Ron Paul's Policies

The reaction to Ron Paul's sinking campaign is a bit interesting for a number of reasons. First, assuming his views reflect the best possible outcome, it assumes that he will be able to implement his policies. Politics are usually incremental with exceptions coming only after major events. The New Deal came during the Great Depression. Civil Rights legislation came 10 years African Americans first started protesting segregation. The War Powers Act came after Vietnam. Reagan's tax cuts came during the worst recession since the Great Depression. Finally, the Patriot Act came after 9/11. What is the catalyst that would allow Ron Paul push through his reforms such as massively reforming the tax code or getting rid of the Fed? It wouldnt happen, at least right now. Maybe in 3 years if the housing bust causes another great depression but not now. Lament Ron Paul's demise all you want but his ideas were always a long shot to become reality.

Having given Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt, time to poke some holes. His idea to close all our military bases oversees is ludicrous. America's military presence oversees, troops in Germany, Korea, Japan, Turkey and elsewhere help create stability. That stability gives investors, both American and locals, the confidence to invest. You can criticize American interference, and we have had our share of bungling, but in aggregate it has created more global stability than otherwise.

Pulling out of the UN would be equally stupid. You can criticize UN for more reasons than I can count. However, the net effect of allowing all countries to have a voice in global affairs supercedes its limitations. Ron Paul is an isolationist, a policy that hasnt had any real credibility since the 1930s, and frankly was long outdated by then.

The real issue here is that Ron Paul, and any isolationist, wants us to ignore our role as a global leader. That is irresponsible and ultimately not in our best interest. The only way to be a global leader is to be at the forefront of global affairs and that means engaging in the UN and having troops oversees ready to intervene when appropriate. Bush's policies are not an issue of taking leadership where we shouldnt but rather pure incompetance. Containing Hussein required US leadership. The error was in the meglomaniacal way we chose to deal with the situation. Like nature, power abhors a vacuum. If the US retreated from its leadership role, a new order would emerge and not likely for the better. At the very least, increased global instability would be a much less favorable place for business and make a us all poorer regardless of his domestic economic policies.