A fundamental precept of libertarianism is that we must end all foreign intervention, including economic aid and diplomatic meddling. We should avoid entanglements, foreign quarrels, and “imperialist adventures.” Ron Paul is in direct contraposition to leading Republican contender Michele Bachmann, who believes that the incarceration and enhanced interrogation of those accused of terrorism in facilities such as Guantanamo Bay are productive and necessary, and believes these tools should continue to be implemented when dealing with terrorists. Paul believes these things are the products of hysteria and mob rule, and are intolerable. He also opposes assassination on the same grounds. He advocates reason and disdains emotional responses to important problems.
A basic libertarian principle is that nuclear weapons are a threat to everyone’s wellbeing, and should be disallowed. Paul specifically addresses the Iranian nuclear threat, saying that Iran has as much right to nuclear weapons as anyone. He mentions several nations in that region and elsewhere, including China and the United States, which possess nuclear weapons. In his assessment, we should ignore what is viewed by many politicians as a threat. Paul says there is no evidence of Iran being in pursuit of nuclear weapons. With no air force and a limited economy, they have no capacity for war. His view is consistent with the libertarian outlook in that he opposes sanctions, and favors no involvement. He says we should "bring the troops home." Paul makes the claim that in a span of a few short years we turned Iraq into the world’s leading breeding ground for terrorists. He says that, in general, we should "mind our own business."
Bringing the troops home is one of Ron Paul’s predominant ideas, both for foreign policy reasons, and to shore up our failing economy. He would bring home all troops and end all interaction in every corner of the world: Japan, Germany, etc. Critics may be aware that Paul shows his age when he says all these interventions produce agitation and worry. Similarly, we are aware that Paul is annoyed by searches and such inconveniences at airports. This seems to be an afterthought to the politician.
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, Congressman Ron Paul established a firm background in banking and the economy. He served on the House Banking Committee and advocated sound monetary policy while being a harsh critic of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary measures. Paul consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending, and regulation, and used his House seat to actively promote the return of government to its proper
constitutional levels. He is dedicated to the Constitution, and has never wavered from that stand. As a firm constitutionalist, Ron Paul reminds us that currency still must be based on gold and silver.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Mike
Solid analysis. You just explained why the media doesn't want him to gain even more traction. This traction is at the grass root level there is more of us than there are of them. Thanks for the article keep up the good work.
2 - Calvin
I am registering Republican just to vote for Ron Paul as soon as I turn 18.
- Ron Paul was endorsed for president by Ronald Reagan in 1988. Reagan made special note to Paul's commitment to a strong national defense.
- Ron Paul was the only candidate at the previous debate to have served in the military. He volunteered for Vietnam while Mitt Romney obtained a draft deferment. Interestingly, Romney was a vehement supporter of the Vietnam debacle. Look it up!
- Ron Paul refuses to receive the benefits available to him as a Congressman, including healthcare and pensions.
- Ron Paul was spot-on about the economy, and predicted the housing bubble way back in 2003. Check it out for yourself.
3 - nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney baldwin ventura sheehan
America where are you now?
Don't you care about your sons and daughters?
Don't you know we need you now
We can't fight alone against the monster
Monster Suicide America.
4 - El Bicho
"Ron Paul was endorsed for president by Ronald Reagan in 1988."
Speaking of checking things out yourself, it seems odd Reagan would endorse a Libertarian candidate for President, which would explain why I can't find anything to support the statement
5 - PETER ALAN
EXCELLENT ARTICLE!!!!!!
6 - Adama Smitha
@El Bitco
Reagan endorse Ron Paul back to Congress not for president.
7 - Cody
El Bicho, you're foaming at the mouth again. It was for congress not the presidency, your anti-Paul/anti-freedom agenda is showing again.
8 - Karen H
That about sums it up, but there is a gut feeling that this is the moment, that Americans will forever regret or celebrate: should he be disregarded (as the main stream media says, he's just a pest to aggravate the Republicons) OR is he the Thomas Jefferson, or prophet of our time, to be like Moses, and bring the people out of slavery?
9 - DocDave
When fascism goes to sleep it looks under the bed for Ron Paul.
He has never taken a government junket.
He does not participate in the lucrative Congressional Pension Program.
He returns a portion of his annual Congressional Office Budget every year.
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He voted no to the bankster bailout.
He voted no to raising the debt ceiling and warned us against the “Super Congress” part of the legislation that resembles both an “ Enabling Act” and a “Politburo.”
He has never voted to restrict gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise Congressional Pay.
He never voted to increase Executive Branch Power.
He will Reinstate The Constitution and Save The Republic
He will END the unconstitutional FED.
He will phase out the unconstitutional IRS beginning immediately
He will secure the borders
He will limit Big Government in your private affairs
He will stop Illegal immigration and no amnesty
He voted against regulating the Internet
He is the only candidate for President in 2012 who actually served his country.
He was a flight surgeon during Vietnam.
Ron Paul’s popularity is so high among U.S. service members that the Texas Congressman’s presidential campaign has received more money from U.S. soldiers than any other candidate in the 2012 presidential race.
He voted against the Iraq War and warned us against going forward with an undeclared war. “Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberty and wealth are in Jeopardy” July 10th, 2003
He voted against the un-patriotic so called Patriot Act.
He supports a non-interventionist foreign policy yet a strong military
He will end the inflation tax He is a true Constitutional Conservative
He would have soundly beat Obama in 2008 because Independents trust him and like him.
We could have had a V8 instead of McCain't in 08
Ron Paul for President 2012
Because no one else can be trusted to say what he means and do what he says like Ron Paul does.
Ron Paul is the man of the hour. They used to laugh him for being way ahead of the others in his thinking and his warnings. Now, they are not laughing because what he predicted is coming to pass. Now, he is being called a prophet for having warned us and still calmly suffered through the barbs. "First they, ignore you, then they fight you, then you win." Gandhi
10 - El Bicho
Aduma/Cody,
You guys come off like dumb drunks just looking for a fight. Your poorly informed pal Calvin claimed "Ron Paul was endorsed for president by Ronald Reagan in 1988," which is why I used quotation marks and which you both agree was wrong. Your anti-reading comprehension is showing again.
11 - John Lake
Sounds a little like a "personal attack", El!
12 - RJ
Calvin was wrong. El Bitcho was right to point this out. Adama Smitha and Cody both clarified.
This should be the end of the pissing contest.
13 - Irene Athena
John Lake, I was wondering if you could clarify the first paragraph of page 3, which states, "Paul has backed away from many libertarian basics," and then lists things that Libertarians would lift bans on. The wording seems to suggest Ron Paul would disagree with Libertarians about lifting bans on everything on the list--he in fact, does NOT disagree with them on every point. I'm posting a short clip from the South Carolina debate in which Paul describes his view on the proper criteria for prohibiting acts: if those acts don't hurt anyone, they should be legal. There are a couple of humorous moments in it.
Thanks, John Lake, for writing an article that is, over-all, fair and accurate.
14 - El Bicho
Sounds like you are too sensitive to be writing on the Internet, John
15 - John Lake
#15:
I've been called many things. But 'sensitive' is a new one.
16 - RJ
Well I thought that was the end of the pissing contest...
I make a poor moderator, apparently. I denounce myself.
17 - John Lake
Irene:
I looked at the May 5, 2011, clip and found it interesting. He was absolutely defending the libertarian stand. I do think that now for the coming election, he is refining his positions and is somewhat courting the social conservative vote.
One simple example is that he now says that marriage is a one man, one woman affair.
There are a number of well-versed libertarians at this great Blogcritics site, (including yourself, as I recall) and I will defer to them to answer any concerns about the liberal agenda.
18 - RJ
Look, I am generally pro-Ron Paul, but he's not going to be the GOP nominee.
It's going to be Rick Perry or Mitt Romney. Or maybe Michele Bachmann, if the Tea Party really wants another four years of Obama as much as they wanted another 6 years of Harry Reid.
19 - John Lake
In fact, what he actually says is that marriage has to do with a single man, and a single woman. He says its a "Church problem, not mine" and further, he would opt to let the individual state decide.
20 - RJ
20:
That's Rick Perry's position, too, basically.
I think it's a smart position, politically. What used to be a 60-40 issue is now a 50-50 issue. So, defer to federalism. New Yorkers want same-sex marriage? Cool. Idahoans don't? Also cool.
Ultimately the DOMA will probably be overturned, but until then this is a reasonable and safe position for a GOP candidate to take. (It's basically Obama's position as well, although I believe he wants to end the DOMA.)
21 - RJ
*thread hijack in progress*
Incidentally, did anyone else watch the GOP debate the other night? I think I'm pretty objective, at least when it comes to Republicans savaging other Republicans.
Pawlenty did himself no favors, and so it's no surprise that he came in third in the Ames Straw Poll and then dropped out today.
Romney was unharmed, and neither was his hair.
I think Newt actually won the debate, which is surprising since I thought he was still on a Greek cruise.
22 - Irene Athena
Oh, anyone who wants to be on the Republican ticket will need to court the social conservative vote. He very much DOES relate to conservative Christian people as "one of them" (unless being "one of them" means advocating water-boarding or preemptive strikes.) If you're promoting the idea of "leaving it to the states," and your audience is social conservatives, your approach is going to be different from the one you'd use to talk to an auditorium of former Obama-supporters.
What Ron Paul can do that Rick Perry and Mitt Romney won't be able to do is to demonstrate that they can hold to traditional Christian viewpoints and at the SAME TIME give social moderates and liberals the freedom to live life the way they want to, as long as they aren't hurting anyone, which is what religious folk want for themselves.
So no, Ron Paul hasn't changed his position since the South Carolina debate in May in order to court the social conservative vote. South Carolina IS the social conservative vote-- that's what accounts for the humorous moments in the clip I posted in #14.
23 - zingzing
"the freedom to live life the way they want to, as long as they aren't hurting anyone, which is what religious folk want for themselves."
you mean the golden rule. or the wiccan rede: do what you will, as long as it harms no other. i call ye a witch.
24 - zingzing
i'm cool with witches.
25 - Tommy Mack
When you get traction at the grassroots level, you get skid-marks. It is the friction that does it.
DOMA and Libertarianism lack traction.
Tommy