Non-Interventionism and Fiscal Conservatism: A Case for Ron Paul

 By Michael Ward | Cross posted at SaveJersey.com

As a Ron Paul supporter, one concern I occasionally hear from potential voters is that they “like Ron Paul’s stances, except on foreign policy”. It’s a concern that is understandable and also one that I personally held until recently.

 

Ron Paul usually scores high marks with both republican and independent voters on taxes and spending. For decades, Dr. Paul has warned the American people of the dangers of the Federal Reserve system and of periodic government intervention in the economy. His strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution while in elected office is also something to be praised.

 

 In fact, Dr. Paul has been praised by many of his colleagues who are currently running for President. Mitt Romney punted a question regarding the U.S. Constitution to Paul during a New Hampshire debate, bestowing the title of ‘Constitutionalist’ upon Dr. Paul. Newt Gingrich frequently compliments Paul on his fight against the Federal Reserve. Gingrich even went so far as to mention Paul’s Fed stance during his South Carolina victory speech. Ron Paul’s economic platform has slowly entered the mainstream of the GOP political discourse, and has finally broken through with great reception from conservative voters.

 

Without Ron Paul, the gold standard, the federal reserve, the dangers of a fiat currency, and a nation continually saddled with debt would have gone by un-raised. At least until it was too late.

What drives a big chunk of conservatives up a wall is the mention of Ron Paul’s foreign policy. Many syndicated ‘conservative’ pundits label Ron Paul’s foreign policy as ‘extreme’, ‘dangerous’, and ‘isolationist’. With this context in mind, it’s easy to see why many establishment republican voters would turn their backs on Dr. Paul. The position of bringing the troops home along with talking heads like Hannity and Beck, jumping and screaming about Paul’s apparent ‘isolationism’ would strongly encourage many conservatives to not take a second look at Ron Paul and dismiss him entirely.

 

First and foremost, Ron Paul is many things. However, an isolationist isn’t one of them. An excellent example of  an isolationist country would be North Korea. The ironically named ‘Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’ has closed itself off from the rest of the world. There is no trade. There is no diplomacy. There is no immigration or emigration. Being isolated from the rest of the world is the antithesis of what Ron Paul believes, and the notion that he is anything close to an ‘isolationist’ should be expelled from any informed voter’s mind.

Non-interventionism, the foreign policy of Ron Paul, put’s America’s needs and concerns first, instead of the needs of other nations. It is important to know that at present the United States has over 900 military installations in over 130 foreign countries.

 

The overreach and spreading thin of our troops throughout the world leaves our home front vulnerable. One has to look no further than the United States’ own borders, which are seriously undermanned and without any protection whatsoever for many miles. Another example closer to home is the recent shut down of the Fort Monmouth Facility in Monmouth County. The federal government shut down the base late last year as a means of cost savings.

 

The simple fact that we’re closing bases in New Jersey to open new bases abroad does not make me feel safer as a United States citizen.

 

The United States military currently has:

    ◦       52,440 military personnel in Germany.

    ◦       35,688military personnel in Japan

    ◦       28,500military personnel in Korea

    ◦       9,015military personnel in the United Kingdom

    ◦       9,660military personnel in Italy

 

America’s fighting men and women should only be sent overseas when our nation is at war. Our nation should only be at war when the Congress, representing the American people, passes a Declaration of War, as mandated by our Constitution. These used to be conservative principles that our nation held dear up until recently in our history. Since our founding and up to 1945 we declared wars, won them, and the troops have come home. This has been due to our government picking its battles carefully, and only entering conflicts with clear, concise objectives, and naturally, voting on the war in the congress.

 

As President, Ron Paul has made it clear that he would not hesitate to go to war if necessary, but only as a last resort. The war would obviously have to be legitimized by a vote in the congress, as stated in the constitution.

 

Ron Paul’s foreign policy is approved by the most important pundits of all, the troops. Ron Paul has received more donations from active duty military personnel than all the rest of the candidates, including President Obama, combined.

 

If you listen to the troops (particularly those who support Ron Paul), they’ll tell you that the United States Military is creating enemies faster than they can kill them overseas. The troops would tell you, that bringing them home and building our defense here would be more profitable than sending our money and young men and women to the sands of some foreign land.

Military veterans like Adam Kokesh and active duty Cpl Jesse Thorsen have been speaking out about the dangerous foreign policy that the U.S. Government currently engages in, and they offer Ron Paul’s foreign policy as a clear alternative to the lunacy that exists today.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0LxI7_v9vA&feature=player_embedded

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bs6-sQ3kuD8

 

The extreme fiscal expense that the United States incurs by stationing troops around the world will leave our treasury bare and we’ll have nothing to show for it. It is a fiscally conservative position, as well as a constitutional position to support a strong national defense and a foreign policy of non-interventionism, which is the position Paul holds. We can either elect to withdraw from our international installations now, or we’ll be forced to leave in a few years when our government can no longer afford anything and we’ve run out of creditors.

 

I can’t imagine how someone who considers themselves to be a fiscal conservative can possibly support the fiscally liberal position of excessive spending to subsidize other nations’ defense. Not only do the troops like Ron Paul, but defense employees from companies like Lockheed Martin contribute to Ron Paul as well because they know Dr. Paul would build up our national defense, not engage in careless militarism abroad. Under Ron Paul’s Plan to Restore America, we’d still spend four times more than China on Defense and reduce all other budgetary obligations to 2006 levels. The total savings from rethinking our defense and other careful cuts would result in $1 Trillion of savings in the first year. This would effectively save social security and medicare, without touching promised benefits to seniors or the less privileged. Sounds pretty fiscally conservative to me.

 

Want to support the troops? Support Ron Paul.

 

 

Posted: January 25th, 2012 | Author: admin | Filed under: 2012 Presidential Politics | Tags: Michael Ward, Ron Paul | 5 Comments »

• Tweet

---