Probably my last post on this topic. Ron Paul is to the left of Obama on foreign policy. His basic idea is “if you aren’t screwing with us, we will not screw with you.” This basic sentiment has a very long history in the Republican Party.
And to be clear, it was not OUR inaction that caused World War 2. It was the inaction of Britain and France. In fact, one could easily make the case that by overpromising and underdelivering at Versailles, Woodrow Wilson played an enormous role in Hitler’s rise to power.
And with regard to economic and political policy, Paul is far to the right of most mainstream Republicans, who say they want smaller government, but are never able to identify programs they themselves would cut. Paul is promising MASSIVE cuts, in both social spending and defense. He is credible on this score.
Given a good chance to get what they say they want for both anti-war Democrats and anti-Big Government Republicans, what’s not to like?
And please, don’t give me this “political reality” bullshit. Yes, of course the complicit media can spin anything they want into anything they want. They are good at digging up dirt–I’m quite sure they could find Jimmy Hoffa Sr. within a week or two if they thought it essential for Obama’s reelection.
But at the same time, if you are always backing down to CONSTANT attacks and threats of attacks, can that be called something other than retreat? Are wars–and we are in a war–won that way? Of course not. They are lost with plausible denial. They are lost without being able to assign clear blame, but lost nonetheless.