Yesterday, December 16, I joined over 100,000 Ron Paul supporters in raising over 6 million dollars, a record for single-day political fundraising.
I have voted since 1972, and this is the first time I have given money to a candidate.
There seems to be two schools of thought among Catholics regarding the Paul candidacy. On the one hand, you have the Catholics for Ron Paul, who portray him as the embodiment of Catholic social doctrine. On the other, some critics say that because he is a libertarian and espouses such things as the decriminalization of drugs and prostitution, a Catholic cannot in good conscience vote for him.
I am of neither of these camps.
First, a couple of the names I recognize on the Catholics for Ron Paul website are noteworthy for holding dissident or revisionist positions on social doctrine, particularly economics. Their insistence that Dr. Paul is "Catholic" on social doctrine is disingenuous, for if he were I doubt they would support him.
In truth, Dr. Paul’s political philosophy is badly flawed in light of Catholic teaching. His is an American individualism that falls far short of the communitarian Catholic vision of the common good.
That said, regardless of the philosophical source of his ideas, many of the practical proposals he makes would serve as a healthy corrective to the excesses of the Leviathan State.
And where he is right–on the war and foreign policy, on abortion, on torture, on the restoration of the historic rights of Americans–he is very right, and uniquely right.
Those who charge that a Catholic cannot in good conscience vote for Dr. Paul because of his support for decriminalizing drugs and prostitution, and because of his libertarianism, are proposing something very strange indeed. I would suggest that by their lofty standard a Catholic could not cast a vote for any American politician of whom I am aware. Political figures who embrace the whole of Catholic social doctrine are practically nonexistent, and the vast majority hold to positions far deadlier than Dr Paul’s. Dr.Paul, for example, is on record as ruling out a first strike with nuclear weapons. Is there another presidential candidate–besides Dennis Kucinich–who could make such a commitment? President Bush openly hinted at nuking Iran, before the intelligence community’s report mercifully derailed his War Express, but I didn’t see any of the anti-Paul commentators denouncing him. And the other Republican candidates–except McCaine and Huckabee–vie to outdo one another in their enthusiasm for torture.
What Dr. Paul proposes–allowing others to choose evil or self-destructive acts–is a far cry from proposing to perform evil (and deadly) acts oneself. And arguably, criminalization of such things–let alone the money-sucking 30 year disaster known as the "War on Drugs"–creates more evils than it destroys.
It is also prudent to remember that while Dr. Paul proposes many radical changes, he is not going to act by presidential fiat, which runs counter to his decentralist political philosophy. He not only wants to deflate the empire, he wants to defrock the emperor. He would have to convince the American people and their representatives to effect change.
With that in mind, Ron Paul is the best we can expect in the current political climate. Indeed, he is so far beyond what many of us had come to expect that it is startling.
But there is another reason to support Dr. Paul for president, and that is the integrity of his character.
The man seems far removed from what we think of when we hear the word "politician." As many of you know, he has never voted for a congressional pay increase, and returns part of his salary each year. He accepts no corporate campaign funds. He has never taken a congressional junket. And he speaks his mind regardless of the audience. I mean, this is the kind of guy who recently announced, in Miami of all places, that it was time to normalize relations with Cuba. He was booed.
Ron Paul is an obstetrician by trade, and has overseen the births of over 4,000 babies. He has delivered the babies of poor women for free.
(My son, Joey, who is 7: "Dad, is Ron Paul really a doctor?"
Me: "Yes, he is an obstetrician; he delivers babies."
Joey: "Where to?")
Dr. Paul was raised on a farm and has been married to the same woman for over 50 years. These two facts alone put him in a different category than most of the candidates.
In short, Dr. Ron Paul seems like the real thing, a representative of the better sort of America, the one that is fading fast.
He has my vote, libertarian warts and all.
—Daniel Nichols
Regarding Dr. Paul’s stances on the legalizing of drugs and prostitution — as I understand him, he sees these issues as concerns of the states, not the federal government. It seems he would favor de-legalization of such things at the state level, but as president, that wouldn’t be his concern. At best, he could use the presidency as a “bully pulpit” to push for such things — but, given his federalism (if, indeed I undertand his federalism), I don’t think he would make this his concern.
Insofar as I understand him, he personally supports decriminalizing drugs and prostitution. No doubt regarding policy, he would not object if particular states criminalize these things.
Personally, I am with him regarding marijuana and organic psychedelics. Other, more clearly destructive drugs like methamphetamine I wouldn’t want legal.
Daniel: I have to admit, I wouldn’t be promoting Dr. Paul as a defender of Catholic social doctrine, but I hardly think your statement about him being inconsistent with it is accurate either.
It seems to me that too many conflate “society” with “government”. I’m not aware of any place where Catholic social teaching dictates the institutional form by which the common good is to be carried out. In fact, in so far as libertarianism is constrained to the critique of government power, versus a rugged individualist argument, I am hard pressed to deny it at least the possibility of still retaining the communitarian dimension that Catholicism would recognize.
Ross Douthat has some interesting advice for Ron Paul on how to spend his money.
There’s a link from that post to one on National Review Online that indicates Paul is no longer absolutely ruling out that 3rd-party run.
Jack, I pretty much agree with you. I think Catholic social principles are (and should be) very elastic with respect to implementation.
Thank you for this review of his credentials.
I once went to a week-long indoctrination camp run by Libertarians. They are as weird as socialists.
I recall arguing about tolls for EVERY street b/c they would ALL be privatized.
BUT ironically they would NOT talk about abortion, even though we were required to read the “handmaid’s Tale” for the conference…
Those above, including Jack and Maclin, I’d advise reading the corpus of Catholic social doctrine, e.g., the papal encyclicals. The popes make it clear that the state has a definite role to play in society and the economy, a role different from and greater than the libertarian “night watchman state.” In fact, Pius XI explicitly notes that Leo XIII went beyond the libertarian notion of the state in Rerum Novarum.
Thomas, I have read most of those encyclicals, including Rerum Novarum.
Your response is part of what I am talking about. Reread Rerum Novarum. Particularly picking up with paragraph 35. In no way is it “explicit” in the way you suggest. In fact, it goes to great pains to speak in principles and not the specific mechanics of any insitutional form.
Catholics aren’t going to make progress on these points until we get this through our head. The Acton crowd needs to recognize that the Church hasn’t endorsed the American form of capitalism and others need to recognize that neither has it endorsed the American form of statism. It’s offered up principles, and it’s up to us laity to do the hard lifting of trying to apply them to the context of our situation.
I think your argument also suffers probably from defining libertarianism as a pin-point. In reality and practice, there’s a stream of thought of various degrees. I don’t think it is fair to grant to libertarianism merely the “watchman state” option and claim all other degrees as belonging to other philosophies. Few serious people advocate a “pure” libertarianism of that sort and that’s hardly what Paul is advocating.
I wish people would not use the label “libertarian” so loosely around RP. RP is no “classic” libertarian. He’s libertarian in one simple sense of being opposed to unitary, totalizing State hegemony. That’s pretty much it. He’s paleoconservative too, which makes him far less enthusiastic about individualism than your avg libertarian. He’s also a thorough Constitutionalist, which makes him far more concerned about states’ rights than your avg libertarian. And doesn’t he have some resonance with distributism? I think both his paleoconservatism and constitutionalism modify his libertarianism enough to fit relatively easily with Catholic social teaching.
RP’s 2005 statement on JPII makes gives us a critical glimpse into his idiosyncratic libertarianism:
Historically, religion always represented a threat to government because it competes for the loyalties of the people. In modern America, however, most religious institutions abandoned their independence long ago, and now serve as cheerleaders for state policies like social services, faith-based welfare, and military aggression in the name of democracy. Few American churches challenge state actions at all, provided their tax-exempt status is maintained. This is why Washington politicians ostensibly celebrate religion – it no longer threatens their supremacy. Government has co-opted religion and family as the primary organizing principle of our society. The federal government is boss, and everybody knows it. But no politician will ever produce even a tiny fraction of the legacy left by Pope John Paul II.
No libertarian I’ve ever known thinks or talks like this. Sounds more like Dorothy Day to me.
Jack,
I was not advocating statism of any kind. The notion that we have to choose between statism or libertarianism (classical liberalism) is a typical confusion of thought which is very common in America. This, BTW, is the passage I was referring to: “With regard to civil authority, Leo XIII, boldly breaking through the confines imposed by Liberalism, fearlessly taught that government must not be thought a mere guardian of law and of good order, but rather must put forth every effort so that “through the entire scheme of laws and institutions . . . both public and individual well-being may develop spontaneously out of the very structure and administration of the State.”[19] Just freedom of action must, of course, be left both to individual citizens and to families, yet only on condition that the common good be preserved and wrong to any individual be abolished. The function of the rulers of the State, moreover, is to watch over the community and its parts; but in protecting private individuals in their rights, chief consideration ought to be given to the weak and the poor. “For the nation, as it were, of the rich is guarded by its own defenses and is in less need of governmental protection, whereas the suffering multitude, without the means to protect itself relies especially on the protection of the State. Wherefore, since wageworkers are numbered among the great mass of the needy, the State must include them under its special care and foresight.” Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, no. 25
Ron Paul is a disciple of Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises, two economists who contradict Catholic social doctrine rather boldly. I’m afraid it is hard to reconcile this with the Catholic tradition on the common good.
But his instincts seem sound, and he certainly is eloquently speaking truths that no one else is in the presidential race. Or rather, he is speaking many truths, while others speak a truth here or there.
In spite of my criticism of his libertarian philosophy- and “libertarian” is what he calls himself- I am quite enthusiastic about Dr Paul’s candidacy. Hey, I sent him money, right before Christmas, didn’t I?
His good instincts shine in the passage quoted above, when he eloquently eulogized John Paul better than any Catholic in the House than I am aware of.
To read the whole speech see http://lewrockwell.com/paul/paul244.html.
Thomas, although I recognize it may have seem implied, I was not leveling the charge of advocacy for statism against you directly. Many who oppose the Acton crowd do. So if there was confusion on that point, I hope that clarifies.
I’ve read Quad Anno, too, Thomas. I don’t see how this quote at all answers my original complaint. As I said, if you must insist on defining libertarianism in such a strict way, then fine, I’ll concede your point and say the two are incompatible. But I find it curious that, on a practical level, modern liberalism and conservatism are permitted gradations, but libertarianism isn’t. That seems the only way for your argument to work and be able to avoid actually looking at concrete things before reaching a conclusion that something is incompatible with the Catholic thought.
Daniel you are certianly right about some of the things of Rothbard and von Mises’ work. But I’ve rarely heard Dr. Paul invoke their names except in connection with monetary policy. And there is where I think there is more merit to their critiques and one we shouldn’t fear exploring because of the libertarian label. And I see nothing in Catholic social teaching that speaks to monetary policy.
I suppose that’s the difference in our analysis. I am willing to look at a constrained or practical version of libertarianism that doesn’t preclude the state a role in dealing with welfare.
I suppose L.T. is right, it’s much about the usage of the word libertarianism. I am not using it in the strict, classical, absolutist sense. I’ve used it in a far looser way, more in line with L.T.’s comments. Which certainly may speak to the difference in the way some of us are reacting. Which of course is an object lesson in how a reduction of things to labels can be quite interfering. Maybe this clarifies some and indicates that there’s not much disagreement among us on the point we have been discussing.
Dr Paul may not invoke their names, but it is reported that he has their pictures on the wall of his office, along with Freidrik Hayek.
Now, I think that the images you hang on your wall are revealing. For example, in my house we have icons of Christ, the Mother of God, and our favorite saints. The only non-canonized human we have an image of -aside from photos of family and friends- is John Paul II.
The Austrian school of economics, which these thinkers represent, with their opinion that the State is an evil, is very far from the Catholic view, which is that the State is a natural, God-ordained Good (see St Paul).
Of course, many, if not most, actual states have abused power and been oppressive. The same could probably be said about families, but should the family then be abolished?
No, however distorted by original sin, the state and the family are natural goods, and any human attempt to improve upon them will result in a greater evil.
Again, I in saying this I am not rejecting the good doctor, who is to all appearances a fine and honest man, a rarity in American politics, and who is so right on so many important issues. But let us not lose our bearings here.
I mean just because “Ron Paul” rhymes with “John Paul” we ought not jump to conclusions.
Just for the record, I’ve read the major social encyclicals, too. As I said earlier, I think their relatively few abstract principles admit of a great deal–a very great deal–of elasticity in implementation, which is necessarily a matter of practical wisdom. I’m not that concerned with whether or not Ron Paul is theologically correct and consistent, although I would prefer that he be so. We aren’t electing a philosopher-king. I think the American constitution can function in a way that’s reasonably compatible with Catholic principles, and it’s enough for me that someone would propose a serious effort to return to it.
Just want to commend everyone here for the respectful discussion and airing of differences. Very refreshing.
I used to be a registered Republican, now I am only for the primaries and even then I’d like to vote in the Dem. primaries…to make a point.
I have heard it argued the only genuine Catholic form of govt. is a monarchy.
I shuddered at the idea, and found it absurd. I prefer discussing what is and what we are dealing with.
Bush, his father and Reagan have been the closest to Catholic social teaching and where are we… we have basically stood still on abortion. The urgency is not there anymore, we have IVF, contraception, embryonic stem cell research…
We have to radically PRACTICE Catholicism starting with the Domestic Church.
I am stepping off of soap box.
“Bush, his father and Reagan have been the closest to Catholic social teaching”,,,
Huh?!
I suggest that you return to the sources -the social encyclicals- and rethink that assessment.
I just watched Glen Beck’s interview with Ron Paul, and it reinforced my contention that he is very far from a Catholic view regarding economic questions. The notion that the market is some sort of magically benevolent force, to be allowed to function unrestrained, is remarkable, really, in light of history. As I understand the theory, fallen man, pursuing his fallen and sinful ends, will bring prosperity and justice for all. Greed, one of the capital sins, becomes a cardinal economic virtue.
The popes have been more realistic.
However, as every other candidate has, if not those philosophical flaws, others at least as harmful, and as Dr Paul speaks truth on life and peace, I stand by him still.
Nope…I stand by it. Reagan/Bush were “pro-life”…had a pro-life blank. Abortion kills more than war, famine etc.
Who would you contend was closest to Catholic social teaching- electable President-wise? I put right-to-life as the preeminent
teaching. I go by body count.
I can admit that libertarianism allows of degrees – yes, I see no reason why it can’t. But I think that any political philosophy whose fundamental leanings or basis lies in the classical liberal tradition (and this also includes both American liberals and American conservatives, of course) is flawed from a Catholic standpoint. That’s not to say that they can’t come up with some good ideas. Pius XI said that socialists had some good ideas. But their fundamental way of looking at man, goverment, society, etc. is wrong. Whatever good practical proposals they may have find their proper context within a Catholic worldview.
Tom, cool, we agree!
One thing that often frustrates me in these discussions is that people tend to establish false dichotomies and dig in: if you’re opposed to rule by the absolute free market principle, you’re a totalitarian; if you’re opposed to the Great Society, you’re heartless and greedy. Market mechanisms have their place, in my opinion, but so does state regulation. No one in his right mind proposes that the physically strong and unscrupulous be left free to subjugate, rob, and kill whomever they are able to–why should such a totally hands-off policy rule in economics?
Jane, I say this as someone who voted for Reagan and both Bushes, but I think you’re way overestimating their commitment to the prolife cause. Granted, they were way better on this than the Dems in general, but still, in the end it wasn’t that high a priority for them.
By the way, I don’t know how much attention y’all are paying to what’s going on with the other Republican candidates, but the presence of both Huckabee and Giuliani in this race is really bringing the split between social conservatives/populists and libertarians/war-hawks in the Republican party into sharp focus. This is possibly a major re-alignment, as one side or the other may find itself completely alienated from the party, which can’t even dream about winning without both.
Maclin, I’m delighted to find areas of agreement with you too! This, btw, from Quadragesimo Anno no. 88, sums up what I see as the Catholic view of free markets, meaning free competition, in an economic system.
“Just as the unity of human society cannot be founded on an opposition of classes, so also the right ordering of economic life cannot be left to a free competition of forces. For from this source, as from a poisoned spring, have originated and spread all the errors of individualist economic teaching. Destroying through forgetfulness or ignorance the social and moral character of economic life, it held that economic life must be considered and treated as altogether free from and independent of public authority, because in the market, i.e., in the free struggle of competitors, it would have a principle of self direction which governs it much more perfectly than would the intervention of any created intellect. But free competition, while justified and certainly useful provided it is kept within certain limits, clearly cannot direct economic life – a truth which the outcome of the application in practice of the tenets of this evil individualistic spirit has more than sufficiently demonstrated. Therefore, it is most necessary that economic life be again subjected to and governed by a true and effective directing principle. This function is one that the economic dictatorship which has recently displaced free competition can still less perform, since it is a headstrong power and a violent energy that, to benefit people, needs to be strongly curbed and wisely ruled. But it cannot curb and rule itself. Loftier and nobler principles – social justice and social charity – must, therefore, be sought whereby this dictatorship may be governed firmly and fully. Hence, the institutions themselves of peoples and, particularly those of all social life, ought to be penetrated with this justice, and it is most necessary that it be truly effective, that is, establish a juridical and social order which will, as it were, give form and shape to all economic life. Social charity, moreover, ought to be as the soul of this order, an order which public authority ought to be ever ready effectively to protect and defend. It will be able to do this the more easily as it rids itself of those burdens which, as We have stated above, are not properly its own.”
I agree not a high priority, but who is better and electable?
Last governor’s race, I wrote in a canidate. Someone so unknown, a fellow Catholic thought he was a character out of a Twain novel!
Jane: If you are looking at “body count” then Reagan and the Bushes rate no better than Nixon or Carter or Clinton; there were no fewer babies killed during their terms than any other. Indeed, if you figure the prochoice Supreme Court justices they appointed your case weakens further.
In fact, they did nothing, and I include GW Bush’s great “prolife victory” of outlawing partial birth abortion, which saved no lives. It was purely symbolic, this banning of a method even many prochoicers found repellant. But it is still legal to abort late pregnancies. Indeed, it is likely that the baby suffers more and longer in a saline abortion than in partial birth. But it is more palatable to the born, as it is done in the darkness of the womb.
But “body count” is a poor way to assess political figures. What if you had a candidate who is antiabortion, with no exceptions, but calls for concentration camps and gassing for illegal immigrants, and for a preemptive nulear strike against Iran? By your “body count” standard he would be the candidate who adheres to Catholic social principle.
In fact, Catholic social principles address a broad swathe of issues, and as important as abortion is, it isn’t the only criterion.
I have relatively recently concluded that “prolife” politicians are almost without exception not going to do anything which could cost them votes. Lip service and the occasional vote on some detail or other, which does not threaten the status quo, is about all one can expect. The same is true for most “prochoice” politicians: they aren’t going to stick their neck out very far if it loses votes.
Hence, the prolife “issue” is not a big factor at this point in determining who I will vote for; it is a smokescreen all around.
Sounds cynical, but look at the record.
I have relatively recently concluded that “prolife” politicians are almost without exception not going to do anything which could cost them votes.
For a long time I’ve held a variant of that view: politicians are not going to do anything (willingly) that would lose them an election. Too aggressive an effort in the prolife direction could do that, because the number of people who would vote against them as a result is great enough to pose a risk of, or maybe insure, losing an election. However, in many parts of the country the pro-life vote is equally or perhaps more formidable. Therefore each side gets, mostly, lip service and small gestures, as the pols will walk a careful line and attempt to keep either group from turning on them.
This shouldn’t surprise us. Ultimately the pro-life cause always runs up against the fact that not enough voters support it. In the end we the people are the problem.
Just a comment on “libertarianism.” There are actually two kinds. The first kind (first, because it was first historically) traces back to pre-Marxist socialism. The state was viewed as the protector of the vast estates which kept people from owning property. Once the state was defeated and people had access to property, production and consumption would balance themselves out, prices would reflect the actual labor embodied in products, and communities would be local and self-organizing. This is basically the socialism of Proudhon and Hodgkins.
Marx ridiculed that kind of socialism as “pre-scientific” and changed socialism into a statist doctrine. His “withering away of the state” is just a sop to the previous forms of socialism. But after Marx, socialism became synonymous with statism of the most extreme kind. Marx may have scared the capitalists, but he destroyed the socialists.
After Marx, libertarianism was picked-up by the Austrians and became almost its opposite. The Austrians are also statist, even if they limit the state to the protection of private property. But property itself became an unlimited right, which is exactly the opposite of libertarianism, and contrary to its aims.
Libertarianism is now a confused amalgam. On the right, it is little more than a defense of monopoly rights guaranteed by the state. On the left, it is a kind of anarchism. Most libertarians draw from both points of view in a confused hodge-podge.
My personal view is that libertarianism, in either its left- or right-wing versions is not a complete description of any real economy. But having said that, I believe that a distributist state would resemble the libertarian ideal more than it would resemble anything else.
As far as decriminalizing prostitution and drugs, this is in fact compatible with the politics of Thomas Aquinas, who did not put the state in the role of forbidding every sin, but merely guaranteeing order. On the subject of prostitution, for example, he took a very dim view of the state’s ability to eradicate it.
Given the choices, I will likely vote for Paul, with reservations of course, but that is always the case.
By the way, IHS Press is re-issuing Hilarie Belloc and Cecil Chesterton’s “The Party System” with an introduction by Ron Paul. Its at least nice to know that one candidate has read at least one book by those two worthies.
Th
I admire Dr. Paul in many ways, probably most for his willingness to speak his mind freely without regard to political expediency. But I just can’t imagine him having any kind of effective presidency. I can’t imagine him having a congress that is willing to walk with him down the paths that he wishes to walk. And by his nature, principles, and past I don’t see him willing to compromise to get things done, which he would surely have to do to even start moving policies in the directions he wants to take. He could keep his veto pen busy for sure, but in the end I’m afraid that he would get nothing done, and it would be a frustrating experience for all.
Warfare is a notable exception to this. A president decides to do it or not, so we could be relatively sure that RP would be more reluctant to use our military. Practically speaking, over the next 4 years, I’m not sure what that would mean, though. RP: “It’s not that I’m against wars per se. I’m against unnecessary, undeclared wars… We should not get into war to enforce UN resolutions, like we have done too many times.” Ok.
I’m all for repealing the federal income tax! But it won’t happen anytime soon, so whatever.
One thing I’m uncomfortable with RP on is that he thinks that the federal government should get out of abortion policy, leaving that up to the states (he thinks the same for prostitution, drug use, and a host of other less-controversial issues). I understand that if Roe v Wade is overturned, that abortion policy reverts to the states, and most pro-lifers just see that as a stepping stone to the next push for a federal ban on abortion. RP, however, thinks it should stay at the state level. But if abortion is murder, should it really be up to the states? Is it killing or not? Why don’t we leave some of the other types of killing up to the states to decide (infanticide, homicide, genocide)? In theory, I think there should be a federal ban on abortion, which would include any type of abortifacient contraception, and embryonic research like stem cell and cloning.
Actually RP thinks that all criminal activity should be legislated and prosecuted by the states; he doesn’t just single out abortion. Maybe there was a time when the states were isolated enough from each other that it didn’t seem to matter what “those people” across the border decided to do about these things. But we are too connected (in every way) to have different policies on the Big Issues like killing, marriage, guns, drugs, sex, etc., and realistically expect for our country to function well.
In addition to the freedom movements giving RP their support (gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia, embryonic research), I also feel queasy about the illegal drug, gambling, prostitution, and pornography industries giving him so much support. It can’t be because they think that he supports their activity on a moral level, because he has been clear enough on that. But they know that he is so principled on states’ rights, that they see that as their opening to play the states against one another. They know all too well that precisely because we are no longer isolated states, but are hyperconnected, (by cars, planes, internet, media, phones, etc.) that all it takes is one state to swing their way, and essentially their product or service is available to the whole country, regardless of what the other states do. I can’t but help think that given the current state of relativistic morality in our country, that his “free reign” policies regarding these industries would only harm us as a country, and foment even more radical Islamic hatred for us, the “Great Satan”.
But those points are kind of moot, because of what I said at the beginning, which is I don’t think he would be able to get anything done as president anyway. For better or worse, I don’t think average Americans are ready for Ron Paul, psychologically, morally or otherwise.
It is not true that Dr Paul opposes a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion. That would be, as he points out in a position paper, a proper constitutional solution to the problem.
However, to expect such a federal ban to succeed is very unrealistic: it ain’t going to happen. You say America isn’t ready for Ron Paul? I say it isn’t ready to ban abortion. When it was ready was in the early 1980s, when polls showed wide support for a ban, and Ronald Reagan decided his economic agenda was more important.
Dr Paul’s call to return the issue to the individual states is a realistic way to save many lives, even if it stops short of saving all.
It also does not repel prochoice voters as much, and again realistically, we need a broad coalition if we are going to take back the country, deter world war, and restore our constitutional freedoms.
As for a Paul presidency, your point that he would not have congressional support is one of the reason I will vote for him: on many issues he if very far from having a Catholic sensibility, which always emphasizes solidarity above individualism.
I doubt, though, that he will use the veto power often; he is for a limited presidency. If he vetoed something it would be because he deemed it unconstitutional.
On warfare, Dr Paul is clear that he favors only defensive war. As no state is likely to attack the US, our aggresive, meddling foreign policy, which has reaped so much evil, would be a thing of the past.
Of course, the whole question of a Paul presidency depends upon who the parties nominate. Ideally, there would be a Giuliani/Clinton race, where there is neither a peace nor a prolife candidate. In such a scenario Dr Paul would have a realistic shot at winning.
However, as Giuliani will not hold up under scrutiny- the guy has a graveyard in his closet- and it is by no means certain that Hilary C has it sewn up, it is hard to tell.
Dr Paul would have a shot in a Clinton/McCain race, but if it is Obama vs Huckabee, with a peace candidate on one side and a prolife one on the other he doesn’t have a shot.
Are you flat-out assuming a third-party candidacy? He has said emphatically in the past that he won’t.
If he says in a position paper that he thinks that a federal ban on abortion is constitutional, and he would support it, then fine. But that contradicts several public interview answers, his wikepedia entry, and definitely what he says here.
How can you say no state is likely to attack us right now? Not overtly, but there are states that are directly and indirectly sponsoring terrorists who have and will attack us if given the chance. Someone has to decide what the appropriate defensive response is to an attack like that. I don’t feel comfortable letting RP do it.
You know, it is NOT all our fault. There really are bad guys out there who want power, and want to take over other nations, regardless of how nice we are. If we just pull back all our military from all over the world, not only will some of our allies feel betrayed, but some of our enemies will not be satisfied, and will take advantage of our new vulnerabilities. I think RP’s foreign policy is a little imprudent and naive, and could embolden those who want to hurt America whether we are occupying their country or not.
Ron Paul’s statement on constitutional principle and abortion, where he mentions a constitutional amendment as one solution, can be read at http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul100.html
Do you really think any state is likely to bomb or invade the US? We spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined. To say that any other state seriously threatens us is laughable.
There are those who wish to inflict terrorist attacks, yes, but that is more a matter of police work than military response, and such attacks would certainly diminish if we ceased meddling in the affairs of others, if we dismantled the empire.
“The War on Terror”, like the war on communism which it succeeds, is largely an operation to keep us scared, wetting our pants and granting the military/industrial complex unchallenged power, as they seize our freedoms.
Not that there are not terrorists, just as there were communists, but the threat is exaggerated to serve the purposes of the oligarchs.
It’s my impression that at present nearly all criminal law is state law, including laws against prostitution, which is why prostitution is legal in some parts of Nevada. Laws against murder are state laws. But it would be odd if one state passed a law exempting (say) 20 to 30 year olds from their murder statute, thus freely allowing them to be killed, as some states would do with the unborn were Roe overturned. I suspect that in the former case some one would bring a 14th amendment suit saying that the state could not deprive 20 to 30 year olds of equal protection. But the 14th amendment unfortunately says all persons “born,” so it apparently does not cover unborn persons.
Mr. Nichols (formality is for clarity, since I we’re both Daniels), I don’t know if you checked out my link. It’s from lewrockwell.com too. Only problem is, yours was something RP wrote in 2003, but mine was his opinion in 2006.
Mr. Ellis,
A blessed Christmas to all. After a long, joyous day with a bunch of delightful little people:
The 2003 statement is currently on his website; the 2006 one is not.
The statement you reference addresses federal legistlation; a constitutional amendment is quite another thing.
Dr. Paul does not think this doable, as it clearly is not, but he thinks it constitutional.
Politics is, as the saying goes, the art of the possible. Given the current political climate, a return of the question to the states is the best we can hope for. To insist that one must support a constitutional amendment to qualify as “prolife” is unrealistic and unnecessarily purist.
Heck, the National Right to Life folks have endorsed Fred Thompson, whose record is far worse than Dr. Paul’s, and who also calls for a return of the question to the states.
Dr. Paul’s prolife credentials are unassailable, both from principle- he is an obstetricion- and from his voting record.
I will grant that his constitutionalism verges on a sort of fundamentalism- a Catholic can hardly ascribe the level of authority he does to a secular document- but given the alternatives and the practical conclusions, it is far better than the various alternative.
The art of the possible, and all that.
Merry Christmas to you and your family too!
I went back and reread the two pieces, and I agree that he is talking about 2 different things. I guess along the lines of what Mr. Storck says, I think we need an Amendment 14b, that says all life “conceived” instead of “born” will get equal protection. Then when Roe v Wade is overturned because it is not constitutional, the only way a state could allow abortion would be to repeal all bans on murder for all ages in that state, which they wouldn’t do. All theoretical, I know.
I agree with the idea of the “art of the possible”. That’s a main reason why I don’t think Ron Paul is the best pick. I think he espouses too many views and plans that aren’t possible yet.
And I think it depends upon the choices the two parties offer; if there is no clear prolife or propeace candidate, and if Dr Paul can keep his composure under the inevitable attack, I for one think he would have a real shot.
There are a LOT of people who don’t agree with much of what he proposes who find his honesty and radical alternative refreshing…