Dr Ron Paul is clearly going to exert continuing influence on the presidential primaries and the political process. He attracts dedicated supporters and he has raised a substantial amount of money – through mostly non-traditional means. He is a force that will influence the outcome of the process.
Dr Paul continues to bother me in that his candidacy is recommended to me by people whom I respect and in the sense that his positions come from his view of the Constitution and I try to adhere to the founding documents. So it is a concern that the candidate that speaks of the Constitution is viewed as being outside of the mainstream. I respect his views and his consistency. Since I believe his copy of the Constitution to be the same as mine, there must be some other explanation for the fact that he and I do not seem to read it the same way. While I do not agree with the broad uses of the elastic clauses in the Constitution that some argue permit the government to do anything a Congress or an administration wants, I do think that the Constitution is a living document and there are forces and circumstances in a changing world that were not foreseeable in 1789.
I know the costs (in human and financial terms) of taking on the responsibility for events in other parts of the world – being the world’s policeman. And I acknowledge that our efforts through several administrations have not been as successful or cost effective as I might have hoped. But the fact is that it is a complex and dangerous world and outside influences will exist in every corner of the globe. If we do not provide guidance and support for situations that will have an impact on us, then we are abdicating our position of leadership for others to control events. It is clear from a review of the last century and the world wars that the cost of cleaning up the mess after the pot has boiled over can be much more than the costs of preventing the final crisis by earlier attention to the direction of events. It is perhaps part of my attraction to Newt Gingrich as a political figure that he has a prolific and innovative mind toward the future with an historian’s respect for the past. It is a unique combination that contributes to my view of Newt as one of the few strategic thinkers of my generation. I do not find the depth of study and reflection in Dr Paul’s positions – particularly in foreign affairs.
Bridget Johnson writes for the Los Angeles Daily News. Her current commentary came to my desk from Statesman.com. She does a current update on the old phase, “Those who forget history are destined to repeat it”.
My source: http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/01/22/0123johnson_edit.html
COMMENTARY
Johnson: Ron Paul and other isolationists ignore the danger of forgetting history
Bridget Johnson, LOS ANGELES DAILY NEWS
Tuesday, January 22, 2008When this primary season is over, the impressions of the battles we fought and the debates that took center stage — such as gender, race and religious issues related to the candidates — will linger like handprints on glass.
At that point, we'll be left with the option of wiping the controversy away, or we can reflect on how these points of contention will shape our country in the future.
One issue I've thought about is the grass-roots embrace of Ron Paul's foreign policy views that have been no secret but found new footing in this presidential go-round.
"Mr. Speaker, I follow a policy in foreign affairs called noninterventionism," Paul said in 2006 in his opposition to a resolution condemning Hezbollah attacks upon Israel and supporting Israel's right to defend itself. "The Constitution really doesn't authorize us to be the policemen of the world, much less to favor one side over another in foreign conflicts."
A trip around the blogosphere reveals that Paul's platform has deeply resonated with those favoring a quick pullout from Iraq, guaranteed resultant genocide be damned. But his proposal to cut off all foreign aid to Israel — a steadfast ally in a decidedly precarious geographic spot — has also drawn loyalist backers.
I recently sat down with Eran Lerman, the executive director of the American Jewish Congress's Israel/Middle East office in Jerusalem. We spoke mostly about regional politics, but I was eager to get the Israeli perspective of the increasingly popular anti-Israel rhetoric.
Does it, I asked, mean that a new, latent form of anti-Semitism is also taking root?
"I would keep anti-Semitism out of this particular debate," Lerman said, backdropped by a city view off Pico Boulevard. "I wouldn't necessarily paint Ron Paul as an anti-Semite. However — and it's a different language that people have forgotten to use in this context — he's an America Firster.
"That sounds very nice until you remember the associations," he continued, rewinding to the 1930s and 1940s to illustrate the impact of the America Firsters. "People speaking the name of peace and in the name of reducing the American commitment: What they actually meant is let the Nazis burn the world and we will just sit here and warm ourselves next to the flames.
"America Firsters have been out there and the world has paid a terrible price. So that's the argument. I would leave Israel out of it, I would leave the Jews out of it, although we have been as a people the worst victims of these attitudes in the '20s and '30s. No people paid a higher price in more ways than one than the Jewish people because of American attitudes during that period ...
"What happened to Jews here and to Jews in Europe at the hands of the likes of Breckinridge Long — which most people have forgotten, but in my mind he ranks with the worst offenders," Lerman said, referring to the FDR administration official who obstructed the admittance of refugees into America during World War II.
"Now to return to America Firsters in 2008 — after 9/11, after the lessons that have been learned after World War II, that to me is an unsustainable position. But the argument is not necessarily about Israel or about any narrow interests. It's global, it's a global question."
Lerman recounted his visit to the World War I battlefield of Ardennes, then later being touched by a statement Newt Gingrich made about also visiting the massive ossuary of unidentified French and German soldiers there.
"What (Gingrich) says is, 'Look what we've done,'" Lerman said. "We withdrew from world affairs in the '20s. And we let this happen again. So for this still to be in contention for the minds of Americans means simply that we are forgetting very fast the lessons of the '20s and '30s ...
"Ron Paul is basically coming from (Pat) Buchanan's corner minus some of the crass anti-Semitic elements that came as Buchanan's position. But this is essentially an America Firster, isolationist position. Pure and simple.
"I can understand why people have a passing sympathy for such a position — until they read their history again."
So after the last ballot is marked and cast, we should pay heed to the positions that gained such a vocal following in 2008.
The danger of such attitudes lies in the Rwandas of the past, the Darfurs of the present, and the Kenyas or Iraqs of the future.
Comments(2)