In Defense of Ron Paul

Any discussion of Ron Paul must begin with a vigorous disclaimer. Libertarianism, in many ways, is a morally bankrupt political philosophy. It celebrates greed, which Ayn Rand rebranded as 'self-interest.' Many of Ron Paul's political beliefs are completely anathema to the views of The Redel Traub Report. That said, even a broken clock is right two times a day, and Mr. Paul fits that description to a tee.

Mr. Paul has received perhaps no greater endorsement over the course of this electoral season then Newt Gingrich's assertion that he might support President Obama in hypothetical match up between him and Mr. Paul. Furthermore, an article on the conservative blog Redstate compared Mr. Paul to Howard Dean, and many commenters said the analogy was unfair to Mr. Dean. Why are Republicans so scared of Mr. Paul? Additionally, how come he hasn't received a commensurate amount of media coverage?

Mr. Paul is so scary to these entities because of two specific beliefs, one is that the war on drugs is a misguided effort and the other is that the American empire, specifically it's policy towards Israel, has materially weakened the country. Beyond these beliefs, his views are a akin to a relatively mainstream Republican.

Since Mr. Paul has begun to gain traction in Iowa, the media has scrutinized him for racist comments in his newsletters. These comments were well known, Mr. Paul has been challenged on them since at least 1996, but the media didn't begin to make hay about them until Mr. Paul began climbing the polls. Certainly the comments in his newsletter are alternately reprehensible and weird, but Mr. Paul didn't write them. To say that libertarian politics breed strange bedfellows, seems to be a tautology. Regardless, Mr. Paul should disown these sentiments. Still, it seems that the media is making much ado about nothing.

When it comes to racism, actions speak louder than words. While Mr. Paul carries that strange libertarian aversion to civil rights, that battle is in the past. Mr Paul's opposition to the drug war, in my opinion, mitigates racist statements made under his name. The drug war unfairly affects Black and Latino communities, making them disproportionately represented in the prison community. Furthermore, it creates an antagonistic relationship between police and young minority men. The drug war also fuels gang violence, by making the sale of drugs increasingly profitable. While the supposedly racist Mr. Paul opposed mandatory minimum sentencing, which puts offenders in jail for draconian terms, many Democratic politicians supported the practice. Mr. Paul may well have racist views, but substantively his administration would probably be beneficial for minority communities.

When it comes to foreign policy, Mr. Paul is an unreformed isolationist. Mr. Paul has come under fire for his allegation that the 9/11 was in part inspired by U.S. intervention abroad. I'm not really sure how this is a controversial statement, Mr. Paul isn't excusing Bin Laden and his ilk of the heinous attack, but rather pointing out that their motivation was based on an ideology that was critical of U.S. incursions in the middle east. Unless you're still clinging to Bush's explanation that "they hate us for our freedoms," it seems obvious that Al Qaeda had their own reasons for global terrorism. Again, I'm not evaluating their reasons, just pointing out that they exist. In his fatwa against the United States, Bin Laden pointed to U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia and their material support for Israel, as his motivating factors. Bin Laden's statement jives with Mr. Paul's assertion, though I'll reiterate I don't think we should acquiesce to terrorists. Mr. Paul's criticism towards the global U.S. presence is becoming increasingly palatable to a nation which is facing financial hardship. It no longer seems fiscally tenable to operate around 800 bases across the globe.

Most offensive to many is Mr. Paul's criticism towards Israel. He has been critical of AIPAC's influence, and the amount of sway Israel seems to have over U.S. lawmakers. Indeed, regardless of your opinion on the issue it seems uncontroversial to say that Israel has a unique place amongst foreign allies. Though Israel is militarily dependent on the U.S., we allow them to saber rattle against Iran, potentially plunging the U.S. into yet another war. Israel has attacked, and killed, U.S. citizens, notably in the Gaza Flotilla raid. An American citizen, Furkan Dogan, was killed and the U.S.'s response was to try and cover it up. Certainly, the situation in Israel is nuanced and inspires pitched emotions on both sides, but Mr. Paul doesn't advocate for a Palestinian state. Just an end to outsized U.S. support for Israel.

Mr. Paul's candidacy presents a unique scenario. In many ways, and arguable the most important ways, Mr. Paul is to the left of President Obama. Mr. Paul would likely be unable to impose his domestic vision as president, but he would be able to unilaterally end the drug war and withdraw from overseas, making his potential presidency a net positive in the eyes of many progressives. Unfortunately, Mr. Paul is crazy. Though we see eye to eye on many of the key issues, I cannot envision a scenario where I would support him over Obama. Still, his nomination may force the national debate to include these issues which are now seen as a 3rd rail.