Ron Paul is a physician, an author, and libertarian politician, whose unwillingness to compromise on his principles, as a member of Congress, has earned criticisms from both the mainstream media and his peers. He has been an outspoken critic of American foreign and monetary policies and stands firmly on the belief that the United States has drifted from her Constitution as well as her forefathers’ intent for a Federal government. Undaunted by his opponents dismissals, Dr. Paul has garnered the support of many voters because he can quickly point out some of the root causes that led to degradation of freedoms and loss of personal liberties in the United States.
That being said, I have some difficult questions for Ron Paul and his supporters:
Ron Paul first caught my attention in his 2008 Presidential run when I found myself agreeing with his assessments on cause and effect in American politics. As I started listening to his solutions, I began following them to their logical conclusions and saw a pattern of ideological flaws he needs to discuss.
I think it is a fair request that Dr. Paul answer some difficult questions about the adamant stances on his ideas of solvency and be honest with his supporters so that they fully understand what he can and what he can not do as President of the United States.
- Dr. Paul understands that the war on drugs is a futile and costly effort that the Federal government has engaged in for over a generation. If there is one thing alcohol prohibition proved, it was that criminals profited when the Federal government prohibited and the same scenario rings true with drugs. Government can not stop drug use by prohibiting it, criminalizing it, or warring with drug cartels over it. For every dealer narcotics officers catch, five more take his place because criminals have turned it into an extremely profitable underground business. The only successful tool known to curb recreational drug use from overtaking society is education. Understanding the REAL side-effects of drug abuse and educating the populace about the consequences of irresponsibility taking recreational or unprescribed medications has proven far more effective than any form of punishment. Trust me, I get it. So, my first question to Dr. Paul involves how he is going to address this issue. Specifically, how does he plan on getting Congress to relinquish its commitment to the war on drugs and how does he envision a realistic implementation?
- Dr. Paul insists on auditing the Federal Reserve and proposes abolishing it. On the surface, auditing the Federal Reserve may sound like a perfectly justified and sound solution. The problem is, if imbalances are found and made public, the ramifications are devastating. Loss of the world’s reserve currency would change America in ways most people can not fathom. The ensuing credit downgrades and dramatic hyperinflation would paralyze and already weak economy. Eliminating the Federal Reserve would require an act of Congress and a complete loss of the U.S. dollar as a fiat currency. What Dr. Paul seems to suggest is a currency reset that will make the U.S. dollar worthless, bringing about an economic Armageddon. How does Ron Paul plan to handle replacing our fiat currency? Who will produce it and what will it be?
- Dr. Paul has stated that Iran is not a serious threat to the United States and this concerns me greatly. Iran wants to close the Strait of Hormuz and cut off a major oil pathway to and from Saudi Arabia. If 40% of the world’s oil suddenly stops flowing on the world market, the economic consequences will echo around the world as every product that contain oil derivatives sky-rocket in price and demand. Will Dr. Paul attempt to ignore Iran as they start a global energy war and if not, how does he plan on handling the situation as Commander–In–Chief?
- Dr. Paul suggests that Israel can and should take care of itself and, in some ways, he is correct. Israel has the firepower to decimate a good part of the Middle East and, against an enemy that seeks its wanton destruction, they stand little to lose by using every resource available to ensure their survival. In the past, we have helped Israel defend itself by supplying them with superior technology, firepower, and the threat of United States intervention should things escalate beyond their capacity to defend themselves. Considering that America would still be a British territory without the aid of France in the Revolutionary War, will Dr. Paul ignore Israel should things escalate?
- Dr. Paul wants to shrink the U.S. troop presence from around the world. So does President Barack Obama, but he has found out, the hard way, that he can not reason with Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Putin, or Mao. They laugh at him, call him a clown president, and are increasingly emboldened by his lack of concern. The President of the United States MUST recognize that America has enemies, be able to identify them, and appear strong when confronting them. How does Dr. Paul realistically plan on withdrawing U.S. military presence without emboldening our enemies who seem to have no reservations about spreading their own influences around the world?
- Dr. Paul needs the support of Congress to progress more than half of the issues he wants resolved. As Paul constantly reminds us, the President of the United States is not a dictator or kingship, but part of a check and balance system of government. Knowing ahead of time that Ron Paul will remain partisan with Democrats and Republicans on a number of issues that he is unyielding about is not very reassuring. How does Dr. Paul plan on getting Congress to work with himand what will he consider compromising on?
When following some of Ron Paul’s key points to their logical conclusions and the potential consequences of achieving his stated goals, you begin to wonder if he, himself, has scrutinized his own ideals for possible flaws and outcomes.
Sure, the President of the United States can order the Department of Justice to ignore Federal drug laws, pull U.S. military presence from foreign countries, and circumvent Congress with executive orders, but doing so destroys the check and balance system of the Federal government and would leave Ron Paul looking as idealistic, hypocritical, tyrannical, and self-serving as President Barack Obama.
The main reason America’s forefathers put a Federal government together was to unite the colonies in matters of war and pledge to defend one another from enemies, both foreign and domestic. The main reason for Federal taxes was to pay off debt accrued by war and national defense. Therefore, it is safe to say that the number one job of the Federal government IS national defense and it is incumbent upon the Federal Executive and Legislative Branches of government to facilitate spending accordingly. Everything else the Federal government involves itself in should, Constitutionally, be secondary to States rights. The only time the Federal government should consider trumping the rights of a State is when State government over steps the boundaries set forth in the United States Constitution.
Given that the President of the United States sets foreign policy and represents the nation’s first line of defense against its enemies, I am left to wonder if Ron Paul is intentionally being dishonest with his supporters or if he is truly naïve enough to believe that isolationism and ignoring foreign affairs is possible. If the latter is true, Ron Paul will experience the same realities that Barack Obama faces. He will find he is unable to fulfill his promises without compromising the security of the United States and find himself, unintentionally, creating a police state environment as foreign tensions escalate and America sits and waits for the next attack instead of pro-actively preempting national security problems before they hit the homeland.
Unless Ron Paul can present Americans with a REAL plan on how to perform his main job prerequisite, as President of the United States, and show that he is willing to abandon his whole “American Imperialism” stance, I can not, in good conscience, support his campaign for presidency.