Dan,
I would like to first of all thank you for your thoughtful insight and articulate defense of Ron Paul. Your criticisms are fair, detailed, and well informed, and I will try to form an appropriate response. I think the issues we are discussing here are personal and can get heated; for that reason, I am encouraged that people like you and I are taking the discussion to a new level. I will try and address the points you made in chronological order.
First, I wrote that post from a marketing and strategic perspective, because (sadly) history has told us that the American people respond to effective marketing markedly more than they respond to ideology or actual differences in political ideas. That is not to be said for anomalies like you and I as well as political advocates in general. A vast majority of us have at least a basic understanding of the major issues, and choose our affiliations and fairly accurately cast our votes based upon our beliefs. What I think is a clear message from this past election, however, is that this could not be less true for the average American. That being said, I did not intend to dismiss Ron Paul’s supporters as blind cult followers, but as exceptions to this general rule. What you have to remember, is that for every you or I, there are roughly 10,000 Americans from the other category. This is a grave weakness in our democracy that I would love to discuss in more detail, but again, it is an entirely separate discussion.
Second, I honestly do believe that some—but certainly not all—of Ron Paul’s views are out of touch with the mainstream, most namely in the realm of foreign policy. For instance, Ron Paul advocates a particular brand of extreme isolationism. During his tenure in Congress as well as the proposed platform for his presidency call for withdrawing from all international organizations, the United Nations, NATO, the World Trade Organization, and others. He also advocates a rapid and sudden troop withdrawal from Iraq. While I do not have the time or space to address the merits of these arguments, some of which I find entirely legitimate and agree with, the American people 1) fail to understand the implications for the United States and our young men and women overseas, and 2) adamantly oppose such sudden shifts that would undermine almost a century of foreign policy. The drastic nature of such a proposal is exactly why I used the term “draconian.” I, and a majority of the American people, find such measures to be extreme.
The same applies to his attitude toward Washington and the Executive Branch. A radical elimination of a majority of agencies, although worth legitimate discussion, is extreme. These agencies are the backbone of what the American public understands as government, and a sudden elimination would instill fear in many voters, from liberal to moderately conservative. For this reason, such change must be continuous and gradual. I could not agree more (hence my poke at neo’s) that spending in Washington is out of control and the red tape in overlapping agencies is a gross waste of the people’s tax dollars. I, as most polls suggest of the American people, am much more comfortable with incremental change.
As far as Ron Paul’s predictions, I agree with you that they have been spot on so far. Ron Paul is an extremely bright man, and understands economics very well. Not all of his predictions have fully materialized yet, but we are definitely seeing things quickly head in that direction. I personally believe that in any quasi-free market economy that temporary periods of recession are not only inevitable, but necessary for a healthy market in the long term. And just like the era that you mentioned preceding the Great Depression, the government’s hands are certainly not clean. There are many economic changes that need to be made, and probably at a quicker pace than usual. I am not dismissing Ron Paul’s ideas as possible solutions out of the current dilemma(s).
What you and I agree most upon is the Constitution. I definitely do not include this in the list of Ron Paul ideas that I would call extreme. I am an aspiring lawyer and I read constitutional opinions almost every day. I even get upset with our favorite Justice, Justice Antonin Scalia, when he makes an exception to his steadfast commitment to originalism, strict constructionism, and judicial restraint. I am adamantly opposed and outspoken against judges legislating from the bench and forming social policy based upon sympathy for particular litigants. I believe it is not only undemocratic, but a violation of what our forefathers agreed to on our behalf. And—this is a point which I believe has the potential for great success among the electorate. Who would possibly oppose upholding the Constitution when asked this question?
I think our biggest point of contention is over the Patriot Act and the War on Terror. Well, as a United States Marine who swore to protect this country, I was forced to travel to a foreign land and carry out this promise under the sacrifice of my own liberty. I have seen what they have to offer firsthand, and I assure you that the United States is in grave danger. These terrorists don’t just hate our government; they hate each and every one of us with utmost passion. Their goal is not to send us a message. Their goal is to exterminate each and every one of us, military and civilian alike. Unfortunately, these enemies live abroad as well as within our borders, as immigrants, legal permanent residents, and yes, even as citizens. We receive tens of thousands of (credible) threats upon our national security every single day, and without the flexibility to pursue these individuals, we are all at risk. Plans thwarted as a result of the Patriot Act make September 11, 2001 look like a minor car accident. Balancing life and liberty is the toughest thing in any democracy to do, and we must constantly have this debate if we are to remain alive and free.
While you and I can debate the finer points, I believe we are going to see things get far worse before they get better in the foreseeable future. I think it is fairly clear that Barack Obama (especially with healthy democrat majorities in both houses) plans to emulate FDR in implementing a socialist agenda to attempt to pull us from this economic crisis. As well, his inexperience is beginning to reveal itself in early statements about foreign policy, and my brethren will likely be spread yet thinner as they are burdened with even greater objectives throughout the world. If we are to prevent such socialist ideas from becoming reality, we have to decide whether the differences outweigh the similarities across the spectrum of our party and our ideology. Choosing our battles and timing them carefully is the unity and coordination that we need to succeed and defeat the liberal agenda. Continuing to squabble internally among the various factions within our party will ensure democrat dominance for as long as we continue down that path of division and isolation from one another.
3 comments:
Great stuff! I appreciate some intelligent dialogue on these issues, too often people simply dismiss RP's positions. I appreciate that you evaluated each position based on its own merit rather than simply dismissing it because of its author.
In regards to foreign policy, the issue lies in the realm of the law and the Constitution, not in the realm of world opinion. I also am a soldier in the United States Army (5 years this December), and I respect your service as well. The Constitution stipulates that treaties ratified by the Senate become the supreme law of the land; that the United Nations Charter – which the Senate ratified on July 28, 1945, by a vote of 89 to 2 – expressly forbids attacks on other countries unless they pose an imminent danger; that there is no provision allowing some other kind of “preemptive” or “preventive” attack against a nation that poses no imminent danger; and that Iran poses no such danger to the United States or its allies.
The 9/11 attacks, although atrocious, cannot be credibly linked to Iraq. The Commission has failed to implicate Al-Qaeda, yet watching the media you would think we've caught Osama Bin Laden with his hand in the cookie jar. Bin Laden was trained by our CIA in the 1970's, we taught him most of what he knows.
However, the first lie about the Iraq war was not that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or ties to Al Qaeda. The first lie told to the American people is that Congress voted for this war.
In the midst of the rushed congressional debate in October 2002, U.S. Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Virginia) warned that the resolution under consideration was unconstitutional. “We are handing this over to the President of the United States,” Byrd said. “When we do that, we can put up a sign on the top of this Capitol, and we can say: ‘Gone home. Gone fishing. Out of business.’” Byrd added: “I never thought I would see the day in these forty-four years I have been in this body… when we would cede this kind of power to any president.”
The Iraq war is in direct violation of the United States Constitution. The president and the members of Congress who voted for that October resolution should be held accountable for sending this nation into an illegal war.
The United States Congress never voted for the Iraq war. Rather, Congress voted for a resolution in October 2002 which unlawfully transferred to the president the decision-making power of whether to launch a first-strike invasion of Iraq. The United States Constitution vests the awesome power of deciding whether to send the nation into war solely in the United States Congress.
Those members of Congress — including certain Democratic presidential candidates — who voted for that October resolution cannot now claim that they were deceived, as some of them do. By unlawfully ceding the war-declaring power to the president, they allowed the president to start a war against Iraq based on whatever evidence or whatever lies he chose. The members of Congress who voted for that October resolution are as complicit in this illegal war as is the president himself.
In October 2002, Congress passed a resolution which stated: “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to 1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and 2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” As he determines to be necessary and appropriate.
Congress cannot transfer to the president its exclusive power to declare war any more than it can transfer its exclusive power to levy taxes. Such a transfer is illegal. These are non-delegable powers held only by the United States Congress.
In drafting the War Powers Clause of Article I, Section 8, the framers of the Constitution set out to create a nation that would be nothing like the model established by European monarchies. They knew the dangers of empowering a single individual to decide whether to send the nation into war. They had sought to make a clean break from the kings and queens of Europe, those rulers who could, of their own accord, send their subjects into battle. That is why the framers wisely decided that only the people, through their elected representatives in Congress, should be entrusted with the power to start a war.
The wars of kings and queens of Europe had brought not only havoc and destruction to the lives of those forced into battle and those left to suffer their loss. They had also brought poverty. They were stark symbols that the subjects living under such monarchies lacked any voice or any control over their destiny.
The War Powers Clause of the Constitution emerged from that collective memory: “Congress shall have power…To declare war… ” No other language in the Constitution is as simple and clear.
Thomas Jefferson called it “an effectual check to the Dog of war.” George Mason said that he was “for clogging rather than facilitating war.” James Wilson stated: “This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large.”
Several years after the adoption of the Constitution, James Madison would write: “In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war and peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department.”
We now know that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, as repeatedly alleged by Mr. Bush and other members of his administration. And contrary to Mr. Bush’s allegation that the United Nations showed no backbone and courage, the Security Council did, in fact, stand up to the Bush administration’s pressure and did resist authorizing war prior to the UN weapons inspectors completing their task. It was the Bush administration’s impatience with the Security Council process and unwillingness to abide by it that led them to initiate an unauthorized attack on Iraq in violation of international law. Although the war in Iraq is widely regarded throughout the world as illegal under international law, few consequences seem to be flowing from this in holding to account the perpetrators of the war, including leading figures in the Bush administration.
I'm rambling at this point, but understand I am proud to serve my country as are you, and will gladly die for it. I simply am disheartened that the American people are continually lied to and deceived into allowing the executive branch to continue an unconstitutional war -- and something needs to be done -- but I don't see that happening. . . .
It's a frustrating position for me, as a citizen, as a soldier, and as a human being.
dan, gipper, and others reading along, this is a good debate and I'll be trying to write a post today combining the four different debates all going on at once on the site right now.
Dan, I think I'm following your concern that Congress has abdicated its constitutional authority to authorize and declare war to the President. That's probably the problem we've been having ever since Korea. Congress is too scared to act, and Presidents feel they have to act or lose the initiative. The tension between the two has indeed leaned toward too much power for the President.
Post a Comment