The Problem with Ron Paul
By Daniel K. Weir (02/17/08)
Due to a family emergency, I had to make a quick move from Atlanta to San Antonio. Anyone who has moved halfway across the country - even if it's planned far in advance - knows how harrowing and stressful it can be. I didn't have that luxury.
My move put me about 800 miles closer to Lake Jackson, TX, just south of Houston.
Lake Jackson is the Congressional district represented by Ron Paul, who is running for
the GOP nomination for President in the 2008 election. He won’t get it: he’s polling
in the mid-single-digits and has 14 delegates as of this writing; 1,191 are needed for
the nomination.
Paul’s quixotic quest is not for lack of trying on his part. For he has staked out a
political platform that is radically different from that of the top GOP contenders,
John McCain (who’s got the nomination just about wrapped up) and Mike Huckabee (who’s
still in the game, perhaps to become McCain’s running mate).
And Paul has stuck to his guns, refusing to acknowledge the concerns of those – including
me – who oppose him.
At first blush, such opposition doesn’t make much sense, from a traditional conservative
standpoint. Paul is the most outspoken advocate of the Reagan agenda of 1980: lower taxes,
less government, abolition of Federal agencies whose functions could be carried out much
more efficiently in the private sector, monetary reform including a possible return to the
gold standard to fight economic instability and inflation.
But therein lies the problem.
By “monetary reform,” Paul means the abolition of the Federal Reserve System. Paul and
his acolytes believe that shutting down the Fed would eliminate the national debt (currently
over $9 trillion), solve the impending entitlements crisis, turn deficits (trade and budget)
into surpluses, and so on. Sounds great, until you think about it and ask yourself, “But
how will this really work?”
I don’t think it will work. Debt is debt, whether or not there is a Federal Reserve. The
current political cacophony notwithstanding, the current level of government debt, at about
67 percent of GDP, is not unmanageable. The vast majority of this debt is in Treasury bills
and bonds owned by Americans; the rest is held by China, Britain, Japan, and Germany. I
seriously doubt these countries would be swayed one way or another by the elimination of the
Fed.
And one has to ask Paul, what would you put in the Fed’s place? As far as I can tell, he has
not answered that question. Worse, he has not outlined a plan to carry out his objectives
without serious economic disruption. On the other hand, Huckabee’s “fair tax” proposal, which
would shut down the IRS and institute a national sales tax, has been bandied about and analyzed
nine ways to Sunday.
Another problem with Paul is his apparent Bush hatred. This is manifested in his rather bizarre
assertion that the Bush years have been “hell;” his supporters, including Pat Buchanan, political
activist and attorney Jonathan Emord, and radio talk show host Chuck Harder charge that Bush is
the worst President in U.S. history. How this is supposed to get reluctant GOPers to ring
doorbells and get out the vote is a mystery to me.
Ronald Reagan (whom Paul and his followers claim to be the true heir to) had his “Eleventh
Commandment”: Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican. Buchanan violated that edict
in early 1992 during his insurgent candidacy against George Bush Sr.; this produced some
excitement among conservatives angry over Bush Sr.’s reneging of the “no new taxes” pledge,
but when it became apparent how far out on the fringe Buchanan was, conservatives swallowed
their pride and supported Bush Sr. in the general election.
But what bothers me about Paul the most is his “isolationism,” which – again, after a little
thought – amounts to little more than surrender to the Islamic extremists. In other words, Paul
is an “Arabist” who seems to put things like oil above more important considerations like human
rights, safety, and keeping the terrorists at bay.
Indeed, Paul’s twin platform planks on the Fed and Islamic radicalism are rather chilling to
Jews like me; these positions are part and parcel of the extreme, neo-Nazi Right (and to prove
this, you need go no further than “former” Klansman David Duke’s Web site). Am I saying that
Paul is a Nazi, a racist, or an anti-Semite? No. That determination is up to the voter. In
making that determination, however, it must be remembered that Paul has consistently voted
against American aid to Israel – while bringing home juicy hunks of pork for his constituents
in Lake Jackson.
The good news here is that Paul is fading fast, after his sudden and startling fundraising
performance last fall. John McCain will be the GOP nominee against either Hillary Rodham Clinton
or Barack Obama, and Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney will be the next rising stars in the GOP.
Ron Paul will go back to exactly where he was since 1971: representing the good folks of Lake
Jackson and playing the part of the House curmudgeon, the irascible “Dr. No” of the Republican
Party, a part he has played so well for almost four decades.
Daniel K. Weir
(Printer friendly version) 
