I was often accused of being a liberal or a "Liberaltarian" by various, so-called conservatives for my support of Ron Paul. I think it stems from that first Republican debate where Ron Paul made the claim that terrorist recruitments were on the rise ever since we've declared war in Iraq. Rudy Guiliani was able to capitalize on this by saying that Congressman Paul had just said we're responsible for terrorism.
That pretty much doomed Ron Paul to remain an obscure candidate for the rest of the race. Such sentiments are easily dismissed by many conservatives and several libertarians alike. I can see how the war on Islamic Child Suicide bombers is a noble cause, so I don't blame them for taking the knee-jerk reaction approach.
But I actually looked into this guy's views. And I have to say, I liked what I saw. I liked it more than all the others. What makes Ron Paul more appealing than all the others to me? There are several reasons:
Firstly, I really like his Congressional record. Nicknamed, "Dr. No" he has voted against legislation on Constitutional principle, for the most part, rather than on party principle or the money principle. It is very rare for members of Congress to vote based on Constitutional principle alone, although they will often claim they are.
Various conservatives I have encountered have often cited the fact that he has voted against increases in military spending. I think that the military, like any other bureaucratic agency, has enough money and wastes just as much taxpayer dollars as any other agency. People think we need the latest technology for spying and intelligence gathering. But the truth, we could gain more by having a few well-placed agents then by getting the latest in spy satellites. Sorry, but technology isn't the final answer to defending our homeland. The primary reason our government dropped the ball on the 9/11 attacks was because our government simply wasn't paying attention. Former Congressman Curt Weldon confirmed this much before the Clinton machine crushed him in 2006.
Second, Ron Paul is the only one who is calling for decreased spending. While the Democrats seem to be engaged in a contest to see who can give more to what supposed victim group, the other Republicans, by and large, have not even come close to addressing this issue. Not that this is entirely their fault. By and large, the American people who tend to vote tend to like the candidate who is willing to whore the taxpayer dollars out to them the most. Also, none of the moderators in the so-called debates have come remotely close to asking such a question.
Ron Paul is the only one of the whole lot of them who is willing to put himself out there and say that he is going to cut spending on government and fire people in DC. That takes a lot of balls, especially given the much needed approval of the mainstream media.
Lastly, Ron Paul is the grand unifier. What do Christian libertarians and homosexual atheists have in common with Ron Paul? How about blacks and white supremacists? Conspiracy theorists? They all share the same desire to make sure the government lets them run their lives. That is, they all want limited government that doesn't seek to shape their beliefs and lifestyles. He has support for a widespread variety of groups, although few and far between, because these are the last groups who believe in limit government. Modern conservatives do not believe in limited government, just that Republicans run things in DC, something that has been proven to be no different than Democrats running things, save a slight difference in taxation. What's more, you don't have to compromise your core values when it comes to morality because, for the most part, government remains neutral except in cases of life, liberty, and property and only when one or all of them are taken by another through force or fraud.
Ron Paul understands that economic freedom leads to governmental freedom. The best way to spread the ideas of a Republic is to spread economic freedom. Look at what happened in South Korea. It was a repressive dictatorship for decades, but when that dictator toned down the managed economy of his country, the people's lives got better and they eventually overthrew their oppressors. The same almost happened in China in the early 90s, but failed. I do expect China to become a Republic is some form as the quality of living of middle-class Chinese goes up. When the Chinese finally realize that their government will not let them engage in true economic freedom, they will overthrow it in favor of one that will. The same happened to the United States back when we were colonies to the British. We had enough economic freedom to be prosperous for our time and when Great Britain tried to manage it, we rebelled and broke free.
But it came down to Ron Paul's foreign policy that contradicted my own. When Islamic radicals demonstrate a clear threat and constantly shout from whatever bunker they are in that they want to kill us, I want to kill them first. Ron Paul has advocated taking the troops out of Iraq and placing them on our borders. At first I was opposed to this. I thought that Iraq needed to be seen through. But now I think we are in a position to remove troops from Iraq completely and things will be fine there. The Iraqis, by and large, do not like tyranny anymore than we do (for the most part) now that they have tasted freedom. Two or three years ago, I would have said that we need to stay in Iraq, but now things have changed there for the better.
I think my main reason for support of Ron Paul is because of his support of limited government. I think this stance is more important than any war, since we are not engaged in total war with Islamic radicals. The oversized and overfunded government we are living under is a larger threat to freedom and prosperity than a couple of guys who will crash planes into some towers. If you don't see it that way, then that's OK. I used to believe that too. But the more I see how the government behaves and reacts, I know there are larger forces and threats out there than Islamic terrorism. What good is a defeated enemy when we have lost our property rights and all our communication is monitored by a computer system? What good is a defeated enemy when our sovereignty is spat upon by illegal aliens and the politicians who clearly support them? What good is democracy when the government can be whored out like Absalom did back in the days of Israel?
I tell you, these are things which we need to continually address. Otherwise, a subtle form of tyranny sets in and we won't even notice.