Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Why Ron Paul Cannot Be President

As we begin to edge closer to the midterm elections this fall, an obvious pattern is beginning to develop. Anti-incumbent sentiment is at an all-time high, and rightfully so. Unfortunately, it seems that when the people of our nation are dissatisfied with the party holding power, they tend to go to extremes in the other direction (see Barack Obama). The recent success of Ron Paul in Republican polling has me, at a minimum, raising an eyebrow.

Many of my fellow, alleged conservatives, have jumped on his bandwagon and I pray it is not the beginning of a trend. I know, I know, Ron Paul is the popular choice these days, but I cannot lend my support for many reasons. First and foremost would be the obvious...he is not a conservative. Ron Paul is a Libertarian and he can run under the guise of any party he wishes, his beliefs are still Libertarian. Don't get me wrong, I am firmly on board with many Libertarian beliefs and these days the line seems to be getting blurred between conservatism and libertarianism. I wrote an article earlier this year noting my concerns over this growing trend.

Quite simply, we cannot allow Ron Paul to be President for one huge reason. Ron Paul is an isolationist, as are many libertarians. As much as the majority of Americans want less government intrusion into their daily lives, we must not accomplish it by neglecting the safety and defense of our nation. Too many nations detest our way of life and would like nothing more than to bring it to a conclusion. Ron Paul does not believe in getting involved in the world's conflicts. It's an easy stand to take, and no doubt garners present day support from many Americans who have not the stomach for the ongoing “war on terrorism”. However, the easy decision is not always the correct decision. It would be easy to withdraw our troops back home and stay out of these affairs. Unfortunately, if this foreign policy were adopted it would be but a matter of time before this hatred for our nation hits us within our borders again.

It's actually quite amazing how short-term our memories are when it comes to our safety. After 9/11 everyone supported the strengthening of our defenses, the beefing up of our border security, and the war on terror. It took less than two years for the anti-war lobby to regain the voice of naivety they have been for the last forty years. Do we need to be involved in every conflict which takes place on this globe? No, but isolationism is a foolish recipe for disaster. We must protect our interests at home and abroad. The failure to accomplish this weakens our nation and emboldens our enemy; who, unlike our cowardly administration, I have no problem stating is Islam.

Al Qaeda and all of it's other radical muslim splinter groups have been quite vocal that their strategy involves ongoing, debilitating attacks. They proudly claim that they know Americans do not have the stomach to see such a conflict through, and so far they are correct. We, as a nation, having once again achieved a general feeling of security within our borders and have immediately gone back to our ways of taking it for granted.

In the book Endless War by Ralph Peters he described our conflict with radical muslims by claiming, “we're playing checkers, they're playing chess.” If you dig deeply into world history and the current exploding population of Islam throughout Europe you will see that this is not a time in our history that we can support isolationism. It would simply be suicide for our nation. As much as nobody likes the idea of it, war is often necessary to defend the freedoms which this great nation provides. That, quite simply, is why we must not abandon conservatism for libertarianism.

Take a trip to Arlington National Cemetary and you will see rows upon rows of men and women who knew that if we are to maintain liberty, war is an unfortunate requirement from time to time. This will always be true as long as there is evil in our world. Those who refuse to accept these cold hard facts had better be prepared to kneel on a cold hard floor. I, for one, prefer to die on my feet than live on my knees.


  1. Take a trip to Arlington and you'll get a small glimpse of how many American lives the State has required to expand itself and squash more and more liberty from this land.

    War is the health of the state... the way it stands now, war is the States requirement ALL the time, not "from time to time".

    By the way, you are misapplying the term "isolationist" for what Ron Paul really is - a non-interventionist. Only intervention can fuel the fire that leads to increased terrorist recruitment.

    It is government intervention into our lives, whether financial, social, or economic, that has resulted in the Tea Party opposition to this big government mess. Terrorism works the same way. American intervention fuels opposition and leads to recruitment of terrorists.

    I think you've drank a little too much neocon koolaid. In case you haven't noticed. Ron Paul has been right about everything, there is no reason to think he is wrong about our foreign policy. After all, it's not like the neocons and progressives are improving things.

  2. So we're taking a page from the progressive playbook now, aren't we Mr. White? He's not an isolationist, he's a what did you call it...non-interventionist?? Way to change the words on the same thing.

    "the state has required to expand itself"
    So you think that war is merely executed to expand the state's power base? That is most assuredly the ultimate conspiracy theory. Let me guess...you are one of those Alex Jones following nutbag truthers, aren't you? Make sure you don't forget to wear your tin foil hat so the government doesn't steal your thoughts.

    I love how you Alex Jones, Ron Paul, types have broadened the definition of neocon to encompass anyone who is conservative. I am a Reagan conservative, call me whatever name you like. I believe in our Constitution and our Republic. I do respect and appreciate your comments Mr. White, and unlike many bloggers who cannot handle negative comments, I have posted them. Good debate and differing views are healthy and should never be taken for granted. The current administration would seek to silence all dissenting views.

  3. So Islam is the enemy? You are not afraid to say it? Well then Ronald Williams, how does one go about killing a one billion plus religion living inside of people's heads, heads that are living on all 7 continents? With guns & bullets? By occupying their countries? That gets them to convert to Christianity does it? That kills Islam? I submit to you that Islam is not the enemy. And even if it was the enemy, then Ron Paul's foreign policy of leaving other countries alone, or 'isolationism' as you called it (which it is not) would be the very thing to do! By defending the borders of the USA, that would do it. Like Ron Paul proposed, stop giving them Visas of any kind. That may be too isolationist for you, you would rather go there and defend the dictatorships in the middle east, the King of Saudi Arabia, the King of Egypt, the King of Pakistan, the King of Iraq, the King of... oh that is right, they are not really kings are they? They are Washington's bribed puppets aren't they? Now, I being a lover of Ronald Reagan's great speeches, can find NOTHING in them that supports such welfare to foriegn dictators. I say, think again. Ron Paul is the man.

  4. The writer of this blog is not a true conservative, that is why he does not believe RP can be president. He uses conservatism and the military as a cloak for his hatred and anger issues. Do just a little bit of reading on this blog and that will be apparent very quickly.

  5. I sure do love the "anonymous" comments. This "anonymous" person is obviously a mindless Paulite. Paulites have a way of outing themselves as they have no tolerance for anyone not supporting their savior, Ron Paul. It blows their mind that any conservative would not support their candidate, therefore the only conclusion they can come to when it happens is that the person is not a "true conservative." What a shallow, factless theory that one cannot be a true conservative unless they support Ron Paul. What exactly are my anger issues, Sigmund "anonymous" Freud?? I would love to know. I do ask that you filter your response through the realm of logic and common sense first.

  6. Dear Ron Paul, Why did Muslims hate America in 1783? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUuH2G7dPFk