A well-respected Washington Post columnist attacks Ron Paul. While Paul is unlikely to win the Republican presidential nomination, the attack is probably motivated by the candidate's high chances of winning the primary in Iowa, which will make him the subject of the media discussions for the next few weeks and may be potentially dangerous for the other candidates (What matters is not only the possibility that Paul wins the nomination, but also reshuffling of the other candidates, depending on how close their numbers in Iowa will be in respect to his.)
I do not support Ron Paul. I do think that many of his positions on foreign policy and economics are extreme, and that the accusations of racism against him are not completely ungrounded. In my opinion, the real problem is not the views of the particular person, but the huge gaps in the Republican political spectrum, which are seriously damaging the political discourse in the United States: the gaps between the ridiculous positions of Paul, those of "social conservatives", represented by Bachman, Perry, Palin, and Santorum, and the moderate-and-therefore-unpopular figures, such as Romney, Gingrich and Huntsman (all three have the records of supporting openly Democratic positions on healthcare, abortion etc.)
Let me get back to the Michael Gerson's article (please go to the Washington Post article for the links to the original Paul's statements):
"No other recent candidate hailing from the party of Lincoln has accused Abraham Lincoln of causing a “senseless” war and ruling with an “iron fist.” Or regarded Ronald Reagan’s presidency a “dramatic failure.” Or proposed the legalization of prostitution and heroin use. Or called America the most “aggressive, extended and expansionist” empire in world history. Or promised to abolish the CIA, depart NATO and withdraw military protection from South Korea. Or blamed terrorism on American militarism, since “they’re terrorists because we’re occupiers.” Or accused the American government of a Sept. 11 “coverup” and called for an investigation headed by Dennis Kucinich. Or described the killing of Osama bin Laden as “absolutely not necessary.” Or affirmed that he would not have sent American troops to Europe to end the Holocaust. Or excused Iranian nuclear ambitions as “natural,” while dismissing evidence of those ambitions as “war propaganda.” Or published a newsletter stating that the 1993 World Trade Center attack might have been “a setup by the Israeli Mossad,” and defending former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke and criticizing the “evil of forced integration.”"
While some of the cited Ron Paul's positions are absurd, others are simply statements of facts or legitimate political/economic viewpoints. Let me go through them one-by-one:
1. "No other recent candidate hailing from the party of Lincoln has accused Abraham Lincoln of causing a “senseless” war and ruling with an “iron fist.”"
Despite the popular narrative, the American Civil War was fought not for the sake of liberating the slaves, but to prevent the cessation of the Confederation states from the Union. The abolition of slavery, while a positive development, had many benefits and few political risks for Lincoln: most slaves were in the opposing him Southern states, whereas the Lincoln's constituents were only slightly affected and not very concerned with the problem of slavery in general.
2. "[Ron Paul] regarded Ronald Reagan’s presidency a “dramatic failure.”"
A legitimate point of view. The diametrically opposing points of view exist in respect to every US president - even in respect to Washington, Lincoln and Nixon. Reagan had some hard-to-deny achievements in his foreign policy, particularly bringing down the USSR and ending the Cold War. However, the role of his supply-side policies in the US recovery from the Carter-time recession is a subject for a debate. Certainly, the unconditional veneration of Reagan by a large part of the Republican party is as unjustified as the Paul's position.
3. "[Ron Paul] proposed the legalization of prostitution and heroin use."
Well in line with the libertarian view that the law enforcement in respect to drugs and prostitution adversely affects the corresponding markets - making the services more scarce and consequently more expensive. This makes drug-bisuness and prostitution more profitable, while doing little in terms of reducing health risks of the users. However, there is a moral component to the legalization of both, which the libertarian point of view ignores.
4. "[Ron Paul] called America the most “aggressive, extended and expansionist” empire in world history."
America indeed does a lot to expand its influence in the World, by military as well as by economic means. I do not think that this is necessarily a negative thing to do. Nevertheless, it is a fact.
5. "[Ron Paul] promised to abolish the CIA, depart NATO and withdraw military protection from South Korea."
Completely unjustified from the political point of view. This however again fits with the libertarian view of minimal power given to the government (CIA) and minimal interference in other country's affairs
6. "[Ron Paul] blamed terrorism on American militarism, since “they’re terrorists because we’re occupiers.”"
This is a point of view on the fighting in Iraq that was popular during the George W. Bush presidency. It is hard to deny that occupation necessarily creates resistance. Yet, this is not the complete truth - there are no grounds for the claim that the occupation is the only reason for the terrorism, and that the terrorism will stop after the US withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan.
7. "[Ron Paul] accused the American government of a Sept. 11 “coverup” and called for an investigation headed by Dennis Kucinich."
Hard to disagree - the September 11 attacks were spectacular intelligence and national security failures with seemingly no one to blame.
8. "[Ron Paul] described the killing of Osama bin Laden as “absolutely not necessary.”"
Perhaps, it was necessary. Still, it was an extra-judicious assassination, carried out with the open consent of the US president, who previously campaigned against similar policies - such as the Guantanamo Bay prison, secret detention centers, the use of the enhanced interrogation methods, etc. While such things may be necessary, they are not something that politicians should be proud of, or what the public could cheer about.
9. "[Ron Paul] affirmed that he would not have sent American troops to Europe to end the Holocaust."
Dibious, but consistent with Paul's opposition to any interference. The criticism is however taken out of context, if we do not mention that the actual US president at the time of the Holocaust, while knowing of it, kept it secret from the public and delayed American entry into the war as long as possible. It is worth keeping in mind that sending troops to Europe resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties among them - something that must be of concern to the president as well. In short, the question weighs the responsibility of the president towards the European Jews versus his responsibility towards his citizens - a "lose-lose" choice.
10. "[Ron Paul] excused Iranian nuclear ambitions as “natural,” while dismissing evidence of those ambitions as “war propaganda.”"
Another point of view popular in the aftermath of the US invasion of Iraq, under the pretext of eliminating a nuclear threat. Iranian drive for nuclear weapons is certainly "natural" for a country that wants to increase its political influence and curb the influence of the US. The claim about war propaganda is ridiculous, since the Obama administrations has already demonstrated its reluctance to risk a military confrontation. However, the bottom line is - Iranian nuclear weapons will be destabilizing and dangerous for the US and the World.
11. "[Ron Paul] published a newsletter stating that the 1993 World Trade Center attack might have been “a setup by the Israeli Mossad”
A conspiracy theory.
12. "[Ron Paul's letter is] defending former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke and criticizing the “evil of forced integration.”"
Rasism. There is much negative however to be said about the way the integration of the minorities is taking place in the US. This is again in line with non-interference by the government, advocated by the libertarian school.
No comments:
Post a Comment