Posted by
Nuc_Engr on Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:04:00 AM
This is a posting in reply to a couple of postings from Wayfinder on the article by Matt Towery defending Reagan's likely support for Ron Paul. Here is the article link. Below are Wayfinder's posts and my response to Wayfinder:
I
seriously doubt Reagan would've voted for Paul. For one, Reagan was
quite pragmatic and wasn't quick to cast his country in such a
negative, seditious light to even dare to imply that America had 9/11
coming, that by our actions or inaction or whatever that the
Islamofascists were spurred to action. That primarily is the reason
that Paul, if he is a real doctor of anything, is a nutcase, and
shouldn't be allowed near anything sharp and dangerous.
Second,
Reagan understood that the world is not like it was prior to World War
II, and he knew that America had a choice to either participate in the
game or withdraw, and if we chose to withdraw, place our collective
heads in the sand, we deserve the fate of whatever our would-be
oppressors have in store for us. If you don't play the game, don't cry
when you lose. You have to take action if you wish things to really
change in this world, and Reagan knew that. Perhaps, in the face of an
enemy like the Soviet Union he wasn't quick to go to a open conflict,
but we're facing an enemy now that isn't bothered with notions like
deterrence, where they believe their deaths as a result of perpetuating
Jihad is preferable than a life where infidels rule. And with the
possibility of jihadists possessing WMDs, we can't afford to ever be so
isolationist. Our enemies aren't going to just let us go peacably like
that. |
As
I stated before in other articles, Ron Paul is a couple of cans short
of a six pack where foreign policy is concerned. I can agree with his
conservative stance on domestic policy (except drug legalization - yet
another strike), but we're at war, and he doesn't address securing the
borders, stemming and curtailing illegal immigration, or present a
mandate for a victory in the War on Terror.
Given his stance
on the War on Terror, I'd have to say the man is a loon, who seems to
pander to a select fringe hoping to garner some sort of support from
those who believe the war is all America's fault, and that there can be
nothing good to come of it.
For those of you who believe that
Ron Paul is going to be given the GOP nomination for President, all I
can say is don't bet on that. He just doesn't have that kind of
support, neither publicly or privately. What's more, he's a
congressman, and that only lowers his odds of even being nominated to
that office even further. His stance on foreign policy basically killed
his chances anyway.
Because the most important issues facing
this election are the War, Immigration, and Taxes. He's right on taxes,
but when he made the huge blunder in the first GOP debate, his
candidacy was over. |
Wayfinder,
I have to disagree with you on a couple of your points in a couple of your posts. First, there is a difference between having a strong military that is trained, prepared, ready to go to *war*, as it must be declared by the Congress per Article I of the Constitution, and having that strong military exert its "strength" throughout the world. I think there is a lot of credence to the idea that our mere presence in some of these places provokes anti-American sentiment. Put yourself in their shoes, hypothetically speaking, of course. If some country in the future has bases throughout our country, any decently patriotic American would resent that country and view it as an occupation and as an infringement on our own sovereignty. While there are other contributing factors, this is a key one that radical groups use to attract more members. There is wisdom in the saying that you attract more flies with honey. But, you put words in his mouth if you assume that drawing down our presence throughout the world is going to mean that we will become a meek country. It will likely have the consequence, when combined with free trade and an overall more prosperous global economy, of creating goodwill that will reduce animosity toward us. When we do have threats (like the Constitutionally-declared war with Iraq), we will need to have a sufficiently strong military to handle such threats. That does not go away in a Ron Paul military. Unnecessary spending and Constitutionally overreaching military policies do go away.
The second thing I disagree with you on is your statement in which you agree with many of his conservative domestic policies except drug legalization. On this issue, if you are to be philosophically consistent with what conservatism truly is, you have to look at this issue from one of several conservative keystones: freedom of choice, individual responsibility and accountability arising from that freedom, preservation of liberty (i.e., freedom from a government with overreaching powers into our personal lives), and delegation of powers to the States. It is not the federal government's job to wage a "war" against drugs...especially when there are debates among medical researchers on the merits of some drugs. Heck, the "FDA-approved" drugs are some of the most abused. An individual should have the freedom to choose to put into his or her own body whatever they choose. They, of course, must bear the responsibility for whatever consequences that choice brings. That is why we have laws against DUI's, rather than against drinking in and of itself. The same DUI would apply to driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol. The "war on drugs" far overreaches the federal powers that the Founding Fathers had in mind when framing our government. My last point regarding the States goes to the fact that you misquote Paul's aim on this matter. He does not favor legalization of drugs across the board -- he favors "un-illegalizing them" on a federal level, in order to make way for the States to choose their own policies. Why not do so in this case? Heck, if many drugs are going to have such a negative effect on their populations, then the states that originally legalize the drugs will see quality of life go down, to the detriment of their citizens, so they will either vote to change their State's drug policy, or they will move to a State more to their liking. Such will be the competition between "drugged" and "drug-free" States; a competition for residential citizens who can contribute to paying their State's tax burden. These are fundamental tenets of Reagan's brand of conservatism (I challenge you to read Ronald Reagan's speech on behalf of Barry Goldwater entitled Rendezvous with Destiny, given on 10/27/64. Here is a link: http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/speeches/rendezvous.asp)
I hope we as Conservatives can start realizing what candidates truly represent the Conservative ideals that Reagan did such a good job of crystallizing or personifying for us. Otherwise, we'll end up no better than big-government liberals (communists) -- we'll just end up as big-government conservatives (fascists, of state and/or religion).