I recently wrote that Ron Paul, R-TX, had the potential to win both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary and that the result of such victories would throw the Republican primary into chaos. This is not to say that Paul is going to win the nomination, or even that he is the best person for the job. My point was that Ron Paul inspires two reactions among the political and media elites, scorn and fear. At the time I wrote that Dr. Paul’s ascendency would elicit a brutal series of attacks labeling him a racist and attempting to discredit him as a viable candidate. Progressives would call him a racist because it is the charge they throw at every Republican who is not a progressive while establishment types would generally seek to cast Dr. Paul as a kook and conspiracy theorist. Though some very smart and respected people have begun to pick up these themes, such attacks are vicious and unfair. Further, they are generally supported by lazy journalism and poor research.
Dr. Paul is nothing if not strident in his convictions and honest in his principles. He has been pushing to limit the power of the U.S. Federal Reserve since the late 1980’s. At the time he was mostly greeted with scorn and derision, yet thirty years later it seems to be an idea whose time has come. Dr. Paul also spent most of his career arguing against the United States continuing in its role as the world’s police force and denouncing overseas interventions. He has been consistent in pushing for a commitment to fiscal discipline, an end to deficit spending, a strong currency and low inflation. Finally, he has something of a reputation for voting against any Congressional action which cannot be tied to a specific section of the Constitution which authorizes or allows that action. Dr. Paul may sometimes come off as the crazy uncle at the holiday party, but looking back over this list in light of recent events one begins to get the idea that he knows what he is talking about. Today his unwavering commitment to these ideals seems more prescient than stubborn, which brings us to the current lines of attack against Paul.
The racism charges are already being tested in the left leaning New Republic and the neo-conservative Weekly Standard. Mostly these accusations have long been discredited and are based on twenty year old newsletter articles written by a staffer who was removed and disavowed by Dr. Paul. Others stem from his libertarian philosophy. He has said in the past that opposes discrimination in all forms and would have voted to repeal Jim Crow laws, but would not have voted to ban discrimination in private business, such as segregated lunch counters. However distasteful he may find the practice, he views it as being an issue between the business owner and his customers and local leaders; rather than a federal issue.
While the racism charges seem weak, I expect the media to continue to hammer him along these lines in the months to come if he continues to do well in the polls. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the media will not be able to resist calling an old white Texan a racist if he is running for president against a middle aged black guy, the optics are just too good for them to ignore. Still, I don’t expect much of the voting public to fall for it beyond those who are already inclined to see racism everywhere. The left has cried “racism” at everybody and everything who disagrees with them on anything and we are now at the point where most voters ignore it.
As for the charge that he is naive in his view of economics and the ways of the world, I find this a curious charge as well. Dr. Paul’s fiscal and economic pronouncements are based in the Austrian, or Monetarist, school of economics as explicated by Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. Among other things this is a school which has little faith in the ability of self anointed experts to manage anything as complex as a national economy. So it stands to reason the self anointed “experts” would unite to oppose Paul and remind us how vital they are, which only works if one ignores our recent economic difficulties.
Austrian economics views a strong currency as essential to long term wealth creation and this helps explain Dr. Paul’s aversion to inflationary policies and the tendency of the Federal Reserve to manipulate the currency as it attempts to “manage” the economy. The Austrian school is well grounded in Aristotelian thought and is the principle opponent to the Keynesian school favored by many establishment Democrats and Republicans, including Bush and Obama. The debate between the two schools goes back to before the days of the Great Depression. One may disagree with a Monetarist interpretation of economics, but one cannot simply dismiss it as a “kook” theory.
Similarly, Dr. Paul’s views on foreign policy are dismissed by the establishment as isolationist and unrealistic. An editorial in the Wall Street journal even accused Dr. Paul of viewing America as source of evil in the world in the fashion of Obama’s religious mentor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. I submit that of all the potential presidential aspirants from both parties, Dr. Paul’s foreign policy views align most closely with those of our founders.
He supports free trade and is opposed to military action except in cases of self defense. He opposes entangling alliances and our continued subsidizing of the defense of other countries. Yes this means “abandoning” Israel, but also means “abandoning” Western Europe and Asia. Some say this makes Dr. Paul “anti-military”, speaking only for myself as someone who has served in the Army and deployed multiple times, I find Dr. Paul’s views refreshing. While reasonable people can disagree on the merits and pulling back from our commitments around the world would be difficult and not without danger, it is a legitimate policy position.
Despite the fears of his opponents and the hype of his supporters, Ron Paul remains a long shot for the Republican nomination. While he brings a refreshing voice to the discussion, Dr. Paul may find it difficult to expand his appeal beyond those already inclined to support him. That said I often wonder what it says about our republic that commitment to the letter and intent of the Constitution and an aversion to pork projects and deficit spending is considered an extreme position.
Comments