about “blowback” and 9/11 he could say:

“Our past foreign policy cannot be used to justify the actions of terrorists and murderers. One wrong does not excuse another and those who commit acts of terror should be held directly responsible.” (doesn’t rule out the possibility of holding the US responsible, but doesn’t push it either)

If asked about Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons he could say:

“Iran is already a threat to its neighbors and some of them have their own nuclear arsenals. Our primary concern should be the safety of our nation, our citizens and our property and so long as Iran does not directly threaten us we should respect Itheir sovereignty as much as we do that of other nuclear nations.”

If asked about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan he could say:

“We should only go to war to protect our nation, its people and its immediate interests. Long wars for vague purposes are too costly and harm national security by weakening our economy. We should focus on retasking the military to be a more modern and effective force for defending our borders and protecting our citizens as its first priority.” (shows an interest in making the military better and more useful, not irrelevant)

If asked about how to deal with terrorists he should say:

“Terrorism should be treated as the most serious kind of crime. We should go after terrorists with every resource at our disposal, but our focus should always be on bringing the terrorists to justice with some due process of law. In fighting terror the military should act as an arm of law enforcement and with Congressional authorization, to apprehend terrorists wherever they are and bring them to trial and punishment.”

All of these statements are in keeping with Paul’s positions as I have been able to work them out from his more developed statements on these subjects. None of them is so long or complex that it could not be produced as a short answer in a debate.

How hard would it be for him to avoid his past mistakes and present his ideas in a more positive way? Why haven’t his advisors and debate prep team not tried to equip him with a better arsenal of responses? Or is it possible that he has been given this sort of advice and is too set in his ways and sees changing his presentation of these ideas as a concession he’s not willing to make?

I can’t answer these questions, but I sure would like to see him sell his ideas better to a broader audience in tonight’s debate.  He’s polling surprisingly well and if he could lay some of these criticisms to rest who knows how well he could do in the primary.

This article appeared previously on Blogcritics Magazine

With GOP contenders battling it out for the chance to face President Barack Obama in 2012, the once “cult-following” of Texas Congressman Ron Paul has turned into a base large enough to consider him one of the frontrunners. Having a massive Facebook following, the second highest 2nd quarter funds raised after former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, and recent poll victories such as the Southern Republican Leadership Conference straw poll; Paul’s more than 30 year old message of individual liberty, sound money and free markets is resonating with an ever larger audience.

Of course with this popularity comes criticism. Too many Republican voters and self-described “Constitutional conservatives”—at least those I’ve come across—have been quick to describe the libertarian-minded congressman as “kooky” and a “crazy old man”. Their primary focus is on foreign policy but some on economics as well. Despite Paul’s fervent belief in Thomas Jefferson’s philosophy of avoiding “entangling alliances”, these conservatives often paint him as a “liberal”. Perhaps liberal in the classical sense like John Stuart Mill, but certainly not in the modern-day so-called liberalism of persons like President Obama, Ed Schultz, and Alan Colmes.

Many rumors are spread by the anti-Paul conservatives. Paul supporters are often referred to as “PaulBots”—ironically similar to author Jason Materra’s term “Obama Zombies” used in the book of the same name—although save for a few kooky and loud conspiracy theorists, Paul supporters tend to be better at justifying their support for the jolly old man than do the Obama Zombies. Paul is often mischaracterized as a bigot, even though there is no evidence to support this ad hominem attack.

But what the anti-Paul conservatives—usually of the interventionist line of foreign policy thinking that is commonly referred to as neoconservatism, though having its roots in Woodrow Wilson—fail to do is actually look at what Paul’s foreign policy positions are and have been and see if they have any connection to reality.  Paul’s years of studying the Austrian School of Economics have had a surprising effect on his analytical skills when it comes to foreign policy.

Recently, Ron Paul supporters posted a video to Youtube entitled “Ron Paul the Master”. It shows a collection of speeches and interviews in which Ron Paul makes some stunning predictions about our current economic woes and even international conflicts of the present. And he does this as far back as 2002. Of course no one gave him the time of day.

Let’s analyze one of these speeches, which begins at 3 minutes into the video and was presented before congress on April 24, 2002.

“Our government intervention in the economy and in the private affairs of citizens, and the internal affairs of foreign countries, leads to uncertainty and many unintended consequences. Here are some of the consequences about which we should be concerned.

The United States, with Tony Blair as head cheerleader, will attack Iraq without proper authority, and a major war, the largest since World War II, will result.

Major moves will be made by China, India, Russia, and Pakistan in Central Asia to take advantage of the chaos for the purpose of grabbing land, resources, and strategic advantages sought after for years.”

This is absolutely true. The chaos gave us many unexpected problems. Al Qaeda’s presence in Iraq grew after the invasion. And the country is now under Shiite control, moving it dangerously close to Iran. In 2002, Iran’s president was the more philosophically minded Mohammed Khatami…but now we have an anti-Semitic loudmoth, Ahmedinejad. Russia has moved into Iran to build an energy alliance. Vladimir Putin, and his cronies in Gazprom and Lukoil would love to gain control of the natural resources in Iran and Russia has been helping the Islamic Republic develop nuclear technology which US intelligence believes is being developed for destructive purposes. Let’s hope and pray they are wrong.

China and Pakistan have certainly taken advantage of the chaos. Not only is their alliance stronger, but the oil contracts in Iraq are going to—guess who—China! Kind of debunks the whole left-wing moonbattery that Iraq was “blood for oil”.

You can find more detail in these articles:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/05/news/international/iraq_oil/index.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/28/AR2008082802200.html

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/June/China-Benefits-from-Oil-Deals-with-Iraq/

“Current Israeli-United States policies will solidify Arab Muslim nations, this will include those Muslim nations that in the past have fought against each other.

Some of our moderate Arab allies will be overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists.”

What exactly do you think the “Arab Spring” is? Peaceful democratic people overthrowing dictators? Not quite. The Muslim Brotherhood, a precursor to Hamas, has founded its own political party in Egypt; it is possible these theocrats will gain significant power in the new government. Let’s not forget that Libyan and Yemeni rebels have been linked to Al Qaeda. Just the other day the new Al Qaeda cheif Ayman Al-Zawahiri was lauding the rioters in Syria.

And certainly the dictators—such as Gaddafi and Mubarak—aren’t moderate in the eyes of their own people, but often American politicians have viewed them as such. Useful when we need them, disposable when we don’t as Mobutu Sese Seko and Saddam Hussein once were.

“Many American military personnel and civilians will be killed in the coming conflict.

The leaders of whichever side loses the war will be hauled into and tried before the International Criminal Court for war crimes. The United States will not officially lose the war, but neither will we win. Our military and political leaders will not be tried by the International Criminal Court”

This wasn’t entirely true, Saddam was tried by his own people. But did we really “win” the war. We turned the country over to the Shiite theocrats instead of secularists and now those people are getting close to Iran.

“An international dollar crisis will dramatically boost interest rates in the United States.”

Price inflation, with a major economic downturn, will decimate U.S. Federal Government finances, and exploding deficits and uncontrolled spending.”

Ah yes, remember when that Burger King value meal was around $3.

“Federal Reserve policy will continue at an expanding rate, with massive credit expansion, which will make the dollar crisis worse. Gold will be seen as an alternative to paper money as it returns to its historic role as money.”

Though Bernanke has kept interest rates low, there is the prospect of T-Bill interest rates going up with the forthcoming debt crisis. There has been a dollar devaluation of 40% against the Euro since this 2002 speech, nearly 14% since June 2010 alone according to an article in The Washington Post.

Quantitative easing most definitely contributed to the high gas prices we see today. If you think it was all the fault of this “Arab Spring”, take a look at the Commodity Price Index some time. This freshly “recycled” dough being put in the hands of speculators causes them to artificially drive up the price of oil and other commodities, some of which are being bought as a hedge against the falling dollar; quite the vicious cycle.

As for gold, when Congressman Paul gave this speech gold was roughly $300 per ounce and today it stands at more than $1615 per ounce; you can check out the historical data on gold prices here.

That’s a whopping 438% increase.

“Erosion of civil liberties here at home will continue as our government responds to political fear in dealing with the terrorist threat by making generous use of the powers obtained with the Patriot Act.

The Congress and the President will shift radically toward expanding the size and scope of the Federal Government. This will satisfy both the liberals and the conservatives.

Military and police powers will grow, satisfying the conservatives. The welfare state, both domestic and international, will expand, satisfying the liberals. Both sides will endorse military adventurism overseas.”

The president today has the power to order the assassination American citizens, as in the case of Anwar Al-Awlaki—traitorous as he may be, this is wrong. The Constitution has rules for punishing those who commit treason. But President Obama has ignored this and has ordered him to be killed if possible with drone strikes in Yemen.

The welfare state has expanded significantly. A new, unaffordable addition to Medicare under Bush 43 was passed. We saw more than a trillion dollars of so called economic stimulus under Nancy Pelosi and the combined presidencies of Bush and Obama, and that’s not even including Obama’s wasteful and unpopular health care overhaul. Not to mention billions of foreign aid to countries, some of which—such as Pakistan—are less than trustworthy.

“This is the most important of my predictions: Policy changes could prevent all of the previous predictions from occurring. Unfortunately, that will not occur. In due course, the Constitution will continue to be steadily undermined and the American Republic further weakened

During the next decade, the American people will become poorer and less free, while they become more dependent on the government for economic security.

The war will prove to be divisive, with emotions and hatred growing between the various factions and special interests that drive our policies in the Middle East.”

The middle east is on fire right now. The Israelis are more concerned for their security than ever before. Meanwhile the Saudi lobby pushes us to deal with Iran, with the hopes that they can beat the Islamic Republic in terms of spheres of influence in this theocratic mess of a region.

“Agitation from more class warfare will succeed in dividing us domestically, and believe it or not, I expect lobbyists will thrive more than ever during the dangerous period of chaos.”

This one is self evident. Class warfare is a weapon of distraction used by those who wish to expand the size of government while fat cats at firms such as General Electric, Goldman Sachs, and BP fatten their wallets thanks to government’s policy of picking winners and losers via loopholes and subsidies. The administration may talk the talk, but just take a look at Obama’s campaign contributions and how cozy he is with Jeffrey Immelt; how GE almost got away with paying no taxes, and how a former Goldman Sachs legal adviser with no judicial experience now sits on the Supreme Court.

In addition, a piece was posted two days later, here, containing more words than in the video, which appears as if it may have been cropped to save time. Some of the predictions in that post, such as a reinstatement of the draft did not come true (thank God), but there is one of note that have somewhat come to fruition

“Some European countries will clandestinely support the Muslim countries and their anti-Israel pursuits.”

If you go on YouTube and read the comments sections on almost any video relating to middle eastern politics, you will find that it is a cesspool of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric, and many of the people making these comments are living in Europe. You can take my word for it as a person of Middle Eastern descent who keeps up with these things, or you can check it out yourself. The barbaric theocrats of Hamas are given the benefit of the doubt by many YouTube in the UK, France, Germany and Greece, while the Israelis are fallaciously smeared as “genocidal” and heartless.

Ron Paul’s predictions show a deep understanding of not just economics, but human emotions in the geopolitical world. Those who dismiss him as a “nut” and on the fringe would be wise to thoroughly read this article before making such a judgment. The facts are on his side, and he truly does seem to know what he is talking about.

Dr. Paul concludes with:

“I have no timetable for these predictions, but just in case, keep them around and look at them in 5 to 10 years. Let us hope and pray that I am wrong on all accounts. If so, I will be very pleased.”

Well, 2012 will be ten years in. You weren’t wrong on all accounts Ron, in fact, you were right on a great many of them. We should all be most displeased that these predictions came true.

————————————————————————————————

Aaron Alghawi is a senior economics major at Texas A&M University, as well as an alternate board member and  Director of Student Outreach for the Republican Liberty Caucus.

Photo of Presidential Candidate Ron Paul (R, TX) by: Gage Skidmore (CC BY-SA 2.0)”]

Published 7/29/11 on Examiner

Questioning the modern welfare state’s wisdom or solvency is the most effective way to irritate those of a liberal political orientation. Raising doubts about its constitutionality at the federal level is something no Democratic candidate or loyal rank and file voter would ever be caught engaging in. The identity of the modern American left is distinctly defined by a no-questions-asked embrace of federal money for allegedly charitable purposes.

Most conservatives are excellent at outlining the ways our system for helping the needy is gamed and taken advantage of. They are also accurate when stressing the role of churches and individuals in helping the downtrodden; generosity is more honorable when done voluntarily and not due to an implicit threat from the IRS. But what frequently goes unasked is whether conservatives have become equally uncritical when it comes to the parts of government they hold no aversion toward.

Newly elected Tea Party Senator Rand Paul recently stated that “Many Republicans treat war like Democrats treat welfare,” shedding light on a glaring deficiency in conservative critique of the states’ growth. While they are spot on in analyzing federal welfare’s potential to erode social mores, this suspicion is absent when it comes to the claims government makes about war and foreign policy.

Conservatives once prided themselves on jealously guarding America’s sovereignty and stressing only judicious overseas intervention. When Ronald Reagan was faced with the 1983 killing of 241 Marines in Beirut, he decided to pull the troops out instead of further enmeshing his nation in difficult to comprehend Arab internal politics. No fear-tinged lectures were given about “Surrender” or “Cowardice”; Republican stalwarts like Reagan instinctively understood the distinction between protecting America and wasting taxpayer dollars in a part of the world we share little in common with.

But many of those who embrace the neoconservative philosophy heap outright scorn on Republicans who would exhibit these characteristics today. When John McCain derided as “isolationist” anyone who opposes the Libyan bombing campaign, he was using logic that flew in the face of the Republican tradition of foreign policy realism alive as recently as the George H. W. Bush years. But fortunately the Arizona senator is becoming a minority in his own party.

Most Republicans readily acknowledge domestic government intervention causes unintended consequences such as unemployment and inflation. But frequently overlooked is that American overseas intervention, no matter how noble it sounds in the abstract, often holds the same potential for unforeseeable outcomes. Conservatives like Robert Taft and Reagan understood this, backing use of the military that was reserved for constitutionally prescribed national defense purposes only.

This traditional Republican foreign policy is slowly coming back into style. Nation building and democracy spreading experiments no longer elicit enthusiasm among conservatives; trillion dollar deficits and an ultra-hawkish left wing president have helped reignite a desire to see a small government footprint at home and abroad. Any conservative hoping to establish their debt-shrinking prowess must now put Pentagon spending on the table next to the litany of federal handouts.

Any Republican who questioned overseas expenditures was sure to be banished to the conservative ghetto during the all war, all the time Rumsfeld/McCain era of GOP dominance. Today, with a debt-concerned and war weary public, asking these same questions might just mean a seat in the Oval Office.

Friends of Liberty:

The long-awaited elimination of Osama bin Laden is a tribute to the persistence of our military and the effectiveness of our intelligence community. We can now honestly say “mission accomplished” and put to rest the post 9/11 era and its policies.

We should look on this victory as a new beginning and an opportunity to dismantle our overblown domestic security apparatus, including the elimination of the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Safety Administration and repeal of the remaining elements of the Patriot Act. The death of Osama bin Laden should mark the end of the War on Terror.  We should transition to a new set of priorities that emphasize foreign intelligence gathering and a foreign policy of defending our country and protecting American lives and liberties.

Let us make this the beginning of a new era where we should embrace our love of liberty and no longer be ruled by fear, leading the world by example rather than being driven by revenge.

Dave Nalle

Chairman, Republican Liberty Caucus

As liberty voters we’re very lucky this year that we have a better choice of candidates than we have had since the days of Goldwater and Taft.  With both Governor Gary Johnson and Representative Ron Paul running some of us are finding it hard to figure out which candidate to support and others are bickering and squabbling over their choices rather than celebrating how lucky we really are. Liberty is catching fire in the hearts of America and this campaign proves it.

At this point, early in the primary process, it benefits us to have as many candidates as possible talking about cutting back the federal government and reclaiming our rights.  Right now there are no delegates at stake and no serious establishment frontrunner to focus on defeating.  That will probably remain true through the primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire, where it’s all about exposure and there aren’t many delegates to win. After that the race gets serious and there are more and more delegates to be won.  At that point we’re going to have to make a choice of who to throw all our efforts and resources behind and it seems obvious to me that the right choice is Ron Paul.

I’ve reached that conclusion for reasons which are both pragmatic and political, and from both perspective he is the gold standard for liberty in 2012.

Practical Advantages

Paul’s practical advantages are obvious.  He is better known, has a large established base of followers and a national organization which is well established with an extraordinary record of fundraising success. Fundraising will be particularly important in a race where the Democrats have promised to spend a billion dollars. Paul is already all over the media, especially the cable news networks.  He is better known than the other hardcore conservative candidates like Rick Santorum and Tim Pawlenty. He has multiple bestselling books in print and his followers promote him tirelessly.  The level of love and support he has generated says a lot about the man and his ideas.  Plus we saw his success at spreading his message in 2008 and now he can build on that base to go even further. Paul has shown he’s a strong debater and an energetic campaigner despite his age, and we need that enthusiasm to beat Obama.

Paul also has long-term associations which will benefit him in the election. He has long been a supporter of pro-liberty groups like the Von Mises Institute and the John Birch Society and was a founding member of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He has a wide base of support on the internet from groups like Justin Raimondo’s AntiWar.com and Lew Rockwell and the many political writers at LewRockwell.com, and has built powerful tools for communication on his own networks like RonPaulForums.com and for grassroots support in Campaign for Liberty. Plus it can’t be forgotten that the idea of the Tea Party originated in Paul’s 2008 campaign and many Tea Party voters are still drawn to him.

The Right Ideas

On his political positions Paul is also superior. People keep comparing him to Gary Johnson, but it’s a false comparison. They’re not nearly as similar as Johnson supporters would like us to believe and they really aren’t even competing for the same voters. Ron Paul is a true constitutional conservative and it’s a mistake to call him a libertarian, even if he has a lot in common with that movement. Gary Johnson is more of a moderate libertarian. He’s a minarchist who is a liberal on social issues. He’s closer to Ronald Reagan or the old Rockefeller wing of the party on many issues and he’s too liberal on social issues for Republican primary voters. Paul has a more clearly defined constitutional position and an established reputation for standing on principle.

Ron Paul’s positions are more appealing on a number of issues. He’s the only candidate who is willing to stand up and call for an end to the Federal Reserve, which is a dangerous cabal run by foreign bankers with no basis in Constitutional authority. He’s the only candidate who believes in sound money and a return to the gold standard rather than fractional reserve banking. He’s also the strongest candidate supporting states rights and state sovereignty and an end to federal tyranny under the 14th Amendment.

Perhaps most importantly, Ron Paul is the only candidate brave enough to have a foreign policy which admits the mistakes we’ve made overseas and the disastrous and parasitical nature of our relationship with Israel. It is Israel and it’s powerful lobby which have drawn us into war after war and made us the target of terrorism, and Ron Paul would end that relationship and he would withdraw all of our military bases outside our border and stop spending money to prop up dictators and intervene in the affairs of countries all over the world. He’d get us out of the United Nations, thumb his nose at the New World Order, and strengthen our borders to protect our workers and our jobs.

What is absolutely essential for the primary election is that Paul’s personal values can win over GOP primary voters. While he believes that states rights are sacrosanct and is willing to leave many things up to the states to decide, Paul personally believes in fundamental moral values. He believes in the sanctity of human life from conception, opposes the immorality of gay marriage, supports the right of students to pray in school and the posting of the ten commandments on public property. He believes in economic liberty, but also the liberty to practice religion freely and maintain a traditional Judeo-Christian moral code in our society without the interference of the federal government.

It is these values which do the most to differentiate Paul from Gary Johnson, and it is these values which will win him the support of key voters in the religious right so that he can win a primary victory. When traditionalist Christian voters discover that Johnson personally supports gay marriage and abortion and letting the federal government dictate social policy to the states they will turn against him in droves. Unless Ron Paul is there for them to turn to they may support a socially conservative candidate who is terrible on other issues like Mike Huckabee.

Winning in 2012

Gary Johnson is a great spokesman for libertarian ideas, but he is out of step with many in the Republican party and while he might draw Democrats and independents in the general election, he cannot win in a Republican primary because of his controversial views, and you don’t get to the general election without winning the primary. As a true constitutional conservative Ron Paul does not have that liability. Once his message gets out most Republicans will realize that he’s got the right ideas for them.

If you believe in the Constitution, states rights, ending the Fed, sound money and a non-interventionist foreign policy, then Ron Paul is your candidate. He will end the abuses of the last two administrations, cut back the overgrowth of the federal government, get us out of hock to foreign bankers and end the Bush-Obama era of imperialism, torture and murder.

Last week, the day after former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson announced his Presidential bid, antiwar.com’s Justin Raimondo authored a piece he likely had been salivating to publish for some period of time entitled “Gary Johnson: Caveat Emptor.”

It’s the attack on Gary Johnson heard ‘round the Paulosphere, having been circulated by fans of likely 2012 Presidential candidate and fellow libertarian Republican, Congressman Ron Paul.

Raimondo, a skilled writer, did some digging on Gary Johnson to spread the word to the faithful that they shouldn’t waste their time on what he makes out to be an unprincipled sellout — a real statist hack.

Raimondo’s three main complaints with former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, as outlined in his article, are that:
• Johnson supports what is referred to in a Weekly Standard article as “humanitarian wars”;
• Johnson supports the U.S. alliance with Israel; and
• Johnson is supported by the “cosmotarians”, as Raimondo’s subheading asserts.

Cosmo-wha?

Let’s take this third point first, since it has little to do with policy and much to do with personality. Raimondo spends more than 1/3 of his article talking personality and internal movement politics.

Lew Rockwell, a longtime Raimondo ally, wrote at least two negative commentaries about Gary Johnson on days one and two of his campaign (1). Raimondo and Rockwell belong to the segment of the broader liberty movement that is unapologetically anti-war. While they also call themselves “anti-state,” the movers and shakers in this faction often hold conservative positions on social issues. In other words, sometimes they prefer government interference and other times they do not. (Note that these same authors criticize the inconsistencies they see in others on an almost constant basis.)

This is in tune with their most prominent advocate, Congressman Ron Paul (a RLC Advisory Board member held in great esteem by this author), who shares their libertarian bent but feels at ease with the paleo-conservative wing of the Republican Party. As an example, hit piece author Justin Raimondo was involved in Pat Buchanan’s campaigns in 1992, 1996, and 2000. Congressman Ron Paul recently expressed his support for the Defense of Marriage Act, voted for a fence on the U.S.-Mexico border, and is an advocate of removing birthright citizenship from the Constitution.

This “paleo” wing of the liberty movement has long disliked the “libertarian” wing of the liberty movement, who they call “cosmotarians” or “Beltway Libertarians.” The “beltway” crew consists of what Raimondo labels in his article the “Kochtopus” (brothers David and Charles Koch), the Cato Institute and Reason Magazine. The history of the infighting between these factions dates to at least the mid-1980s and won’t be settled anytime soon.

The key point here is that Justin Raimondo approached his article from a biased perspective to begin with. In other words, the score was settled long before Gary Johnson arrived on the scene. Johnson is the unfortunate punching bag because of his interest in bringing more people into the libertarian movement — the types of people Raimondo may not want to join us.

“Humanitarian Wars”

Is stopping genocide the same as a humanitarian war? Is it possible to stop human rights abuses via government action without engaging in a war?

Author Justin Raimondo claims that Governor Gary Johnson supports humanitarian wars. However, nowhere does Johnson mention the word humanitarian, the word war, or both words in conjunction with each other (2).

Instead, Johnson says that “in principle” he would try to “positively influence” or “stop” genocide in foreign nations. He doesn’t say he would intervene in ALL foreign nations where genocide is occurring, but he does say that he does not support nation-building in any form or fashion. Couple this with his principled opposition to the wars in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and you have a candidate who is a non-interventionist with the possible exception of using government to aid people being oppressed in foreign nations.

Call me crazy, but this is hardly the least libertarian position I’ve heard on foreign policy — especially among those running for President. Most libertarian Republicans I know supported intervention in World War II, in part because the United States was attacked, but also because millions of Europeans were being slaughtered and tortured.

To rule out supporting Governor Johnson on the basis of his policy position to potentially stop genocide in a foreign nation is silly.

Unsurprisingly, Justin Raimondo misleads his readers to draw the conclusion that Governor Johnson’s foreign policy is similar to the Obama Doctrine. Raimondo’s false conclusion ignores the fact that Governor Johnson opposes the the War in Libya. How is a candidate opposed the Obama war equated to supporting the Obama Doctrine? It doesn’t add up.

Big, Bad Israel

Raimondo’s favorite topic — undoubtedly — is bashing Israel. Gary Johnson’s Our America Initiative issues page indicates that Governor Johnson supports Israel’s right to defend itself. That is a reasonable position for any libertarian to take, as I explain in my article “Rand Paul’s Stance on Israel A Lesson for the Liberty Movement to Follow.”

Senator Rand Paul (son of Ron Paul), during his 2010 campaign, defended Israel’s right to self defense, saying, “As a United States Senator, I would never vote to condemn Israel for defending herself. Whether it is fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, combating Hamas-linked terrorists in Gaza or dealing with potential nuclear threats in the Persian Gulf, Israeli military actions are completely up to the leaders and military of Israel, and Israel alone.” More recently, Senator Paul has advocated ending U.S. aid to Israel.

In a document I obtained from Gary Johnson’s (c)(4) group the Our America Initiative, Governor Johnson says that “a clear national security interest and the fundamental defense of the United States” justifies U.S. support for Israel. “Our direct military funding support to Israel totals about $3 billion a year, and the majority of that money is spent buying equipment and technology from U.S. companies. That $3 billion is less than we gave General Motors, and the cost of not having a strong, democratic ally in the Middle East is incalculable,” Governor Johnson concludes in the document. He says the costs of the continued relationship are “paltry when compared with th(e) benefits”(3).

Gary Johnson also says that, as President, he would work to support Israel in case it is attacked “militarily.” That’s a big if, since the Arabs have lost six wars in the Middle East in the last six decades. Governor Johnson, like many others, sees the United States having a strong relationship with the one nation in the Middle East region which provides rights and liberties to its people as valuable. While most libertarians do not support alliances in any form or fashion (including this libertarian), obviously Governor Johnson does in one instance. He should explain more about why the U.S.-Israel alliance is more important than other alliances.

Fortunately, you don’t have to agree with Governor Johnson on the issue of Israel to support his candidacy in the same way that you don’t have to agree with Congressman Paul’s vote to build a fence along the Mexican border.

Mr. Raimondo attempts to paint Gary Johnson as a statist throughout his article, but he concludes that Governor Johnson is “Ron Paul Lite” — a palatable, principled advocate of individual liberty and limited government.

Gary Johnson, says Raimondo, is “Paul Lite, Paul without the hard edges, without the ‘kooky’ end-the-Fed stuff, without the social conservatism, without the stubborn devotion to principle and to Austrian economics, specifically – in short, a hollowed out libertarianism, without any style and surely without its soul.” (Note: Gary Johnson has said he would audit and abolish the Fed and adheres to the Austrian school of economics.)

Welcome to real politics, Mr. Raimondo, where (unfortunate as it may be) kooky doesn’t win elections.

Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson won election in a majority-minority state — a state that is two to one Democrat — twice (1994 and 1998). In Johnson, we’re fortunate enough to have a Presidential candidate who is committed to principle, has a record to prove it, and is a willing and able-bodied standard-bearer to spread the libertarian message to the masses.

There’s simply no reason you should accept Justin Raimondo’s bid to make the perfect the enemy of the awesome.

Sources

(1) April 21 Lew Rockwell post #1; April 21 Lew Rockwell post #2

(2) The article in question is from the Weekly Standard. “Humanitarian war” is coined by the author. View the original article and the author’s follow-up.

(3) The document I obtained is called “Continued Investment in U.S.-Israel Relations is Worth the Cost.”

In conjunction with a recently released study confirming that U.S. involvement in the affairs of Israel actually hurts the country and the fact that the U.S. has blocked peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, it is time for Americans to demand a U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East — including an end to foreign aid and an expedient exit of U.S. troops from Libya, Iraq, and other sovereign nations in the region.

A report from earlier today (linked above) by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency states that the United States has blocked an initiative by the UN, the European Union, and Russia to outline an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. The settlement related to border talks, solutions for Palestinian refugees, and the sharing of Jerusalem.

The U.S. nixed the ideas, saying it was “not the right time”.

Given that the United States is busy fighting three foreign wars and most recently bombed Libya, apparently peace is not on Nobel Peace Prize recipient Barack Obama’s agenda.

Which once again makes the case for the United States butting out of Israel’s affairs and exiting the Middle East altogether.

When Kentucky senator Rand Paul recently proposed cutting off the entirety of American foreign aid, his plan was immediately denounced by almost every corner of the ideological spectrum. Most of the disagreement centered on his willingness to do away with foreign aid to Israel, a suggestion many Americans find unacceptable when it comes to our long-time Middle East friend. Paul found himself with few allies, a scenario underscoring just how difficult it will be to ever truly get our deficit under control. Though the $3 billion in annual aid provided to Israel is a drop in the bucket compared to overall annual federal expenditures, the fact that conservatives and liberals alike cannot picture a world without foreign aid is quite telling.

One of the fallacies that leads many to oppose cutting foreign aid, be it to Israel or another nation, is the assumption that the absence of federal aid to Israel would somehow impoverish the nation having funds cut off.  But this notion is very suspect. Americans are a notably charitable people, and the wide support for Israel demonstrated by public opinion polls indicates Americans would be apt to generously give to that nation by way of private donations. Sure, there will be initial howls and obligatory accusations of callousness. But the public dole would quickly be displaced by donations from private organizations and individuals, which is the means conservatives are supposed to favor when it comes to helping those in need. Numerous Jewish and evangelical Christian organizations would no doubt pick up any slack left over from the elimination of government funds.

Domestically, we refer to recipients of government transfer payments as ‘welfare recipients’, but as far as I know this title is rarely applied when referencing foreign aid. Rand Paul indicated as much when discussing his foreign aid proposal; do conservatives really think the Israelis so lack self-sufficiency that they would be an economic basket case if not for U.S. taxpayer dollars? Do we really want other countries who receive the other $22 billion worth of foreign aid to feel as if America is merely buying their goodwill, or would we instead prefer to have peaceful exchanges of trade and commerce with them that foster reciprocal good feelings?

Whether applied to Israel or Egypt, conservatives should not favor the spreading of American’s tax dollars around the globe on the whim of a D.C. politician. Instead, individual donating on their volition and time would not only be more rewarding for all those involved, but it would allow our government to take a small step in the direction of solvency.

For years, we have given money to Israel’s avowed enemies, some of whom even share a physical border with that small nation. The subsidization of Mubarak in Egypt was just one of many foreign dole practices that should cause Americans to scratch their heads. Would not an even handed approach dictate that we simply cut off the spigot of money to all overseas governments? It is astonishing that our politicians are all but oblivious to this sentiment, one that is widespread among the everyday public.

After all, we are rapidly nearing $15 trillion debt; at what point do we begin taking the steps necessary to get our own house in order and cease subsidizing the lifestyles and military budgets of countries thousands of miles from our shore? Some might incorrectly call this “isolationism”, but our current foreign aid policy, when you get down to it, comes perilously close to qualifying as socialism. Is that any better?

We need to begin treating the Israelis like the grownups they are and stop interjecting ourselves in their finances and internal affairs. To do so is in no way to be anti-Israel, but instead would be a commonsensical approach for fiscal conservatives to adopt across the board. The minimal amount of money saved would pale in comparison to the feelings of sovereignty this would grant both to Americans and Israelis, as a recent Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies study shows.

Countries who formerly received aid would no longer need a paternal figure looking over their shoulder as they are freed up to manage the affairs in a manner they, not America per se, see fit. Many of us have been taught as conservatives that success should be defined as how many people are able to leave, not sign up for, welfare programs. This line of sound reasoning need not be divorced from our approach to overseas assistance either.

Douglas Casey once stated that: “Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries.” This quote has a lot more truth to it that those in Washington are willing to admit.

Perhaps the time has come to stop forcing Americans to aid those in poverty overseas by gunpoint, and instead let them do so out of the goodness of their own hearts.

If the American intervention into Libya’s civil war was puzzling beforehand, the president’s inability to coherently explain it during his address to the nation only made things murkier.

But if there is one thing this entire situation has reinforced, it is that the foreign policy agenda erroneously passed off as conservatism during the Bush years was anything but. After all, the language used by Barack Obama to justify his attack on Libya was unmistakably similar to George Bush’s reasoning for going into Iraq.

Conservatives who dismissed criticism of Republican foreign policy during the mid-2000’s as dissent voiced only by disenchanted left-liberals might now be thinking there was more to these critiques than they were willing to admit. In fact, the foreign policy positions taken by many of the Bush Republicans resulted in the U.S. military’s role being viewed as one of “spreading democracy” around the globe, a notion not rooted in our history and an idea historically associated with the American Left. This idea had nothing to do with conservatism, but amazingly was passed off as such during the post 9/11 years. If more Republicans do not wake up from this mind set, the United States will ensure its bankruptcy and currency collapse sooner rather than later.

In years past, it became conventional wisdom that most liberals were rhetorically opposed to the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, while conservatives were expected to fully support them. This much was apparent.

Anyone questioning the cost or wisdom of two simultaneous Middle East occupations was written off as a “liberal” no matter how impressive their small government credentials. In hindsight, this simply made no sense; true, many on the Left did oppose Bush’s foreign policy, but that was based on the simple fact that it was Bush’s foreign policy. And the conservatives who unflinchingly supported the Iraq occupation and mission creep in Afghanistan largely did so out of a commitment to the administration, not because the installation of democracy in the Middle East was some longstanding goal of American conservatism or something they particularly were dogmatic about.

The degree to which so many otherwise intellectually curious conservatives were willing to dismiss facts and shut down critical thinking skills was truly disappointing. That they were so willing to do so was illustrative of a movement which had lost touch with its intellectual moorings, damaged largely by a blinding hatred of Bill Clinton in the 1990s which led to the embracing of a president ungrounded in his political philosophy in the 2000s.

Equating conservatism with ambitious nation building projects in Iraq and Afghanistan caused confusion over what the ideology even stood for. Attempting to install a democracy overseas and rebuild the fabric of a society from the top down are actions requiring an autocratic, centralized government to have any hope of success. Liberals would be the natural allies of such attempts due to their willingness to embrace Orwellian bureaucratic planning and the lack of aversion they show to using government for drastic societal change. Conservatives have generally understood that civil society must develop organically, naturally recoiling at ambitious projects with hefty price tags.

But the shoe was on the other foot during the Bush years, as both sides selected their positions based primarily on which party was in power. The relative silence of many anti-war groups after the election of Barack Obama showed their agenda had much more to do with electing a Democratic president than with ending any particular war; the only wars the Left seems to oppose are those started by a Republican or not given the U.N.’s stamp of approval.

And each side’s view of the particular war we happen to be involving ourselves in at the moment is a constantly evolving phenomenon. Evidence of this is ample: many of the same conservatives who denounced Bill Clinton’s humanitarian Kosovo operation were either silent on or vocally supportive of  intervention done largely on the same grounds in Iraq; before being opposed to such a policy once again when done in Libya.

These contradictions occur because the positions taken on so many foreign policy questions are not done out of any underlying principle, but simply result from partisan cheer-leading.

When Republicans passed the ruinous Medicare Part D expansion, the same ‘conservative’ commentators who would have been howling nonstop had it  been a Democratic initiative were comparatively silent. We heard warnings of “socialism” for a solid year during the debate over Obama’s health plan, but George Bush’s own foray into governmental health care involvement was treated with kid gloves.

Scenarios like this one paint a clear picture of how partisanship for sport creates an obvious and self-perpetuating double standard. After all, both sides can always finger point and decry the other side’s hypocrisy to justify their own hypocrisy; this vicious cycle, though financially lucrative for television and radio hosts, has been ruinous to conservatism and deleterious for the country at large.

Any impartial observer should have two eyebrows raised by Obama’s willingness to continue Bush’s foreign policy actions and rhetoric. This should make it clear there was never anything inherently conservative about it to begin with. In fact, liberal internationalism was what was on display during the foreign policy of the Bush years, not the non-interventionism fostered by true, prudent conservatism. Barack Obama genuinely believes the federal government can and should be used to help people in spite of how much debt it rings up or abysmal its track record. So of course he sees nothing odd about intervening in Libya; indeed, his entire philosophy is predicated on government action.

Frankly, Barack Obama’s public policies were more similar to that of his predecessor than those with partisan blinders on would care to admit, and, viewed through this lens, our failures in Iraq and Afghanistan actually repudiated the very centralization of government power conservatives are taught to abhor.

Those in the Tea Party confessing concern about our budget can no longer be intimidated into unquestioning acceptance of the foreign policy status quo. Americans have repeatedly rejected the ideology which demonized anyone who questioned our overseas policies, and the skittishness which greeted the Libyan intervention further underscored this. The same kind of thinking that gives birth to our costly welfare state at home only causes more difficulty for our country overseas when carried to fruition on an international scale.

WHEREAS Libya poses no imminent and clear threat to the United States; and

WHEREAS the Congress of the United States has not declared war against Libya, or in any other way authorized the use of military force against Libya; and

WHEREAS the President has exceeded his authority under the Constitution of the United States, which reserves to Congress the sole power to declare war;

We, the National Committee of the Republican Liberty Caucus, hereby RESOLVE;

THAT the President has violated the War Powers Act, which requires him to notify the Congress of the United States of the imminent use of military force, so as to receive the assent of Congress to the use of military force in a timely manner;

THAT we declare our solidarity with those members of the Congress and citizens of the United States who have sought to avert U.S. involvement in a war in the Libya;

THAT we do not believe the U.S. should be involved in Libya militarily;

AND we call on all those who believe in the Constitution and respect the rule of law to demand an end to U.S. military intervention in Libya.

(Adopted unanimously by the RLC National Committee, March 22, 2011.)

See also: RLC Condemns U.S. Military Action Against Libya; March 24, 2011