So I am listening to Jeffrey Lord on Jerry Doyle’s show today. The interview focused on his latest article about how Ron Paul is a liberal because of his non-interventionist foreign policy stance. I’ve read over the article and while I am not going to quote it here, because it is long and I have already linked to it, I want to point out some things about it that were predictable from Ron Paul opponents:
- Almost predictably, Mr. Lord trots out the anti-Semitism argument. If you oppose bombing foreign Muslim children in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, and Somalia, you must hate the Jews. Never mind that none of these bombings are constitutional considering they are not about national defense and no official declaration of war has been declared. I have yet to hear Ron Paul declare that it is the Jews who are behind United States foreign policy. I will acknowledge that some of his supporters are openly racist, but by and large the non-interventionist stance has nothing to do with race and more to do with the constitutional limitations of foreign policy.
- Jeffrey Lord does his best to cite liberal Republicans who share the same views as Ron Paul does with regards to not intervening in World War I and World War II. While there is a lot to get into with regards to both, let me just turn Mr. Lord’s logic on his face. If Ron Paul’s stance on foreign policy matches that of liberal Republicans who opposed those wars, then the conservatives of today are more like the progressive liberal Democrats of last century such as Woodrow Wilson, who entered World War I to spread democracy to Germany, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Both Presidents who presided over these wars were extremely Left-wing which would make modern “conservatives” like George Bush more akin to progressive liberals than conservatives.
- Most of what he bases his accusations on is based on people who have supported Ron Paul rather than Ron Paul himself. Granted, there are many anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, and libertarians who make up Ron Paul’s support. Frankly, I am glad to see that these Americans have a voice in one of the major parties rather than being relegated to some no name third party. And I thought George W. Bush was trying to create a big tent? I guess the far Right has to use the back door and different water fountains in that tent.
- Mr. Lord cites the Monroe Doctrine as an example of the United States’ history of intervention in foreign policy and as a founding father. I do not recall James Monroe as being a prominent member of the Founding Fathers and from what I understand, the Monroe Doctrine was not used to interfere militarily in the affairs of Central and South America until progressive Republican President Teddy Roosevelt. On a side note, read up on Teddy Roosevelt’s death and the tragedy that befall this warmonger’s idealism. In any case, the United States was, by and large, not intervening until the progressive movement took hold in the ranks of power.
- Mr. Lord cites Alexander Hamilton and his role in the creation of the first central bank as an example of a Founding Father who Ron Paul overlooks. Too bad he forgot that most other Founding Fathers overlooked him as well since Hamilton was in favor of establishing a monarchy here in the United States our the post-colonial, pre-Constitution nation. Hamilton was nothing short of a Statist but he was trusted as Treasury Secretary largely because he was good at financial matters. Keep in mind also that the United States existed and prospered without a central bank for over eighty years, that the Federal Reserve was established to stop nasty depressions, and that it oversaw the Great Depression. It is foolish to support the Federal Reserve given that more and more Americans are looking into it and questioning the value of it.
- Finally, Mr. Lord runs through a list of conservatives who Ron Paul supporters have labeled as not conservative. Again, though, Ron Paul himself has merely taken support from people who have otherwise not had a voice in any of the major parties for several decades now, so of course you are going to get some unconventional views. Besides, if you trace the conservative movement before 1955, it was largely a non-interventionist movement. It was William F. Buckley, Jr. and Brent Bozell, Jr. who hijacked it and made into the warmongering movement it is today.
I am not going to apologize for Ron Paul. I have my own disagreements with him, mainly his immigration views and his earmarking of President Obama’s stimulus spending. However, I find that I agree with him more often than not and that his foreign policy tends to represent mutual respect and courtesy for other nations while at the same time allowing for defense against aggression. When you consider that Israel has 300 nuclear bombs and that if Iran even sneezed fallout in their direction there would be massive repercussions, then you can better understand by Congressman Paul was less concerned with Iran getting a nuclear weapon. By and large, Iran has never been an aggressive nation and most of its actions have been defensive actions, although on a much lower scale than our “defensive” actions.
The fact is, a President who can go to war without Congressional approval is, fundamentally, a dictator. If you can engage in military action with impunity and without limitation, then you have the perfect recipe for a thug. Look at what President Obama did with Libya. Congress told him to stop and he ignored them. And all the while, conservative fools like Mark Levin were scrambling to justify it because they know they would painted as hypocrites or partisan hacks if they opposed it.
In any case, Jeffrey Lord has done well to remind me as to why I do not consider myself conservative anymore and has reinforced why I have no political label. I have always be wary of many of the conservative arguments, largely because many of them are emotion-driven like their liberal opponents, and when I brought to light many of the contradictions, I was hit with insults instead of further instruction as to where I was wrong. I support Ron Paul because he has been consistent throughout much of his political career and because he shows the most respect for the Constitution, a tired, old piece of paper when it comes to liberals and domestic policy as well as conservatives when it comes to foreign policy.