If You’ve Ruled Out Ron Paul, You Ought to Think Twice

There can be little question that Ron Paul is the most conservative candidate running in the Republican race. His long record in the House proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt. And yet, there seem to be many conservatives who have ruled him out for, as near as I can tell, two main reasons: the War on Terror and his perceived electability. The purpose of this article is to address these two concerns head-on.

1. The War Issue

First we must deal with an erroneous perception, which is that Ron Paul is “soft” on terrorism. This belief is based upon a misinterpretation of his suggestion that it is important to understand what motivates terrorism and to bring that understanding to bear upon our foreign policy decisions. His conclusion is that needless meddling in the political affairs of the Middle East tends to breed resentment among the region’s inhabitants and influence their degree of militancy, ultimately putting us at greater risk of attack. It makes little difference if our involvement is in the service of United Nations resolutions—the U.N., after all, doesn’t pay the price…it is America that ultimately suffers the cost of becoming a target.

Yet it should be clear that taking repercussions into account is not the same as turning the other cheek. On the contrary, following the September 11 assault Ron Paul voted for the resolution authorizing the President to attack those behind it. His was a strong voice in support of the effort to wipe out al-Qaeda’s stronghold in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. He has since gone so far as to publicly criticize the Bush administration for dropping the ball by not pursuing Osama bin Laden and his network into Pakistan, where they are now believed to be hiding. If anything, it is the Bush administration that has in effect been soft on the terrorists by failing to do everything to hunt them all down, opting instead to topple Saddam Hussein and attempt to remake Iraq. In direct contrast, Paul’s position is that we mustn’t bog ourselves down in attempts to regulate the whole region—our sole imperative is to answer any attack or real and imminent threat to America with swift action against those responsible.

There are, however, members of good conscience within the Republican Party who believe this approach doesn’t do enough; that we must continue the policy of active intervention throughout the Middle East as part of an ongoing battle against radical Islamists. It’s not clear that such a strategy can be effective, but we can put this question aside for another debate. What is more important is the realization that disagreeing with Paul on this issue needn’t and shouldn’t disqualify him from consideration. The reason is his fealty to the Constitution.

No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Ron Paul is the one man who has unequivocally demonstrated that he will abide by the Constitution, whatever his personal feelings on a given subject may be. The Constitution gives the power to declare war to Congress. If the members of Congress, in their capacity as the people’s representatives, deem it necessary to wage war on Iraqi insurgents, or Iran, or any other country or group, they may declare it and rest assured that, as President, Ron Paul will faithfully carry out his duty to fight the war with all the force required to bring it to a quick and decisive end. Even if one refuses to grant that he is a man of principle, we must acknowledge that he would be quickly impeached if he chose to defy the declaration of Congress. That’s the way the system is supposed to work.

Not only that, it promises a further benefit which is this: when a declaration of war is made by Congress, professional prevaricators like Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, et al, are prevented from denying their responsibility when election season comes around. No longer would they be able to distance themselves from the decision and tell their constituents with a straight face that, yes, they voted for the authorization of force but never dreamed it would be used this way or that. No longer could they have it both ways, carefully engineering a posture of plausible deniability for the future. An up or down vote for war holds everyone accountable for their decisions. It forces honesty upon the career politician. This is something we can all agree is sorely lacking at present.

When Congress officially declares war it provides three important things:

1. A clearly defined enemy
2. A plain and agreed-upon reason for action
3. An unambiguous goal that can be achieved in observable, measurable terms

Compare this to vague utterances by Madeleine Albright back in 1993 about how nation-building operations and the rescue of failed societies were essential to facilitating democracy and in America's best interests; and that the U.N. should commit itself to state-building under the doctrine of "collective security". These statements could easily have been made word-for-word just yesterday. Congress’ repossession of its privilege to declare war would pull us out of this murky situation whereby the President is the default arbiter of a never-ending military engagement whose fuzzy definitions and open-ended missions have always deteriorated into quagmires of the worst sort—Vietnam, Somalia, Kosovo, and now Iraq.

2. The General Election

I believe Dick Morris is correct when he says that Hillary will win the Presidency if the race turns out to be between her and Giuliani (or Thompson, or Romney, or McCain); however his assessment that Giuliani is the strongest candidate the GOP can run against her is way off base. Of the Republicans running now, Ron Paul is absolutely unique and he is the only one who can beat her. Mark my words: if the GOP does not nominate Paul, it will be the same as handing over the White House to President Hillary. Let’s look at the facts, which are these:

• Ron Paul is the ONLY Republican who can take the Iraq issue away from her. He voted against the war. There are many Democrats who are still rankled over her handling of this issue, although her recent rhetoric is beginning to soften them up. Only a candidate who is more credible on Iraq than she is stands any chance. Ron Paul takes this vote away from her. This is the single most important point. Republicans cannot run an Iraq War candidate and win.
  
  
• Ron Paul truly is the anti-politician. He is entirely accessible and unpretentious. There is no hint of guile, no indication that his run for the Presidency is motivated by personal aggrandizement. Hold him up against any of the other candidates and what you will see is a man who doesn’t recite a string of empty words that poll well. He doesn’t have a team of speechwriters and handlers testing talking points in focus groups. He speaks extemporaneously and from the heart. He believes in certain truths and principles, he communicates clearly what those are and why he believes them, he exposits in rare detail what he intends to do and how he intends to do it, and he has never shied away from engaging in thoughtful discussion or fielding questions. In short, he makes Hillary look like the world’s biggest schemer and double-talker, which of course she likely is. None of the other Republican candidates has the same ring of authenticity and honesty about them, and therefore even if the public by-and-large doesn’t trust Hillary, the other candidates cannot provide enough contrast to overcome her based on this component. Ron Paul is the only one with the necessary degree of trustworthiness to accomplish this.
  
  
• Paul has the youth vote. Not much else needs to be said on this point. One need only glance at Digg.com, Technorati, YouTube, Facebook, and the many hundreds of blogs that have popped up online to realize that this is so.
  
  
• America is drawing ever closer to socialized medicine. It may in fact be a forgone conclusion at this point, but Paul is the only one capable of doing anything to stem the tide. Giuliani won’t oppose it, and Mitt Romney? His RomneyCare in Massachusetts is a Ted Kennedy triumph. Implementing universal coverage from the West Wing is one of his stated priorities. If America is going in this direction they won’t settle for an amateur. They’ll go for the pro instead, and America will get HillaryCare. Paul is the only candidate who cares to fight socialized medicine tooth-and-nail and incidentally has the chops to actually do it.
  
  
• Immigration is a huge issue. Giuliani quite simply has no credibility on it, having made so many statements as Mayor against federal immigration law and effectively turning New York into a sanctuary city with plenty of welfare entitlements to go around. Hillary has been going conservative on immigration since 2004, as the Washington Times reported in December of that year. She will win big on this front unless she faces someone a whole lot more conservative than Bush or Giuliani.
  
  
• The “Reagan Democrats” will not cross over in droves for anyone but Ron Paul. If you spend the hours that I have combing blogs, reading comments on major news sites, and talking to them in person, you will immediately recognize this. The moderate to conservative Democrats love him. They are looking for change—real change, that is, not the musical chairs style that exchanges one packaged, business-as-usual politician for another. Give them someone who is strikingly different, the true antithesis to the Clinton machine, and they will embrace him. Don’t, and they’ll stick with Hillary.

I submit that any of my fellow Republicans who don’t want to cede the White House to Clinton next year must understand that Paul alone can take victory away from Hillary. Even if you don’t agree with his foreign policy position, there is no good reason to dismiss him based on this component. The truth is, his foreign policy position gives him the edge against Hillary in the election and at the same time puts the onus back on Congress to declare war—which they can easily do. For Republicans who favor a strong military response in the Middle East, there is no downside to supporting Paul. He represents the best possible option. The alternative is Hillary and everything that means. If we don’t recognize that Ron Paul truly is the strongest candidate in the field, we may as well hand the keys back over to the Clintons now so they can start measuring the drapes.