Since the Tenth Amendment Center (TAC) focuses upon local policies being used to protect citizens from runaway federal government policies, and restoring the original understanding of the Constitution as reflected in the writings of the late 18th century founders, I normally refrain from commenting upon individual politicians. Still with Ron Paul gaining in the polls, and with the mainstream hesitation from modern conservatives on his foreign affairs policy positions (which happen to mesh well with the positions of the Constitution, and coincidentally with my own), I thought it necessary to at least attempt to square some misconceptions regarding his (our) policies, as well as defend some of the policies with a perspective that I think is sometimes lacking in his (our) detractors. Since the Constitutional position is so aligned with Dr. Paul’s, I will refer to the policies as my own to make things easier.

I would like to start out with a simple statement as to where I think Conservatives would agree with Dr. Paul. First most conservatives would say that the government should have as little to do with the economy as possible. They might point out the inherent corruption involved in central government planning. They could point out that in almost every area of life, private businesses are better equipped to deliver vital services to the masses at the lowest possible cost. They would point out that government regulation normally (by its very nature) is captive to the industry it is regulating, that is to say that the people regulating businesses are almost always industry insiders with obvious conflicts of interest. They may also point out that interfering with the domestic economy is (in nearly every case) not an enumerated power, and represents government lawlessness in the extreme against the people. On all of those positions we are in full agreement.

Then after agreeing to the incompetence/criminality of the federal government in those areas, lots of conservatives follow that very same government should escape any scrutiny when it comes to foreign policy. It is as if these devils shed their horns, and grow angelic wings when faced with making foreign policy decisions. Now granted Defense is a core mission of the federal government, and if nothing else, defense would be entitled to the first dollar of funding. I agree that we have enemies in the world that we have to defend ourselves against, and that when they strike we should defend ourselves to the utmost of our capability, After the initial attack we should strike, only after declaring war, destroy who ever is threatening us, and not feel compelled to rebuild that country.

I do not, however, understand how conservatives who openly rail against the new deal, and the social engineering of the last 100 years, and who complain of how government has reduced an entire class of the American people in some ways to a dependant bunch of leaches sucking the life out of the productive class, can exclude foreign policy (implemented by the same bunch) from any criticism? After Obamacare was passed conservatives (me amongst them) continued criticising the policy probably because they believe that the fact it was signed into law does not make it Constitutional. Yet even after all the justifications for invading Iraq proved to be false, conservatives still believe this was the right policy. I think that the politicians that run our government don’t just routinely err when it comes to domestic meddling, they frequently get foreign policy wrong too. I think it is disingenuous to argue to the contrary. Just as social security represents an unsustainable program that must be eliminated before it impoverishes another generation, so must wars of preemptive aggression, which are not really defending us, protecting our freedom, or our rights.  I believe the operative word in the phrase National Defense is… Defense

So with that justification out of the way, lets talk about some specifics:

1. “Ron Paul wants to end foreign aid”, a lot of conservatives add that “this means he does not support Israel”. While this is a policy position, it hardly means he does not support Israel. In fact the enemies of Israel get more foreign aid than Israel does, so the elimination of all foreign aid would represent a net increase in aid for Israel. But lets delve a little further. The purpose of foreign policy is to provide security for America. I think the fact that we provide aid is in some ways counter to our security needs. To explain this I will just say that when we give aid to an enemy of another country (and every country has enemies), some of those enemies will resent us giving aid to their enemies, and could even become our enemies as a result (think of how we felt/feel when Russia gives aid to Iran). To counter this, we could give to both sides, but now we look like a backstabber to the people we were supporting in the first place. Better to just stay out of it, and avoid the conflict, as we are not served by these conflicts of interest.

2. “Ron Paul wants to pull troops out of Iraq or Afghanistan (or name the country), and this will weaken our position in the world.” This position has a lot of truth (not in the consequences, but the actions). The fact is that with our current military obligations our military is stretched too thin. Not just in current military conflicts, but in our previous wars. We still have remnants of a cold war force in Germany, Italy, Ireland, South Korea, etc. etc. etc. These countries are not a threat to us any more. The cold war is over and we can no longer afford to spend monies upon defense of 1st world nations with the necessary budgets to defend themselves. Look at it like this, South Korea is a very close ally of ours, and so understandably any time North Korea starts making noise, we are the first to respond. The thing people seem to pay no attention to is that North Korea has an estimated GDP of ~50 billion dollars, South Korea’s GDP is in the Trillions. They could buy enough weapons, and defensive gear to render The North Koreans about as threatening as a mosquito. Why don’t they?… They don’t have to because we are there defending them with our borrowed dollars – it is free to them. Remember we don’t actually have ANY money to defend anyone anymore, even ourselves. When you maintain extensive foreign bases, as we do, it is difficult not to refer to it as an “empire”, but we do not, because we place ourselves a step above. One reason is that we don’t charge one penny in tribute. This is also the reason this sort of empire is/will always be unsustainable. Citizens of America (and of our “protected” countries) would no doubt balk at us charging tribute, but that would be the only way to sustain such a large empire (the tribute would be the charge for handling their defense for them), and that is why I think we need to bring all troops home who are not actively fighting a declared (legal) war. Let them protect America from the invasion from the south (or north). It might not be an armed invasion – but it is still an invasion. Also, bringing democracy to countries who don’t want it is NOT defense of our country, our freedom, or our way of life. It is meddling.

The other point people seem to ignore when they argue that we are defending America by fighting in Iraq, is that we are leaving our borders open while we do it. So what is the sense of that? While we are consuming the wealth of a generation to maintain a fighting force in the mid east, south Asia, and Europe, we are leaving our borders open so that any terrorist that wants to could walk across the border, and ride the elevator to the top floor of the Empire State building, and blow it up. How does it make sense to fight a war on terrorists in such a way that leaves you fighting nationals in another country and leaves you wide open to the very attack that your enemy is famous for. This logic cannot be squared, it is unfathomable that having your military defend the border of a foreign country, on another continent, would make you more safe than defending your border at home.

3. “Ron Paul doesn’t care if Iran gets the “bomb”. Ron Paul would no doubt have America play a less active part in the middle east. But remember with Israel not receiving aid from us anymore, they would be free to defend themselves as they see fit. We would no doubt still come to their aid if asked, but I think the country most incentivized to prevent Iran from getting the “bomb” is Israel. If we are not handcuffing them, they will no doubt deal with Iran in a similar fashion to the way they dealt with Iraq in the 80′s with them getting nuclear technology. Also remember George Washington’s advice, to avoid entangling alliances. Israel is handcuffed by our constant meddling in their affairs. If we free them they will maintain order in their backyard better than we ever could, and they have even asked us to do this. Do we think we know better than they do how to defend their sovereign country – I don’t.

4. “Ron Paul blames America first” This is a terrible assertion. How can it be, that if I was to ask you what the appropriate foreign policy is towards any given country, you would no doubt have multiple disagreements with our leaders in DC (be they Republican or Democrat), and yet you can find no fault with any of the past decisions? Were they all made by wise and brilliant tacticians? Of course not. Most were made by politicians who where in the back pocket of defense contractors, who stand to make billions in every “armed conflict” we are engaged in. Many decisions in foreign policy are bad decisions (they are after all made by politicians who are looking to get re-elected with help from the highest bidder), it is not to say America is evil, it is not to say Americans are evil, it is only to say we took the wrong path on some things in the past because of monetary influences. To say that our foreign policy is the only reason terrorists attack us is silly, but to say that our occupation of a foreign country is seen as offensive to manyforeign nationals should be obvious. If you spit on someone (or insult them by treating them as a tributary country within their own borders), does it justify that person punching you in the nose?… Probably not, but if you don’t spit on someone but rather treat them with the respect of an individual, does it lessen the chances that someone will punch you in the nose as a result? Most certainly.

So in conclusion to those conservatives who say they agree with Ron Paul (except for his foreign policy) I would ask do you then agree with Obama (except for his domestic policy) since Obamas foreign policy is really just an extension of George W. Bush’s, and virtually identical to Newt, Romney, Perry, and Santorum, Bachman, and the others.  His Domestic policy is also virtually identical to the other Republican candidates… Just something to think about. Our current foreign policy really flies in the face of the Constitution, it has for some time now, as has our domestic policy. Ron Paul’s policy would mark a return to a Constitutional foreign policy, and a welcome break for our troops, as well as a phase out of unconstitutional domestic policies.

So, I’ll leave it to you.  More of the same, or a return to the Constitutional government our founding fathers laid out for us? You decide.

In Liberty,
Tim Reeves (State Chair)
Libertarian Party of Oregon,
(State Coordinator)
www.Oregon.tenthamendmentcenter.com