Shame on Ron Paul

Anybody who has followed what I write, or who has perhaps decided to read a few things here and there, ought to very well know that I am fan of Ron Paul. I have enjoyed the fact that his voice has come more to the forefront over the past year or two as a necessary voice of reason in terms of the economy. However, when it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul has, essentially 100% of the time, been laughed off the stage.

While the predominant issue of the past eight years has obviously been the war on terror and our foreign policy, I have, until recently, not paid much attention as I have not felt particularly obligated to. As much more attention as I pay to foreign affairs than I used to, however, economy, "global warming," and general political philosophy are issues I am much more excited about and enjoy writing about. I agree with Ron Paul on certain aspects of our foreign policy. In particular I believe we are probably too interventionist. I think there has to be a way we can impose our military might without actually physically occupying countries ad infinitum. I believe that if our dollar were real, and if our economy were suitably strong, all nations would be forced to bow to us economically, and the use of force would largely be unnecessary, irrational theocracies excluded of course. Perhaps we have been interventionist for so long that this train of thought seems ludicrous, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to believe that it is possible.

However, I disagree with Ron Paul's nonsensical explanation of his own foreign policy as not being isolationist. He explains this in his book The Revolution, and attempts to back it up with references to his previously issued A Foreign Policy of Freedom. His overarching argument is that he believes all countries should be left to their own devices, to do as they please, and that peaceful political discourse and freedom through trade are all that are necessary to coexist. A brief glance at the past 20 years of history, however, wholly undermines that line of thought, as we have watched our one time allies turn against us in their zeal for power. I refer, of course to Bin Laden himself, whom we aided in liberating Afghanistan from Soviet control, only to watch as his irrational thirst for anarchy turned against us. Paul would argue that it was our meddlesome policies that triggered this, however this ignores the fact that Bin Laden and others like him despise our culture at their very cores, and would act to destroy it no matter our political relationships with them.

Which brings me to Iran.

The protests in Iran following what appears to be an obviously rigged election resulting in a victory for Ahmadinejad have been nothing short of inspirational. Watching a long oppressed people rise up in anger at the sham of the "democratic process" that was just put on by the clerics for show on the world stage has filled me with more hope for our own ability as a people to shrug off the impending autocratic measures intended to be enforced by the Obama administration than ever before. The protests continue despite repeated shootings and further brutal crackdowns by the Iranian government. Twitter and other social networking outlets have fostered the spread of information from the ground like a California wildfire, despite the Iranian government's every attempt at censorship, including the bald faced threat of violence.

At a time when our president, the leader of the free world, should have stepped up to the plate and delivered a strong denouncement of the Iranian government's tactics, he said nothing for days. Finally, when it became apparent that this revolution would persist, that the will of the Iranian people could not be ignored, Barack Obama took to the podium and delivered a "pragmatic" speech that can be considered nothing short of weak sauce in light of the way it should have been handled in promoting freedom and liberty. Even as our President tip-toed through the middle-eastern tulips, however, our Congress passed a resolution condemning Iran's violent crackdowns (HT: LGF). What should have been a unanimous vote in the condemnation of brutality by a government against its own people passed 405-1.

The one vote against the denouncement? Ron Paul.

The very same man who is the figurehead of the Campaign for Liberty in the United States, a fantastically grassroots movement of citizens coming together largely via the internet to organize and begin to fight for their rights against what they perceive as an overgrown, perhaps in cases even oppressive, government, refuses to denounce ruthless violence by a government against its own people?

I am continuously irked by Charles Johnson for what I feel is an overly critical eye toward Ron Paul. He has attempted to paint the man as a racist and to marginalize him as an extremist. I am irked further by Johnson and by Rick Moran for what I perceive to be their attempts to marginalize the emergence of libertarian thought into mainstream politics as being extreme. Indeed, my own shot across Johnson's bow back in April lost me the privelege of being a posting member at his website inside of a week.

However this time, Charles Johnson is right. When I read this story there was nothing I could do but hang my head in disgust. Not only because this vote is a betrayal of the ideals of liberty and freedom, but because it simply makes it so much harder to rely on Ron Paul's words about any subject, including economy, no matter how right he may be.

Ron Paul's refusal to join in denouncing the actions of an oppressive Iranian government that is flailing as its people are twisting loose from its iron grip is nothing short of a shameful cry for attention. A failure to denounce oppressive actions abroad amounts to an abandonment of the core principles he so vehemently preaches here at home.

There is no principle involved in this decision by Ron Paul.

There is only shame.