In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Many people (mostly Ron Paul supporters) have asked me, repeatedly, of my opinion of Ron Paul. Admittedly I’ve been somewhat coy in answering. Here I’ll give a brief answer, perhaps more later if there are still people who willingly will communicate with me. I mean, directly and not through their lawyers.
To me, Ron Paul represents the most frustrating of candidates. He’s very intelligent. He’s well-read. He loves America. He’s a bold proponent of many solid, principled ideas that the Founders discovered and used to forge a new nation unlike anything the world has ever seen. He deserves to be proud of his nickname, “Dr. No” during his years in Congress: he’s often the lone voice for the individual. For somebody who shares a similar love of America and freedom, what’s not to love?
Wisdom, or the apparent lack thereof. I can’t get past the apparent lack of ability to rationally apply principles to the real world.
When it comes to domestic policies, the Founders wrote much and their ideas for the most part have endured time. Contrary to those who despise individual liberty, times have not changed. We are humans with the same tendencies as those two hundred years ago. Technology has not altered our nature.
Couple this with a country that has strayed so far from its roots, it takes little intellectual firepower to apply what the Founders intended. “No, the Constitution does not grant the federal government that authority” is the correct response to almost every action that Congress wishes to take.
Before saying anything, I’ve been reading and watching everything that I can find produced by Dr. Paul. From what I can tell, he has a good overall grasp of all things domestic.
For example, when it comes to the topic of marriage, Dr. Paul stands as an exception to every pundit that I’ve encountered — Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, etc. He points out in Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny that the Constitution already gives Congress the tools it needs to keep marriage within the purview of the States. The Constitution grants Congress a check against the federal courts: Congress dictates to the courts which cases it may hear. It thereby may keep the federal courts from meddling in State affairs. (I recommend the article regardless of whether you like or agree with his assessments.)
When it comes to foreign affairs, the writings of the Founders is thinner, and their actions mixed. Here Dr. Paul displays gross naïvité and ignorance, which produces inconsistency and a lack of the deep insight I would expect of somebody seeking the presidency. To be fair, the other candidates aren’t rooted in solid philosophy either. However, for somebody so well-read and passionate about the Constitution, he utterly fails to be persuasive, let alone rational.
Don’t misunderstand. Some things are clearly not authorized by the Constitution, such as extracting money from Americans by force and handing it out to every petty dictator whom the State Department thinks it can influence with cash. Here Dr. Paul is dead on.
However, when it comes to other matters, it appears that he has utterly failed to take into account the realities of history and human behavior. Instead, he tries to use the same naïve cookie-cutter approach to foreign policy and trade.
To me, the greatest contributor to this impression is his inability to present a persuasive argument on these matters. I have difficulty accepting his propositions because many of his assertions start with (1) conclusions (instead of premises), (2) misinformation or (3) logical fallacies, and build upon these. It’s easy to knock over his assertions since his starting points are weak. Regrettably, at times I can’t tell if I’m listening to a patriot or the Daily Kos.
After I analyze his messages on these matters, I’m left with the impression that Ron Paul not only represents “hope for America”, but also her enemies. Faced with another Hitler, at this point it appears that a President Ron Paul would be another Neville Chamberlain.
Maybe There’s Hope
I have ordered but not received Dr. Paul’s book on foreign policy (A Foreign Policy of Freedom), in which I hope he has expounded on this subject with clarity absent from the primary source material that I’ve been able to extract from the Internet.
STGM
I hear Ya! He makes me nervous too. I have learned from experience that people who appear on the surface as having the “right” answers often do not know how to apply them in the real world.
“Never trust the smartest man in the room, even if it is me!”
Comment by threio — 21 January 2008 @ 2:50 am