Is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy the Antithesis of Ronald Reagan's?
Last week, in a debate wrap-up, National Review's Jay Nordlingler wrote the following:
Paul describes his foreign policy as “pro-American.” Oh, is that what it is? Then Ronald Reagan’s, which was the antithesis of Paul’s, must have been anti-American.
Is that really true? Here are just a few examples as to why it's not that simple:
- Ron Paul supported SDI.
- Ron Paul opposed the Nuclear Freeze, writing, "My primary objection to a nuclear freeze treaty with the Soviet Union is that I am unwilling to trust the freedom and independence of the United States to the promises of the Soviet ruling elite. The Soviets have broken almost every treaty they have ever signed, once it was no longer to their advantage to abide by its terms."
- Ron Paul opposed SALT II saying that it “would probably lead to permanent US weakness and the make the Soviet Union the undisputed military superpower in the world...It would be profoundly destabilizing; and far from promoting peace, it would endanger it." (Oct 1979)
- Ron Paul favors diplomacy and negotiation with enemies. Ronald Reagan engaged in diplomacy and negotiation with the Soviets.
- Ron Paul argues for a policy of non-interventionism and neutrality in the Middle East. Reagan wrote the following in his autobiography: "In the weeks immediately after the (Beirut) bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today."
My point is not to endorse Ron Paul's foreign policy views, but to point out how lazy and sloppy many on the right have been when discussing them. Maybe I am missing something, but my sense is that he is usually just written off as the "crazy uncle", while very few actually address and rebut his arguments. As Conor says, "Pretending that he doesn't exist won't make him go away."
Most recently, Jeffrey Lord over at the American Spectator has taken on Paul's foreign policy views, but not by actually addressing any of Paul's arguments. He simply makes the argument that his views are "liberal" and "not conservative". Well, so what? I can produce plenty of persuasive articles that argue the opposite.
The National Review regularly writes him off, most recently arguing that Ron Paul lost the debate once the discussion turned to Iran. Really? I thought he was quite forceful and persuasive when it came to Iran. Conservatives keep saying he is wrong, but no one will bother to make the argument as to why.
Very disappointing.
- Comment (57)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Sep '10
Re: Is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy the Antithesis of Ronald Reagan's?
You mean the part where he accused his opponents of declaring war on 1.2 billion muslims?
There is definitely an appetite amongst the conservative base for a reduced level of interventionism abroad; however, Ron Paul is quite possibly the least persuasive spokesman I have ever heard on that front.
May '11
Re: Is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy the Antithesis of Ronald Reagan's?
Unfortunately it doesn't matter what his voting record has been or what his official positions are. If he sounds like a crazy uncle, and he frequently does, no one will vote for him.
Mar '11
Re: Is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy the Antithesis of Ronald Reagan's?
I tried warming up to Paul, but sorry, he's leaving his conservatism behind. There's a great deal of appeal to people for a "mind our own business" philosophy. But Paul has gone beyond that to a position that mimics the left: it's all our fault. 9/11? We provoked them. Just ask him, he'll tell you about how our base in Saudi Arabia caused Al Qaeda to attack us... as if Saudi Arabia isn't a sovereign country that can invite whoever it likes to their land, and as if Al Qaeda gets to dictate what we can and cannot do. Ron Paul's policy is one of cowardice. I use that word deliberately. His argument can be summed up thus; "Boy, we'd better not make them mad at us or they'll do bad things to us". Paul's philosophy is, simply put, one of appeasement.
Did you catch him on Leno saying that Bachman hates Muslims and Gays? He sounds like a Democrat.
Edited on Dec 19, 2011 at 8:55amDec '10
Re: Is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy the Antithesis of Ronald Reagan's?
I actually heard his voice when I read that. /shudder.
Sep '10
Re: Is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy the Antithesis of Ronald Reagan's?
Douglas:
Did you catch him on Leno saying that Bachman hates Muslims and Gays? He sounds like a Democrat. · Dec 19 at 8:53am
Edited on Dec 19 at 08:55 am
Yikes, is there a transcript for this?
May '11
Re: Is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy the Antithesis of Ronald Reagan's?
Yep. The old, "Here's my lunch money, just don't do it again." gambit. Doesn't work with schoolyard bullies, won't work with homicidal cultists.
And that is the broad point Nordlinger was making about Reagan. There was no appeasement in his politics.
Edited on Dec 19, 2011 at 9:00amApr '11
Re: Is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy the Antithesis of Ronald Reagan's?
Mark Belling Fan
You mean the part where he accused his opponents of declaring war on 1.2 billion muslims?
A quotation raises context that a paraphrase drops. Ron Paul said:
Take CIA analysis seriously. Strong defense. Reduce military base footprint. Obey Constitutional limits on war powers.
Radical.
May '11
Re: Is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy the Antithesis of Ronald Reagan's?
Mark Belling Fan
Douglas:
Did you catch him on Leno saying that Bachman hates Muslims and Gays? He sounds like a Democrat. · Dec 19 at 8:53am
Edited on Dec 19 at 08:55 am
Yikes, is there a transcript for this? · Dec 19 at 8:57am
Video in this link.
Apr '11
Re: Is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy the Antithesis of Ronald Reagan's?
Was he appeasing Afghanistan when he voted for war against the country?
Please justify your claim here.
Oct '11
Re: Is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy the Antithesis of Ronald Reagan's?
Douglas:
"Boy, we'd better not make them mad at us or they'll do bad things to us". Paul's philosophy is, simply put, one of appeasement.
What's wrong with stating that our foreign presence creates problems? You can think something is a consequence without passing "blame"; if I walk too close to a drug-addled homeless guy and he spits on me, I can think my actions contributed to spit on my shoe without thinking it was wrong to go near him. I think Ron does go too far into the "blame" on some issues, but for the most part I think the criticism is unwarranted.
Jay Nordlinger's my favorite writer at National Review, maybe in all of conservative media, but he gets a bit too cute sometimes with his wistful political wanderings. I think 2Evil is right about Jay's point.
May '10
Re: Is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy the Antithesis of Ronald Reagan's?
I agree with Mark and Southern Pessimist.
Ron Paul's comments on Iran in the last debate were ludicrous. He fails to recognize the difference of leadership between Iran and the Soviet Union, pretending one tyranny is like the other. Ahmadinejad is nothing like Kruschev or Gorbachev. His threats are about not retaliation but hate-driven genocide. Likewise, "Islamists" (the popular term, lately) are not like communists. Iran repeatedly threatens the very existence of Israel and the United States unconditionally. And they are funding terrorists not just overseas but along our own border.
Besides, even while America is weakening internally — no, especially while we are weakening — it is foolish to advertise to the world that we will bend over backward to avoid intervention overseas.
You're right. Ron Paul isn't dumb and I don't disagree with everything he has said or done on foreign policy. But his foreign policy stances overall make me uneasy.
Mar '11
Re: Is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy the Antithesis of Ronald Reagan's?
Did Reagan go on the Alex Jones Show?
May '10
Re: Is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy the Antithesis of Ronald Reagan's?
Agreed. Every country in North America, Europe and Asia is threatened by Islamist terrorism (probably South America, too, but I never read about it). Even China has Mohammeds bombing their cities. Our policies do not inspire terrorism. Our culture is what they hate... and they hate us simply because we are not them.
May '11
Re: Is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy the Antithesis of Ronald Reagan's?
Jeff Younger
A quotation raises context that a paraphrase drops. Ron Paul said:
What's absurd is denying that the Swedes are losing their battle for control of their cities to a burgeoning moslem hoard and that the Swiss are not having to resort to drastic measures to keep their own hoard in check. Remember the minaret ban?
May '10
Re: Is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy the Antithesis of Ronald Reagan's?
Amen, Crow's Nest. Here's more where that came from.
Apr '11
Re: Is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy the Antithesis of Ronald Reagan's?
Kruschev said "We will bury you!" They were ideologically, unconditionally opposed to the capitalist USA. The USSR not only threatened the existence of neighboring states but actually conquered them and exterminated large parts of their populations - including Jews. The USSR didn't just advocate for genocide. It killed over 60 million people from 1917 to 1987.
Nevertheless the USA used diplomacy along with other instruments of national power, to combat the communist threat.
You are very misinformed, sir.
Mar '11
Re: Is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy the Antithesis of Ronald Reagan's?
Jeff Younger
Was he appeasing Afghanistan when he voted for war against the country?
Please justify your claim here. · Dec 19 at 9:07am
I justify my claim by his own words in the debates. The man's argument is that we're bringing the aggression on ourselves.
Sep '10
Re: Is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy the Antithesis of Ronald Reagan's?
Jeff Younger
Mark Belling Fan
You mean the part where he accused his opponents of declaring war on 1.2 billion muslims?
A quotation raises context that a paraphrase drops. Ron Paul said:
He said exactly what I accused him of saying.
The follow up comments in no way justify his disgracefully dishonest characterization that others on the debate stage wanted to declare war on 1.2 billion muslims.
Apr '11
Re: Is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy the Antithesis of Ronald Reagan's?
The "hoard"? You mean the muslims allowed in under the immigration laws of Sweden? I don't remember the "hoards"entering Europe under legal immigration statutes.
Admittedly, Sweden's immigration laws are poorly crafted. Admittedly, they have ceded their own laws in pursuit of a misguided multiculturalism. But this is something the Swedes did, not muslims.
You conflate, making Paul's point rather eloquently.
Oct '10
Re: Is Ron Paul's Foreign Policy the Antithesis of Ronald Reagan's?
I think Paul has the bigger problem of explaining why he voted for the war in Afghanistan, especially given his anti-war views and his comments that both wars were useless. It doesn't make sense to say its our fault but then vote for the war.