In Defense (partially) of Ron Paul

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).  No copyright to US Government work.

Though his stance on creating an anarchic free market economy and limiting a woman's right to choose are quite unpalatable,  Representative Ron Paul's point of view on many pressing issues merit strong validation.  Perhaps most importantly, Paul is the only prominent elected official today who has offered proposals on how to save the federal government money without boxing out members of his opposing party.

Take for example Paul's stance on monetary policy.  The first and most important aspect of his viewpoint is that he is the only Republican candidate to have one; no other candidate could even effectively debate him on monetary policy last night.  His argument could win over members of both parties, as many left-leaning Democrats have just as many issues with the Federal Reserve System as many Republicans.  Paul realizes that a currency deflated by the Fed can mean more exports for the US in the short term, but ultimately a negative flow of capital out of the country, meaning a lack of jobs at home.  This stance has all the strength and ultra-Americanism of a Republican policy, while erring on the side of more typically Democratic economic conservatism  (in American politics, the conservative Republican Party is more economically liberal, while the more liberal Democratic Party tends to be more economically conservative).

Paul could also unite Democrats and Republicans over rarely discussed forms of government waste: militarism and the "war on drugs".  Paul realizes that the US has long lost the war on drugs, and that the people who are going to use narcotics will do so regardless of the law.  He also realizes that the law in this area is not the primary deterrent for those who refrain from using recreational drugs.  As he has asked before on numerous occasions, "How many people here would start using heroine if it were legalized today?"  Each time, no one raises a hand.

On US involvement overseas, Paul has the soundest propositions, bar none.  The United States must pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, reduce involvement in the Middle East, and close all unnecessary military bases.  This would reduce federal government spending by an almost unimaginable amount, and repatriate untold numbers of American tax dollars and citizens in uniform.  History is on the side of the gentleman from Texas as well.  At no time has a foreign occupying force been able to "nation-build" from the outside in, nor has it been able to spread democracy by force.  It is simply impossible.  The United States' engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan is an exercise in futility at this point, and the maintenance of many US bases is simply a massive drain on funds.  On these few quick points, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians, and many others could rally behind Congressman Paul.

Unfortunately for him, Rep. Paul will be squeezed out by the two party system.  His views are not shared across the spectrum of his party, and his analysis is often too academic to be effectively conveyed to the electorate.  It is disappointing, as Mr. Paul quite often has the most thoroughly researched position on many topics, and his heart is in the right place.  As I have already said, I vehemently disagree with the gentleman from Texas on a number of issues.  However, his perspectives on many of the days issues are valid, well-backed, and truly his own.  It would be a great thing to see Mr. Paul debate President Obama, and whether it is in the quest for elected office this year, or years down the road when the two come out of retirement for a symposium, I hope to have the chance to see it.