Ron Paul: The Only Presidential Candidate to Challenge the American Empire

David T. Beito is a member of the Liberty and Power group blog at the History News Network and Scott Horton is the host of Antiwar Radio in Austin, Texas and runs The Stress blog.

Flying under the radar of mainstream media coverage, supporters of Dr. Ron Paul, a seventy-two year old ten-term congressman and obstetrician from Texas, have staged a political revolution. Despite little publicity, they have raised over $15 million, mostly in small donations, giving Paul more money in the bank than John McCain. In a November 5 “money bomb” (inspired by Guy Fawkes Day as depicted in the film, “V for Vendetta”) the Paul Revolutionaries raked in $4.3 million. In doing so, they set a new one-day record for all Republican candidates. In addition, Paul’s backers have spontaneously organized over 1,100 meet-up groups. That’s more than any other candidate in the race including the youthful and photogenic Barak Obama. By all indications, most of the meet-up group members, now numbering over 60,000, are under age twenty-five. Paul’s appeal can be attributed to his no-holds-barred small government, pro-liberty message as well as his consistent call to bring home the troops. Reporters are right to emphasize the wide gap between Paul and the pro-war Republican presidential field but they should not stop there. If they dig a little deeper, they will find that his disagreements with Democrats are equally great. Paul is the only candidate in either party who wants to shut down the entire American overseas political and military Empire. Rather than “isolationist” in foreign policy, however, Paul embraces as his own Thomas Jefferson’s stated goal of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” But, unlike our third president, Paul appears bound and determined to apply these words across-the-board. His voting record shows a consistent support for free trade and legislation to redirect the military strictly to home defense rather than foreign occupation. The Democrats, by contrast, largely share the bi-partisan post-World War II consensus of spreading democracy, human rights, or “vital interests” by military force. Few subscribe to this consensus more zealously than Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton who has considerable credentials as a hawk dating back to her husband’s administration. Most notably, she was an aggressive cheerleader for the bombing campaigns against both Iraq and Serbia in Kosovo. Paul, like many Republicans at the time, opposed both. Although Hillary later broke with Bush on Iraq, she rejects a non-interventionist approach. She wants to leave U.S. troops behind in Iraq to fight al Qaeda as well as keep them in the region. When asked in a recent debate whether she would promise that the troops would be home from Iraq by the end of her first term, Clinton refused. Although Barak Obama opposed the war from the outset, his current views are not much different. He also intends to station U.S. forces permanently in the region and reserves the right to put them back in Iraq again in full force to stop “genocide” (a term he never defines). John Edwards advocates the same approach. While it is true that the Democrats are dovish on Iraq when compared to Bush, they blow bugles on the Darfur region of Sudan. The frontrunners demand tougher sanctions, imposition of a no-fly zone, and U.S. aid for more UN troops. Edwards pledges to work with NATO and deploy U.S. “military assets” to enforce the zone. Clinton has even suggested a blockade of the Port of Sudan, an act of war under international law. The truculence of the Democrats on Darfur defies logic given their objections to the Iraq War. The same conditions apply in Darfur that also led to the Iraq quagmire including a history of Islamic sectarian strife, a long civil war, and no real tradition of the rule of law and democracy. Despite widespread violence and Sunni fundamentalism in Sudan, there has never been a suicide bombing there. Were the Democrats to spread the War on Terror into Darfur, that statistic would certainly change. Rather than avoid all foreign political entanglements, as would Paul, the Democratic frontrunners promise to extend them. All three, to quote Edwards, hope to exercise “American leadership to forge powerful alliances-with longtime allies and reluctant friends, with nations already living in the light of democracy and with peoples struggling to join them.” In contrast to Paul, they do not intend to scale down foreign American bases, much less reconsider the merits of George McGovern’s old dream to “Come Home America.” As Obama puts it, the United States “cannot afford to be a country of isolationists right now....we need to maintain a strong foreign policy, relentless in pursuing our enemies and hopeful in promoting our values around the world." Woodrow Wilson could not have said it better. If Americans expect a “great debate” about foreign policy fundamentals in 2008, absent an upset by Paul and his campaign against the American empire and for free trade, they will not get it. That would be a pity. As examples of “blowback” from previous and ongoing interventions continue to mount, such as spiraling oil prices, the free-fall in the value of the dollar, and the current strife in Pakistan and Kurdistan, Americans need such a debate more than ever before.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Disqus

More Comments:

J. Feuerbach - 11/29/2007 First, some think that the castration of the Imperial stallion will stop it from f*cking other countries. But a penis without a body can accomplish very little. You need a strong body in order to force yourself on others. If you focus on the penis and you solely blame it for the raping and pillage, you're missing the big picture. The US plays the role of a punching ball. However, this diversion tactic is working very well. This article is a good example of its success.



Second, power isn't an unlimited resource or asset.(Sorry Anthony Robbins.) Countries are powerful at the expense of other countries. On the other hand, mother nature detests power vacuums. Today it could be the US. Tomorrow... maybe Iran or colorful Chavez!

David T. Beito - 11/29/2007 Just because a country enjoys the fruits of economic wealth doesn't mean that it is obligated to expend that wealth on vast world policing military and political establishments.



The Japan that largely minds it own business and maintains a small defense-oriented military, for example, is much more successful and well-regardeed than the Japan that tried to become a regional hegemon via political means.



Building large political and military establishments also contradict the more worthy goal of aspiring to be a decentralist, liberty and wealth maximizing republic.

J. Feuerbach - 11/28/2007 "Paul is the only candidate in either party who wants to shut down the entire American overseas political and military Empire." What on earth does this mean? If being imperialistic is apparently bad, what kind of political and military power would be acceptable? If you have actually amassed power, the worst thing that could happen is to pretend you don't have it.

Arnold Shcherban - 11/26/2007 Ha, ha!

Jason Blake Keuter - 11/23/2007 THERE IS NO AMERICAN EMPIRE

Lawrence Brooks Hughes - 11/22/2007 The truculence of the Democrats on Darfur defies logic in view of their stance on the Iraq War?



Not at all. It is perfectly logical. They need to hold their 92% of the black vote, despite many other policies like gay marriage, militant athiesm, anti-choice in schools, and unlimited immigration which are anathema to black voters.

Daniel Aldridge - 11/20/2007 I personally support Ron Paul not b/c I think that he should (or will) be President but because I think he expresses many ideas that desperately need to be included in the public debate. We are going down the same path as the British and Roman Empires and are holding on to a World War II and Cold War sense of global mission that we cannot afford and that will bankrupt us at home. He is also the only candidate who strongly opposes the "War on Drugs" that has incarcerated millions of poor and working class men of all races, but especially African Americans and Hispanics, and enrolled them in prisons that excel at being universities of crime.



Progressive-minded people should look at libertarianism with fresh eyes. Progressives, in my opinion, have tied themselves too tightly to the notion that government paternalism and a giant centrally administered welfare state is self-evidently the solution for the problems of the poor and working classes. Libertarians are also progressive on personal liberty issues such as gay marriage, the right to put intoxicants into your own body, and the right for free sexual and cultural expression.

Yong Wen Chen - 11/19/2007 >As Obama puts it, the United

>States “cannot afford to be a

>country of isolationists right

>now....we need to maintain a strong

>foreign policy, relentless in

>pursuing our enemies and hopeful in

>promoting our values around the

>world."



The thing to remember is that the government and the people are not the same thing. It seems the trend that the more "non-isolationist" the government becomes, the less engaged with the world the average American becomes, basically because they don't have to be. Government interventionist foreign policy creates an economic and political bubble world for the citizenry to live in. I believe that government non-interventionism would in contrast increase human level interactions, rather than mere State to State ones, between the US and the world.



-Ron Paul fan from Australia

Michael D - 11/19/2007 Thanks for an excellent article. The big point that some do not consider is that we simply can not afford to maintain the empire we have created.



Ron Paul speaks the truth and people respond in a way that many in the media just don't understand. They tell us that Ron Paul is a "long shot" candidate. In fact Ron Paul dominates in Straw Polls, Debate Polls, Fund Raising, Web Traffic and Grass Roots Networking. Ron Paul is a “top tier” candidate and I have created a website to present this evidence.



Please visit www.thecaseforronpaul.com and judge for yourself.

Windy Witch - 11/19/2007 In order to get Ron Paul the Republican nomination, he needs delegates at the conventions. To become a delegate, contact your local GOP headquarters and find out when and where your neigborhood GOP caucus will be held, attend the caucus and vote for Dr. Ron; and if you have the time and means to go to the local, state, and national conventions, become one of his delegates.

David T. Beito - 11/19/2007 Oops. Thanks for calling that to my attention.

James Hammel - 11/19/2007 Very informative and interesting analysis of the 2008 crop of candidates. There is something very scary in "sameness". The exception is Ron Paul who has created a wake-up call for America, and it could not be too soon. The big question is "will our herd of sheep listen?". Or will we continue to bury our heads and ignore what is happening to this great country? If you truly believe we are not the world's bullies and babysitters, then Paul's smaller government agenda has merit. So, do many other pieces (including re-looking the monetary system and the Fed as well as the tax system -- both which came into being in 1913 through illegal means). In the end, however, the elite that run this country and seek one-world government, may have something to say about it. Their goals are probably not well served under Paul's agenda. We need to start aksing how citizens can help get get their country back?

Stephen Michael Ickes - 11/19/2007 Thank you for the very well written article about Dr. Paul. Many articles about him incorrectly call him an isolationist. You may want to make a minor correction though, it's Guy Fawkes Day not Hawkes. It wouldn't do to have the History News Network incorrectly naming a very famous historical figure.

John Acord - 11/19/2007 Ron Paul has to be the most interesting of all the candidates.I believe an overwhelming number of Americans do not want to continue running an empire, especially when the burden falls 100% on us. Unless we follow the Roman example and loot the people we pretend to defend, (and who wnats to do that?), we are going to be beankrupt very quickly. Independents are listening to Paul.

paul thomasberg - 11/19/2007 Thanks for the insight and good article, I agree the debate needs to take place! The press seems to have conspired to silence this man but the People are ultimately responsible to educate themselves. "The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure." Albert Einstein



If you: are a patriot be it left, middle or right, want the war in Iraq to end, want America to stop medaling in other nations affairs, want secure borders and controlled immigration, are tired of the use of fear to promote failed policies that strip our liberties as in the war on poverty, drugs, terrorism or the next Saddam. If you believe military force is justified only in self-defense and aggression is the realm of dictators. If you believe, government should balance their budget as you have to. If you believe in the requirement that law enforcement obtain a warrant before searching as one of the essential protections against abuse of government power. If you believe the monetary policies of your government and the privately owned Federal Reserve contributed to the housing and .com bubbles. Finally, if you believe The Constitution of the United States is the REAL contract with America, then register as a Republican and vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary.



What we can do at this point is rally for Ron Paul. Vote in the primaries, talk to your friends and family, call people in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada etc. Donate to ronpaul2008.com on December 16 - Boston tea party. I am privileged and honored to do all I can to support Ron Paul because he will represent the people of this country. He will respect, protect and restore your rights, liberties and the Constitution! I have learned so much researching the many issues that Ron Paul led me to.



I ran into Ron Paul's name studying the federal reserve. Then listened and read his many house speeches, checked his voting record. I was so stoked to find an honest politician, a man with integrity and a brilliant understanding of the history of our country, a humble man that makes his point. A brave man willing to point out the chicanery and what the other candidates don't want the American people to know.

