Ron Paul Makes Own Case for No VP Offer

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright January 18, 2011
All Rights Reserved.                                         

               Making the strongest case yet that he’s not fit for VP, 77-year-old Rep. Ron Paul told a Spartanburg, S.C. TV debate audience that the U.S. must follow the “Golden Rule,” receiving boos from a largely conservative audience.  Paul bucked his GOP colleagues, urging the White House to avoid an embargo on Iranian oil.  President Barack Obama signed into law Dec. 31 tough new sanctions preventing U.S. companies from doing business with the Iran, protesting its uranium enrichment program.  Since the administration of former President George W. Bush, the U.S. has failed to stop Iran from feverishly enriching uranium, something that could lead to its first nuclear weapon.  Growing concerns around globe, especially in Israel, warn that an A-bomb in Iran’s hands would destabilize world peace.  U.S. and the European Union are committed to preventing it from happening.

            Iran’s Revolutionary Guards elite military wing threatened recently to close the Strait of Hormuz should Western sanctions prevent Iran from transacting oil business.  Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened to “wipe Israel off the map” in 2005, drawing grave concerns about his nuclear program.  Despite a growing Iranian nuclear threat, Paul remained steadfast in his determination to get the U.S. out of the global peacekeeping business.  “This is why I bring up the “Golden Rule” if we don’t want people to ban oil imports to our country, why should we do that to another country?” asked Paul, drawing boos from the Spartanburg audience.  Paul knows full-well the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran.  No civilized power could stop Ahmadinejad from threatening other countries with nuclear blackmail, an unprecedented control over world oil supplies.

            Paul’s approach to foreign policy would have the U.S. shirk its role as the last remaining superpower, sequestering U.S. clout within domestic borders.  “I don’t know why that is such a negative term for people to boo that,” said Paul defending his isolationist foreign policy.  Paul spoke eloquently in opposition to the Iraq War, where Bush miscalculated the punishing costs to the U.S. of blood and treasure.  While it’s true that the Iraq War cost the U.S. dearly in terms of lost credibility, Bush’s mistake should not deter the U.S. from a proactive foreign policy.  Since Sept. 11, most foreign policy scholars advocate responsible management of gathering threats to U.S. national security.  Allowing Iran to develop an A-bomb would tilt the balance of power in the Persian Gulf away from the U.S. to Iran.  Nuclear blackmail would no doubt lead to more regional and global instability.

               Asking for a $1 trillion cut to the federal budget, Paul’s approach seeks to reverse the size and influence of the federal government.  Paul’s cuts to the budget would toss thousand of people out of federal jobs or contracts into unemployment lines.  He believes the federal government goes far beyond the “framer’s” intent regarding the scope and influence of the government.  His foreign policy seeks to slash the military budget to the point it no longer has global reach, confining U.S. actions to inside its own borders.  While conservatives like to bash President Barack Obama, they don’t like handcuffs placed on American influence.  Whatever mistakes were made in recent years, most conservatives aren’t willing to surrender the U.S. superpower status to China just yet.  Military supremacy requires major commitments of U.S. resources to preserve freedom around the globe.

            Paul’s fix to the U.S. economy is returning to the obsolete gold standard.  He often rants-and-raves about the Federal Reserve Board, printing money, debasing the currency and fueling hyperinflation, warning about the ruin of the U.S. economy.  He sees nothing wrong to tossing the federal work force into unemployment, believing magically the private sector would pick up the slack.  Expanding the tax base through more private sector jobs is precisely what the White House discussed with private industry this week.  How to stop the insidious outflow of employment to cheap labor markets overseas.  Obama asked American and foreign companies to bring back jobs lost to outsourcing to the States.  With every up-tick in employment, federal budget deficits shrink accordingly, giving the federal government more cash for important domestic and foreign policy programs.

            Inviting boos, Paul doesn’t quite get that conservatives refuse to surrender the U.S. superpower status.  Where Paul sees it as a liability, conservatives want to expand U.S. domestic and global influence.  Whether Paul preaches frugality while flying First Class or not, his real views are one of shrinking U.S. domestic and foreign influence.  He’s sees no need to change the federal government from the days when the Constitution was signed some 236-years-ago with its whopping 2.5 million citizens.  Whether or not the U.S. is in recession or prosperity, it must pay the price to maintain its position of global leadership.  Slashing the federal budget does nothing other than weaken U.S. dometic and global influence.  Paul’s way-out views run counter to the American tradition growth and prosperity.  Slashing budgets and scaling back both domestic and foreign influence is not the American Way.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.