[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: Ron Paul's isolationism is a foreign concept Ron Paul's isolationism is a foreign concept By: Michael Brendan Dougherty Ron Paul is causing a minor ruckus on the right. The Texas congressman's opposition to the Iraq war (and most other wars, too) puts him in stark contrast with the other nine Republican presidential candidates onstage at recent debates. While the "Rudy McRomneys" spend their debate time rallying support for Operation Iraqi Freedom and rattling sabers at Iran, Paul says that the most important moral issue facing our nation is its embrace of the Bush doctrine advocating preventative war. His seemingly unorthodox positions have made him a sensation in online polls. He has also caused some to wonder if he is in the right party at all. Paul points to old-school Ohio Republican Sen. Robert Taft, who advocated a humble foreign policy during the 1940s and early 1950s. Paul says that his party used to win elections by campaigning for peace. Even more, a Democrat warrior like Roosevelt had to assuage fears in the heartland that he'd "plow every fourth boy under" by involving America in World War II. There may be signs that those same Midwestern Republicans are reverting to their old thinking. Popular in opinion, unpopular in polls A recent Strategic Visions Poll shows that 57 percent of Iowa Republicans want the U.S. to withdraw all of its military forces from Iraq within the next six months. Only 37 percent of likely GOP caucus-goers think the United States should stay past November. If more than half of Iowa's Republicans want to get out of Dodge, why is Paul polling at only 2 percent there? Simply put, he's not expressing his foreign policy in terms grass-roots conservatives understand or appreciate. In an oft-replayed moment from the South Carolina debate, Paul handled a question on the causes of Sept. 11 by giving a technical answer about "blowback." He then encouraged the audience to "listen to the people who attacked us." Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani seized the emotion in the crowd and called the notion that we "invited that attack" absurd. Pundits showered Giuliani with plaudits and piled on Paul. "Good for Rudy," Jonah Goldberg wrote on http://NationalReview.com's "The Corner," "sticking it to Ron Paul on his blame America first isolationism." Paul defended himself by saying he blamed American policies. There's a point in there. With the Iraq war looking more like a disaster every day, perhaps conservatives need to relearn that policies have consequences -- even unintended ones. But it seems unlikely that Paul can rally Middle Americans around the idea that we need to sit down and start reading the words of Osama bin Laden. Seek noninterventionist strategy How can a conservative make peace play in the heartland? Noninterventionists on the right never tire of pointing out that their policy prescriptions have roots in the Founding Fathers. Paul could learn something from their style, too. They did not just discuss ideas dispassionately; they popularized them. Washington's farewell address, the driving document of noninterventionists, was meant to be persuasive: "Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?" In other words, Europeans are crazy; young, innocent America should be wary of entering into their quarrels. You might call this "blame foreigners first isolationism." This tradition isn't just a product of the 18th century; it can be found in the modern era. President Dwight Eisenhower's 1956 reelection campaign commercials contrasted images of excited young men watching sports and soldiers patrolling a foreign land. In front of their homesteads, Rockwellesque Americans praised him for keeping American boys at home. For Ike's campaign, peace was both a product and a sign of the nation's strength. In the debate, Paul began groping toward this framing of his views by saying, "I think (Ronald) Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics." Restoring America's independence, soverignty The conservative consensus in foreign policy has never been uncritically pacifistic or hawkish, despite progressive criticism of 1930s "isolationism" and today's "unilateralism." The basic sentiment informing conservative foreign policy over the past century has been nationalism -- a dogged belief that America's involvement with the world should enhance the security, prosperity and prestige of Americans. Democracy promotion abroad appeals to people in think tanks -- not in the Plains states. Rep. Paul can find success by framing his noninterventionism not as a corrective for America's sins, past or present, but as the way forward to restoring America's independence and sovereignty. Michael Brendan Dougherty is assistant editor of The American Conservative. He blogs at http://surfeited.net.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: aristeides (#0)
(Edited)
Simply put, he's not expressing his foreign policy in terms grass-roots conservatives understand or appreciate. In an oft-replayed moment from the South Carolina debate, Paul handled a question on the causes of Sept. 11 by giving a technical answer about "blowback." This correlation is absurd on its face. The ability to grasp the concept of blowback is not as difficult as it may seem. The main problem is the grassroots inabilty to grasp history.
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Presumably, the author mis-quoted Dr.Paul and should have used the word pre- emptive rather than "preventative". Is there such a word as "preventative" ? Whatever happened to "preventive" ? Ahh, what the hell do I know. Nuthin'.
Of course. That is what he said, watched him say it.
"The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men" Plato
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||