So, it looks like the bland and uninspiring Hilary Clinton (resume courtesy of Catallaxy Files: married to Bill Clinton, had one child, didn’t bake cookies, became a carpetbagger) is going to be running for President of the United States. If she wins in 2008 and again in 2012, it will mean that she leaves the White House in 2016. As the Arabist point out, that will mean that for 28 years, the United States will have been ruled by two families — the Bushes and the Clintons; an irony that wouldn’t be lost on citizens of some Arab monarchies.
Anyway, this news arrives a week after it was reported that nine term congressman Dr. Ron Paul (R-Texas) may be running for the Republican nomination. Now, before people scoff at the mention of the ‘R’ word, it’s worth pointing out that Ron Paul has arguably the most impeccably principled voting record of any member of the US Congress. He is, after all, the only Republican member to be granted an exemption by then-Speaker Newt Gringrich from voting on party lines because of his unwavering consistency.
Unlike most others in his party and much of their opposition, Paul is an absolute non-interventionist. Unlike Hilary Clinton, Ron Paul opposed the Iraqi invasion from day one. He voted against it, writes and speaks openly against the ongoing occupation, criticises the usurpation of civil liberties in the name of fighting terror, and broke ranks with his party to vote against the Patriot Act in 2001 and again in 2005.
As Antiwar.com’s Justin Raimondo put it:
The news is good — for once. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the libertarian congressman whose dedication to principle is one of the wonders of the world, is running for the GOP presidential nomination.
At last — a Republican who opposes our interventionist foreign policy (consistently and articulately) and who has this to say about the Iraq war. Rep. Paul opposed this rotten war from the very beginning — and, what’s going to be delightful, is that he is not going to be outdone by any Democrat regarding the Iraq issue.
Better yet, this will exacerbate the split in the GOP over the war and give antiwar activists a banner around which to repair during an election season that would otherwise feature the same rogues gallery of warmongers, fence-straddlers, and all-too-familiar faces.
5 comments ↓
I don’t like Hillary Clinton’s political views. She is a hard liner (At less when it comes to the Muslim world) and did support the Iraq war.
Ron Paul, I don’t think it would make any different. The problems are too many and no solution in sight. Nor, would American’s foreign policy change much and if they do it’s probably for the worst.
but I do enjoy your blog
peace
Ron Paul is a legend, I have enjoyed his articles for years now. I highly doubt his presidency would make no difference, rather it has a good chance at making a massive difference. Which is why he does not have a good chance considering the funding the other candidates will have compared to him.
This is his latest article:
http://antiwar.com/paul/
All his other articles are listed down the right hand side of the window.
http://antiwar.com/paul/archives.php
http://antiwar.com/paul/archives.php?offset=60
http://antiwar.com/paul/archives.php?offset=120
Going all the way back to :
Why Are We Meddling in the Ukraine?
3/22/2002
Being consistent is hardly a virtue in itself. It is a virtue only if what one is consistent about is virtuous. (E.g. Pauline Hanson was fairly consistent. If she had been less consistent, that would have been a virtue!)
But it’s all moot anyway. Ron Paul’s chance of winning the Republican nomination is approximately zero for (at least) two reasons:
1. The Republican Party simply doesn’t have a libertarian ideology. In pratical terms, the RP could be easily, if crudely, characterised as having an ideology of a “nanny state” for big business and bedrooms.
2. Even if considerations for candidature were based not on ideology but the practical politics of winning an election, the core demographics are all wrong for Paul.
Thanks for the link to that Cato report. It’s quite interesting. I think the observation that fewer people self-identify as libertarian than hold some libertarian positions is a good one. For this reason, I think that whilst it’s possible that some of Paul’s positions, such as non-interventionism or the expansion of personal freedoms, might enjoy broad support across a constituency, his apparent dogmatism (or consistency, as some might say) on other issues of libertarian principle such as shrinking the size of government or privatisation of government function may also alienate these same voters.
That said, even just having those ideas — particularly on foreign policy and personal freedoms — debated and brought to the fore is a worthwhile exercise in itself and a Paul run for even GOP nomination might just achieve that to some extent even if he doesn’t eventually get that nomination.
I don’t believe Thomas Jefferson said “Well it’s probably impossible to actually have freedom so I’ll just not do anything.” If you remember back in 1992 Ross Perot garnered 19% of the popular vote. There is certanily a call for change in America and Ron Paul is the perfect candidate to bring it, I believe if he gets some coverage he will be a well liked candidate.
Leave a Comment