Ron Paul for President

Why not register as Republican and vote for him?

He has my vote, for now. Perhaps Rep. Brownback, Frank Beckwith, and Robert Koons can speak with him about converting to the Catholic Church …

His honesty and integrity are certainly refreshing. And his message must surely appeal to a great number of Americans. Unfortunately, popular vote does not win the election. Does your support of Mr. Paul’s message put you at odds with Mr. Kimball at the N.C.?

Why not register as Republican and vote for him?

I just might.

Does your support of Mr. Paul’s message put you at odds with Mr. Kimball at the N.C.?

I don’t think Roger’s picked a candidate yet. But I wouldn’t say a difference in politics has ever put me “at odds” with anyone, so far as I can recall.

Well said, Andrew. Poor choice of words on my part.

It looks like I agree with most of Ron Paul’s positions, except the biggie. Why does he, and I assume you, Andrew, want to put his head in the sand over the war on terror? Sure Iraq has not been easy and we have made mistakes. But does Mr. Paul really prefer not to go after terrorists in Iraq? Does he really want Iran to have the bomb? Does he really blame the US for 9/11? If so, he is dangerously misguided.

To my ears it sounds like Mr. Paul is being guided by a common sense and history — far better guides, I daresay, than President Bush and his administration.

Why does he, and I assume you, Andrew, want to put his head in the sand over the war on terror?

What is this “war on terror”? How will it end? Will it be like the wars with Japan and Germany? Will al-Qaeda send their representatives to ours and sign a full, unconditional surrender? Or perhaps we just want to bring al-Qaeda to the negotiating table so we can work out an agreement? If not, what is the definition of victory in this “war”?

This is not a war. You cannot wage physical combat against a concept. There should be counter-terrorist operations (by both law-enforcement and the military) with the aim of A) preventing terrorists attacks against America and B) eliminating or decapacitating those organizations which seek to carry out terrorist acts against America.

The “war” in Iraq fulfils neither of this criteria. Instead, it is merely the case that a tinpot democracy in the Middle East has suckered the most powerful country in the world into devoting massive resources (and lives) to prop up its unstable government, many of the members of which also happen to be actively engaged in insurgent activities against our forces in Iraq.

To disengage from Iraq would not be to “put one’s head in the sand” put rather, almost literally, to pull it out of the sand and recognize that, whatever, the previous situation, we must base our actions around the current reality.

But does Mr. Paul really prefer not to go after terrorists in Iraq?

You seem to have misunderstood the current situation in Iraq. The trouble is we are not going after the terrorists in Iraq. They are going after us in Iraq.

Furthermore, we are even training some of these terrorists and giving them weapons via the Iraqi Police and the Iraqi National Guard.

Does he really want Iran to have the bomb?

Obviously he does not, and has never said he does.

What he does want is to ensure that we don’t send brigades of the best, brightest, and bravest Americans over to yet another foreign country which we understand very little and replicate the same mistakes we have been making in Iraq. Invading Iran would play superbly into the terrorists’ hands; for the Islamists, it would be a dream come true.

Does he really blame the US for 9/11?

Again, of course he never has and never will. Ron Paul has simply dared to point out the obvious truth that our foreign policy in the Middle East for the past fifty years has actually had an effect on the region. Dare anyone suggest otherwise? Dare anyone actually claim that the results of our policy there have been entirely beneficial to the Middle East and to America? Such a claim would be utterly foolish and completely divorced from reality.

Well said, Andrew.

Andrew,
A few questions: Did you see his response in the first debate to the question about what have you done that made a difference in people’s lives? It was atrocious and in spite of being attractive in some regards, I don’t know whether I could support someone whose awkwardness prevents him from being a realistic candidate (sad commentary on our culture, but real all the same). Shouldn’t we vote for the person that we think is best that actually could win in order to keep liberal judges from furthering the liberal social agenda (think Catholic adoption agencies getting shut down in England and Boston)?
Lastly, regarding Libertarianism in general, how do you reconcile this with the views of people like Dr. Otto von Hapsburg and Benedict XVI, who seem to favor a more moderate, if not social democratic form of government?

Following up on the Libertarian theme, although I can see how a Catholic would reject the centralized nanny-state, these folks also hold a radically individualistic philosophy that seems more in keeping with extreme Protestantism than traditional Catholicism. For instance, they oppose laws that ban drugs or abortion, and fiercely oppose any “church influence” upon the state. Hardly the social reign Christ the King. I realize that this does not entirely desribe Ron Paul (he’s pro-life), but it fits his position in general, and I’m curious for your thoughts.

It was atrocious and in spite of being attractive in some regards, I don’t know whether I could support someone whose awkwardness prevents him from being a realistic candidate (sad commentary on our culture, but real all the same).

Well, I thought his answer was pretty good and was obviously unstaged.

When you speak of him not being a “realistic” candidate, precisely what you are unwittingly doing is showing yourself to be something of a stooge of the media. Who says he’s not realistic? The media? A few pundits? The people who have the most to lose? Well, what else would they say? It’s the fact that quite so many people have been so completely willing to let their thought processes be subtly shaped and formed by the media, rather than being outright critical thinkers, which gives the media such power to create and to destroy: to control.

I see a guy named Ron Paul who speaks the Gods honest truth, who has a swelling amount of grassroots support, especially among the young, who I think plenty of people of both main parties will vote for because he’s such a breath of fresh air. I add these factors together and I think: this guy has a chance to win it. The media doesn’t bother dealing with these factors and simply issues a pronunciamiento: he’s not “realistic”.

Shouldn’t we vote for the person that we think is best that actually could win in order to keep liberal judges from furthering the liberal social agenda (think Catholic adoption agencies getting shut down in England and Boston)?

We should, and that man is Ron Paul.

Lastly, regarding Libertarianism in general, how do you reconcile this with the views of people like Dr. Otto von Hapsburg and Benedict XVI, who seem to favor a more moderate, if not social democratic form of government?

First, show me where Otto and the Pope have endorsed anything which can be described as social democratic. Just ask the social democratic parties what they think of the Pope and the Emperor, and you won’t hear praise. Do you think Segolene Royal, Tony Blair, and Jose Zapatero sit around thinking “You know, the Pope and the Emperor have really got it right. Let’s work to put their ideas into practice.”? Quite the opposite.

Secondly, not being in any way, shape, or form a libertarian, it’s not for me to defend libertarianism. Libertarianism is often merely an excuse for libertinism. In Dr. Paul’s case, however, all libertarianism effectively means is a return to the restraints and parameters set forth in our Constitution (and so brazenly ignorned for quite some time). In this sense, he is merely acting as a defender of order. If, while doing that, he calls himself a libertarian, that’s his own business.

Following up on the Libertarian theme, although I can see how a Catholic would reject the centralized nanny-state, these folks also hold a radically individualistic philosophy that seems more in keeping with extreme Protestantism than traditional Catholicism. For instance, they oppose laws that ban drugs or abortion, and fiercely oppose any “church influence” upon the state. Hardly the social reign Christ the King. I realize that this does not entirely desribe Ron Paul (he’s pro-life), but it fits his position in general, and I’m curious for your thoughts.

Again, I’m not a libertarian so it’s not my job to defend it. I don’t put much stock in “isms”; peace, order, and good government are the description of my political philosophy. But as you yourself admit, there are various strains of thought within libertarianism. Libertarianism in principle is fraught with inherent contradictions which, to me, make it a completely illogical.

With regard to abortion, for example: Should the libertarian be against the state offending the liberty of a pregnant woman by preventing her from having an abortion? But then what about the liberty of the unborn child? It’s a contradictory way of thinking if you ask me. I am a simpleton. It is an offence against God (and Man) to so take an innocent life, and thus it cannot be allowed in a Christian society, pure and simple. But the theoretical libertarian could not come down on one side or the other. (Or to be precise: he could, but not by means of argument that were libertarian, without contradiction).

But, again, most of this is besides the point as regards Ron Paul. He’s not one of the “these folks” you mention. He’s a simple, principled, common-sensical, pro-constitutional, realist conservative, and that’s why I want him to be president.

Excellent remarks on libertarianism. And special kudos for your response to the notion of Ron Paul not being a “realistic” candidate. I recall the fatuousness of media pundits pronouncing certain candidates as “presidential.”
More and more the so-called “race” for the office of president resembles the television program “American Idol.”

First, thanks for your thorough response.
show me where Otto and the Pope have endorsed anything which can be described as social democratic
I am under the impression that Otto and the other original “fathers” of the European Union in post WWII Europe were generally supportive of government that could be described as social-democratic–i.e., government “safety-net”, higher minimum wages, benefits, support for the arts, etc.
If I’m not mistaken even the “conservative” Christian Democatic parties (CDU/CSD in Germany) generally accept a higher level of government involvement than is accepted in the U.S.
As for B-XVI (and JPII for that matter), I think their writings show them to be undeniably positive toward government support of labor, welfare, etc. Note, for instance, His Holiness writes (with apparent approbation) the following words regarding Catholics and social democratic government from the 06 Jan First Things article “Europe and Its Discontents”:
in Europe, in the nineteenth century, the two models were joined by a third, socialism, which quickly split into two different branches, one totalitarian and the other democratic. Democratic socialism managed to fit within the two existing models as a welcome counterweight to the radical liberal positions, which it developed and corrected. It also managed to appeal to various denominations. In England it became the political party of the Catholics, who had never felt at home among either the Protestant conservatives or the liberals. In Wilhelmine Germany, too, Catholic groups felt closer to democratic socialism than to the rigidly Prussian and Protestant conservative forces. In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.
Of course, the same held true in the States where Catholics traditionally voted overwhelmingly Democratic and were generallly supportive of New Deal-style central government, JFK, etc.
As for Ron Paul, I remain unconvinced that he has the tv-friendly charisma necessary break through into the top tier. I just don’t think most people watching him think “presidential.” I guess you have a lot more faith in the American people than I do. I voted Bush over Kerry rather than 3rd party, in spite of my disagreement on the Iraq invasion because of the importance of the Supreme Court. Right now I’m leaning toward Romney (though I’d be open to Fred Thompson) because I think he’s the best of the ones that could win against Hillary or Obama.
But I admit that the idea of just voting for whom you really think is the best candidate and letting the chips fall where they may is an attractive strategy. So I vacillate between being “strategic” and being a purist, though I understand that you think that you can vote for Paul and still be both, I’m not convinced of that yet.
Understand that my goal is not to debate or say that anyone *shouldn’t* vote for Ron Paul, but simply to discuss:
1, Catholic approach to government
2, Ron Paul
3, voting strategies

“We cannot abandon Israel. That would be morally wrong.”

Why would it be morally wrong? “Abandon” is also a very loaded word. I would suggest a disengagement from governmental and military aid to Israel over a five-year period.

The pluckiness of the Israelis should not be underestimated. They survived without us before and they can survive without us again. I’d put a Franklin on the Israelis to win in any conflict against any Arab country any day of the week. That said, while I’m against giving the Israelis (or anyone else) anything, I’d be more than happy to continue selling them military hardware, etc.

We must remember that America’s government is ultimately responsible to and for America’s wellbeing and ONLY America’s wellbeing, not that of any other country at all. America ultimately has no moral obligations to Israel, Canada, Fiji, Britain, Azerbaijan, or any other country.

I believe it was Jefferson who wrote something along the lines of “trade with all, alliance with none.” We’d be wise to follow that policy!

“…while I’m against giving the Israelis (or anyone else) anything, I’d be more than happy to continue selling them miltary hardware, etc.”

Personally, I’d like to see the U.S. get out of the international armaments business.

*

As for that quality media pundits refer to as “presidential” — I’m not sure I know exactly what it means.

I lived outside of the U.S. during the 2000 election and my knowledge of George W. Bush the presidential candidate came the old fashioned way: newspapers (and a few magazines). When I returned to the U.S. in 2001, I was dumbfounded by his deportment and especially some of the things he said — statements that soon became known as “Bushisms.”

He struck me as a type many of us have known from our late adolescence: the fraternity boy, who was always ready for a party or a prank.

Despite his wealth, his only travels were a single beach vacation in Mexico, a short business trip to Saudi Arabia, and a summer in China when his father was Ambassador, where he is reported to have spent his time trying to date Chinese women. I was curious about this man — President of the most powerful nation on earth — whose favorite food was reported to be a peanut butter sandwich; who, as Governor of Texas, never read reports because details bored him; who mangled sentences and did not seem to have the most basic grasp of geography. I was bewildered that so many highly educated and accomplished conservatives I knew were enamored of him. I was reminded to some extent of Chauncy Gardener in Hal Ashby’s film “Being There.”

Just what is this quality called “presidential” that Ron Paul may or may not lack?

“Lastly, regarding Libertarianism in general, how do you reconcile this with the views of people like Dr. Otto von Hapsburg and Benedict XVI, who seem to favor a more moderate, if not social democratic form of government?”

My guess is that Ron Paul’s ideas could indeed be harmonized with those of the Pope and Otto von H. in the sense that Paul believes the individual states are constitutionally free to follow the social democratic model. The federal government does not have such constitutional liberty. (Whether it ought to have that liberty is another question.)

I am as far left from Andrew as you can get and I believe in Ron Paul. Not that he can win but that maybe for once he can change the way politics work in this country. By telling the truth. Being Andrew’s brother I have always held my own bliefs. Never conforming to either the Catholic Church, The Air Force or any thing else that has tried to mold me. I thank God very much for people like Ron Paul.

As for that quality media pundits refer to as “presidential” — I’m not sure I know exactly what it means.

Perhaps it is the lack of that quality–whatever it is–that is making people long for it in the next president.
I think that what people mean when they say that someone seems “presidential” is basically someone that appears to be articulate, intelligent, and who has a strong sense of his own belief system.
While W. might not excel in the former two attributes (to put it charitably), Kerry was questioned on the last one, which, I think, played a large part in his undoing in ’04.
Just my two cents.

Only when we are able to submit our will to the sweet yoke of Christ do we find true freedom.

If appearing presidential means to be intelligent, articulate, and have a strong sense of one’s own belief system, then Ron Paul is indeed presidential.

Considering the results of tha last election, a strong sense of one’s belief “system” (a rather mechanistic term, don’t you think?) certainly trumps intelligence & articulate speech. At least in this country.

Well this is probably the most complete and serious discussion of Ron Paul that’s EVER occurred. At long last, a U.S. presidential candidate Ayn Rand would support. So he’ll stand up for what he believes in no matter the political consequences. Leaving aside the fact that many of his positions reflect America of the 1920s, consistent ideological integrity and uncompromising commitment to personal ethics are not the things that make up a successful presidential candidate; they make up a saint.

I, for one, am not sure whether a stated commitment to a belief “system” (keeping in mind that such a commitment may or may not be sincere — especially in the case of politicians) is more important than intelligence and the ability to articulate ideas (or beliefs, as may be the case).

*

If integrity and commitment (hopefully combined with intelligence and articulate speech) are not the things which make up a “successful” presidential candidate, then our “system” is, of course, in deep trouble.

Andrew

I am glad to see your support of Ron Paul. While he may not be a member of the Catholic church, you can be assured this man’s ideas and values, concepts of life and liberty and politics, are more Catholic than any other politician running for president. And to reply to your earlier question about libertarianism, it’s very origin is in the Catholic church matter of fact. Libertarian thought is based on natural law and free-will/voluntary principles, principles which we see in the bible as God has made of thinking creatures who asks us to join him of our own will. Many of today’s libertarian ideas come from the writings of Augustine’s just war concept, Many ideas of Thomas Aquinas, several insights from medieval popes, and also the British Catholic thinker and writer Lord Acton was also a heavy influence on Libertarian thought. Here are some sites related to these ideas and discussions, and while none of them are claimed to be Catholic based, you will see that the majority of the contributors to these sites are Catholic, again showing Catholicism’s heavy origins to libertarian thought:

http://www.acton.org/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
http://www.mises.org/
http://www.antiwar.com/

We didn’t listen to Pat Buchanan fifteen years ago and nearly everything he warned us about has, unfortunately, come home to roost — NAFTA and the loss of American jobs, the disastrous internationalist military exploits, the illegal alien invasions, etc. It would be nice to think that the country has learned something and that Ron Paul has a chance. But if he even begins to get close (as did Pat when he won the New Hampshire primary in ’96) the press will paint him with the blackest brush they can find. Remember how the press invented Pat the anti-semite? Well, how fast do you think it would take them to discover Ron Paul the anti-semite…or racist…or nut case (Goldwater?). Not long.

Anyhow… Good for you Andrew, I’m with you… and Ron Paul.

I’m not sure if this is true for every state, but this is an open primary, you can vote for whomever regardless of whatever party you’re registered under. But, you can only vote for one.