I think Rep Ron Paul is very popular around these parts. I've been critical of his isolationism and think JohnGalt has joined me. This was a good speech but I find a few things worrisome:
1) Did I say "isolationism?" He asserts that we can lead the way just by following our principles and that others will see our wealth and freedom and emulate us. Did that trick ever work, Bullwinkle? The Cold war? Cuba? the Taliban? It is naive to think that the world will follow our example and dangerous to think that we do not need a vigorous defense. Like Mayor Giuliani, I think defense today requires a lot more offense.
2) I love the founders and consider myself a late-blooming history buff. I do not agree that we need only "ask the founders" for the solutions to current problems. I think the founders gave us the greatest gifts but I think that we have to apply the documents they gave us to the 21st Century.
This may be a quibble and, yes, I wish our legislators looked more toward The Federalist Papers and less toward MoDo. But I cite it as an example of oversimplistic reason to assert that the founders had us covered.
3) Freedom is very popular, Rep Paul. Popular with 9% of the electorate as I understand. In 1988, Paul, with no less zeal for liberty, attracted 432,179 popular votes (0.47%).
To claim that "we have to apply the documents they gave us to the 21st Century" is akin to what Robert Higgs calls the Modernization Hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, the expansion of government has arisen from the belief that the scope government must change in response to the increasing complexities of modern society. Both the proposition that world has become more complex and the assumption that only government can solve this increasing complexity can be called into question. Arguments for modernization will only lead to bigger government.
The beauty of the Constitution is that it limits the power of the federal government, separates powers, and most importantly is able to be amended.
Unfortunately, the federal government has reached beyond the scope outlined in the Constitution and much of this can be explained by this push for modernization and "interpreting" the Constitution. Anti-trust, health care regulation, and the federal minimum wage are prime examples of attempts to deal with modernization through federal policy not described in the document.
If the documents truly need to be adopted to the 21st century, then steps should be taken to amend the Constitution, not re-interpret it.
I may have to cut and run, here. On another listening, I can hear your interpretation of his remarks (1:30 - 1:00 before the end) and agree that was what he was saying. I heard something that is not in there and would withdraw point two.
I'll eat a bit of crow on my hasty comment but still think I'm batting .667..
I still haven't gotten around to watching the video, but I will after I get back next week from vacation.
Today, I will say this as a general argument: Ron Paul's "isolationism" is typically mischaracterized. Ron Paul is a disciple of Bastiat, as I am, in believing that free commerce and non-interventionist foreign policies are the way for nations to prosper and exist peacefully alongside each other.
Ron Paul is not saying that if you're attacked, don't fight back. Likewise, he has never said that non-interventionism is a guarantee you'll never be attacked. He has never denied that bad guys sometimes attack you even though you never did them any harm. But if we leave others alone and set an example, it just might set off light bulbs elsewhere. At the very least, it won't provoke others who would have otherwise not become jihadis were it not for guys in camouflage uniforms bearing American flags on their shoulders. To rescu
Our Founders had much wisdom, and the Constitution was meant to be mostly inflexible for our own good. It could be amended, but only with great difficulty. Jefferson had written 11 years earlier that, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes." But for the most part, it had no need to be. It set up a very limited federal government, just enough to get things done between the states, and it left everything else up to the states and the people. After all, people can do things more "flexibly" within their own states if they decide, without dragging others down with them. Right, Robert Byrd?
The principles the Founders stood for still apply today. How much less strife would we have if we heeded Washington's admonition to avoid "the spirit of party," and to stay out of permanent alliances? How much less "blowback" if we heeded Jefferson's similar advice about trade? "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." Well, since "blowback" is by definition that which comes back to you, we wouldn't have had any. Yes, we'd still be fighting jihadists, but we wouldn't have had all those Marines die in Beirut because we sent them where they didn't belong. We wouldn't be helping the jihadists recruit the next generation by giving them excuses.
I think Rep Ron Paul is very popular around these parts. I've been critical of his isolationism and think JohnGalt has joined me. This was a good speech but I find a few things worrisome:
1) Did I say "isolationism?" He asserts that we can lead the way just by following our principles and that others will see our wealth and freedom and emulate us. Did that trick ever work, Bullwinkle? The Cold war? Cuba? the Taliban? It is naive to think that the world will follow our example and dangerous to think that we do not need a vigorous defense. Like Mayor Giuliani, I think defense today requires a lot more offense.
2) I love the founders and consider myself a late-blooming history buff. I do not agree that we need only "ask the founders" for the solutions to current problems. I think the founders gave us the greatest gifts but I think that we have to apply the documents they gave us to the 21st Century.
This may be a quibble and, yes, I wish our legislators looked more toward The Federalist Papers and less toward MoDo. But I cite it as an example of oversimplistic reason to assert that the founders had us covered.
3) Freedom is very popular, Rep Paul. Popular with 9% of the electorate as I understand. In 1988, Paul, with no less zeal for liberty, attracted 432,179 popular votes (0.47%).
Posted by: jk at June 30, 2007 12:31 PMI'm with JK.
Ron Paul makes a great trouble making Congressman. Where "Dr. No" is a fine appelation.
It's just that he's not suited toward the Executive Branch.... and isolationism is the biggest nail. "In a post 9/11 world..." etc. etc. etc.
Posted by: AlexC at June 30, 2007 1:35 PMjk,
I must quarrel with point number 2.
To claim that "we have to apply the documents they gave us to the 21st Century" is akin to what Robert Higgs calls the Modernization Hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, the expansion of government has arisen from the belief that the scope government must change in response to the increasing complexities of modern society. Both the proposition that world has become more complex and the assumption that only government can solve this increasing complexity can be called into question. Arguments for modernization will only lead to bigger government.
The beauty of the Constitution is that it limits the power of the federal government, separates powers, and most importantly is able to be amended.
Unfortunately, the federal government has reached beyond the scope outlined in the Constitution and much of this can be explained by this push for modernization and "interpreting" the Constitution. Anti-trust, health care regulation, and the federal minimum wage are prime examples of attempts to deal with modernization through federal policy not described in the document.
If the documents truly need to be adopted to the 21st century, then steps should be taken to amend the Constitution, not re-interpret it.
Posted by: Harrison Bergeron at June 30, 2007 1:52 PMI may have to cut and run, here. On another listening, I can hear your interpretation of his remarks (1:30 - 1:00 before the end) and agree that was what he was saying. I heard something that is not in there and would withdraw point two.
I'll eat a bit of crow on my hasty comment but still think I'm batting .667..
Posted by: jk at June 30, 2007 8:37 PMI still haven't gotten around to watching the video, but I will after I get back next week from vacation.
Today, I will say this as a general argument: Ron Paul's "isolationism" is typically mischaracterized. Ron Paul is a disciple of Bastiat, as I am, in believing that free commerce and non-interventionist foreign policies are the way for nations to prosper and exist peacefully alongside each other.
Ron Paul is not saying that if you're attacked, don't fight back. Likewise, he has never said that non-interventionism is a guarantee you'll never be attacked. He has never denied that bad guys sometimes attack you even though you never did them any harm. But if we leave others alone and set an example, it just might set off light bulbs elsewhere. At the very least, it won't provoke others who would have otherwise not become jihadis were it not for guys in camouflage uniforms bearing American flags on their shoulders. To rescu
Our Founders had much wisdom, and the Constitution was meant to be mostly inflexible for our own good. It could be amended, but only with great difficulty. Jefferson had written 11 years earlier that, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes." But for the most part, it had no need to be. It set up a very limited federal government, just enough to get things done between the states, and it left everything else up to the states and the people. After all, people can do things more "flexibly" within their own states if they decide, without dragging others down with them. Right, Robert Byrd?
The principles the Founders stood for still apply today. How much less strife would we have if we heeded Washington's admonition to avoid "the spirit of party," and to stay out of permanent alliances? How much less "blowback" if we heeded Jefferson's similar advice about trade? "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." Well, since "blowback" is by definition that which comes back to you, we wouldn't have had any. Yes, we'd still be fighting jihadists, but we wouldn't have had all those Marines die in Beirut because we sent them where they didn't belong. We wouldn't be helping the jihadists recruit the next generation by giving them excuses.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at July 3, 2007 1:27 PM | What do you think? [5]