Tuesday, January 3, 2012

The Ron Paul Divide


This debate over Ron Paul really has me metaphorically tossing and turning. Those of you who read here on a regular basis know my distaste for Ron Paul, his foreign policy, and his zealous following. This has likely aliened my mainly libertarian/Tea Party readership. Maybe a few of you even have a personal dislike for this "neocon" as I have a personal dislike for the average Ron Paul follower. That's okay. It's part of the political process. We are living democracy.

I will admit, I feel bad about not supporting Ron Paul because I side with him on 90% of the issues. It is that 10% foreign policy thorn in the side that just makes me seethe sometimes. And it is enough to cause myself, and most Republicans, to shy away from him.

The divide is not social issues. It isn't economic issues. It isn't health care. And it isn't taxes. The fundamental difference that divides the Republican party right now is national defense, and the philosophy behind it.

We all hate Obama. We all hate big government. We all hate the nanny state, government run healthcare, crooked politicians, bailouts, high taxes, illegal immigration, gun control and a skyrocketing national deficit. I get it!

We can all agree on these issues.

This is to educate those zealous Ron Paul supporters on why some conservatives, like myself, do not support Ron Paul. I know there are many fervent patriots out there who support the banner of liberty, freedom, and Constitutionalism who cannot seem to fathom that another conservative or libertarian will not side with the Ron Paul "revolution".

Here is why. Radical Islam. I believe the threat of Islam around the world is real and not some CIA fabricated fake threat to get me to support a war for oil. It isn't the "Zionist" media framing the Muslim world. Islamic terrorism exists everywhere. It strikes everywhere. It is real. Ron Paul says terrorism exists because of American intervention everywhere. I fundamentally disagree. Why do Islamic extremists strike in China, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Russia, Spain, Canada, and India? Surely these attacks were not prompted by the United States or Israel. Ron Paul and Ron Paul followers refuse to accept these truths. That there is an evil enemy in the world now just as there was in 1938. That we need to identify this enemy. And that we need to stand up to this enemy. I believe the best way to do this is to continue a close alliance with Israel. I also believe we need to continue annihilating terror networks through military action. I also believe the biggest state sponsor of terrorism, Iran, should not be simply ignored.

To me, Ron Paul and Ron Paul followers have a simplistic view of the world. "Bring all the troops home. Guard our borders." "No more wars." "We shouldn't get involved." Ok....what does that even mean?
It's so easy to say. "Bring all the troops home! Yay! The war is over forever! Worldwide peace!"
Are we to withdraw our entire fleet from Bahrain? Had we done that, Iran would have already closed the Strait of Hormuz. Are we to completely leave Korea? Had we done that, a 2nd Korean War would certainly be inevitable. Are we to bring all our troops home from Ramstein and Landstuhl in Germany? The Germans and other European allies of ours like having us there to train together and continue building a good military relationship together.

Having troops abroad is a deterrent to war. That's a fact. Are we supposed to sit back and watch while an ally, South Korea, gets ravaged by the North Koreans or Chinese? Are we supposed to sit back while another arab state alliance surrounds and attacks Israel? Are we supposed to sit back while Iran obtains a nuclear bomb?

Maybe, if you support Ron Paul's view of the world, you do believe we should just sit back. Put Americans first. It's okay if our allies get attacked. We can't afford to help them and it isn't our business or our fight. Or maybe you, as a Ron Paul supporter, detest Israel and our alliance with them. Then it would make sense to side with Iran, Hamas, and the rest of the nations that hate them. Maybe you believe there is no threat at all. "Neocons" like myself are "warmongers" who hype up fabricated threats for some grand conspiracy ridden agenda to expand the American "empire". You are wrong on all levels. You are foolish to ignore that there are hostile states and hostile terrorist networks who despise us and want to destroy us as a nation. You are foolish to think that bringing all of our troops home to "guard the homefront" is a viable strategy in protecting our country. You are foolish to think there is no evil in the world. And if you are one who does believe there is evil in the world and that non interventionism is a good option, you are even more foolish.

I also understand the overused concept of "blowback" and that foreign policy intervention has consequences and ripples later in time. Yes, our country has made some mistakes. Yes, sometimes we get too involved. No country is perfect! The bottom line is pro-defense conservatives, like myself, believe we have a responsibility as a world power, not to be the world's policeman, but to be a protector and defender not just of ourselves, but our friends as well, because there are evil powers at work in the world besides the Federal Reserve and the global oligarchy. There are people who want to kill you and there are people who want to see a world without America. And a world without Israel and Britain as well.

I believe we have a justified obligation and responsibility to take a stand against evil nations and evil people who want to kill us. But before you can believe that, you have to believe the enemy is out there. To deny the existence of the threat of radical Islam is naive. Perhaps my worldview is simplistic to you, just as yours is to me. But this is where I stand.

Now to Barack Obama. Something we can all agree to hate. We can agree to disagree on foreign policy. Whether you are a libertarian Ron Paul supporter, a moderate liberal conservative who likes Mitt Romney, or an evangelical Christian who prefers to see Rick Santorum in the White House. Let's not forget this. Whoever wins this GOP nomination needs full support from the entire center-right. Tea Partiers, libertarians, southern Baptists, New England moderates, Midwest social conservatives, Ron Paul independents, Sarah Palin fans, Michele Bachmann fans, hard right Micheal Savage listeners, and everyone in between. Everyone needs to get behind the nominee, whoever that may be. Because we are going to need all the momentum, power, and fire to steamroll Barack Hussein Obama in November!

The infighting right now in the GOP will eventually come to an end, and that is when we all can focus our attention and anger at the real enemy. That disgrace that's been occupying the White House.




5 comments:

DeanO said...

Hack, thanks for the post. It certainly was a good write. Me? I'm part of that "Savage Nation"

Fredd said...

Ron Paul and his minions remind me of the old days. Back then, the leader of the hippie commune (call him 'Moon Beam'), after smoking doobies all day, decrees to an adoring throng of like minded hippie followers that peace is only achieved by smoking more doobies and sticking it to 'the man.'

Practicality meant nothing to Moon Beam back then, and Ron Paul's sticking his head in the sand these days and pretending that this isn't a dangerous world will only invite aggression.

I am also on board with his trillion dollar cuts. I really like that. But his ostrich foreign policy trumps anything good coming out of his mouth.

Ron Paul makes Barack Obama look like a hawk, and that's really, really bad for this country going forward.

Chuck said...

Lost in the discussion of candidate Ron Paul is the fact that he's already older than Reagan was when he left office. The dude is a few months away from being 80 years old. That is no trifling thing.

Eric Dondero said...

Great! Hear, hear...

Pro-defense libertarianism is the wave of the future!!

The Watcher said...

Well, Hack, as a (sorta) TEA-partier, I find myself in agreement with your assessment. The phrase 'President Ron Paul' spooks me.

As to the cry of 'Bring our troops home!', the only (and I mean ONLY) time I've ever agreed with that sentiment is when I see our military put in a position where they're not allowed (for whatever reasons) to do their jobs. If our soldiers are sent to a war zone and they're busy worrying about whether or not they're 'offending' the enemy by farting in public, actually having a round chambered when they're on patrol, or not wearing a headscarf (that's for the women), they're not being allowed to do the job they were sent to do. If they're not allowed to do the job, don't send them.