Ron Paul

The fact that a guy with the views of Ron Paul has gotten as far as he has says more about the American electorate than it does about him. While I understand the attraction domestically of just wiping away layers of government and "going back to the Constitution", I fear that the main attraction of it is that it's nice and simple and doesn't require actually addressing the issues that would be involved in that.

But forget domestic issues. Just Ron Paul's foreign policy views should eliminate him from serious consideration. The notion that the US can suddenly and unilaterally pull back from most foreign committments (troops stationed overseas, "policing the world", etc) is also attractive in a kind of simple-minded way, but this has never worked going right back to the election of Jefferson in 1800, with plenty of examples in between. Washington's admonition against "entangling foreign alliances" has been widely misunderstood to be advice against a strong military.

While Washington and Adams understood the need for a strong national defense,
Jefferson and Madison did not. It was only Adams' insistence on building those six orignal frigates (Congress, Philadelphia, Chesapeake, Constellation, President, and (blare of trumpets) Constitution) that saved Jefferson's be-hind when the Tripolitan Pirates (Mediterranean), recognizing the newly independent US's inability to protect
its sizeable merchant fleet, demanded "tribute" so they wouldn't attack defenseless merchantmen -- kinda like the Chicago mob. Jefferson was thus able, in his first term, to send several squadrons over "to the shores of Tripoli" and, while staring down the mouth of a cannon, make the Dey and Pasha understand that they weren't all that. Up until then, Jefferson actually wanted to scrap the frigates.

Jefferson's idea was to build a fleet of small (60-90 foot long) gunboats -- a couple hundred or so -- that would swarm enemy warships approaching the coast. He built them. Problem was that this did nothing to prevent Great Britain from absconding with American sailors on defenseless merchant ships on the high seas and "impressing" them into the Royal Navy. The Royal Navy had a huge desertion/recruitment problem during this period, as pay and working conditions were the worst. Their sailors would defect to the much more desirable US Navy at any opportunity, so Britain figured impressment was the only way to man their ships while fighting Napoleon.

So the Royal Navy impressed the heck out of American sailors all thru Jefferson's presidency and Madison's first term, which began in 1809. American sailors were the most attractive because a) England still resented American independence and wanted to strike back any way they could, b) the US Navy was microscopic and couldn't protect them, and c) they spoke English. New England merchants were torn (while trade with England was lucrative, losing their husbands and brothers was not), but the rest of the country done with it. It was about this time (1810-1812) that Madison began to see the virtue of a strong national defense and, in 1812, declared the War of that name upon England . . . who was pretty tied up fighting Napoleon.

There is no question that US military weakness led directly to the War of 1812. This weakness was by choice. Even at that time, the US was one of the most prosperous countries in the world and could easily have afforded a larger navy; however, the post-Revolutionary revulsion against a strong central government was still very much in evidence (the older generation had fought in the Revolutionary War), and Congress was reticent to impose taxes sufficient to build a Navy big enough to do the job. So when war was declared, the War Dept (such as it was) had to scramble around to scrounge up some ships. Some real American heroes emerged
from this War (Thomas Macdonough, Oliver Hazard Perry, Winfield Scott, Thomas Truxton, James "Don't Give Up The Ship" Lawrence, Andrew Jackson, and others), but the War was marked by ineptitude on both sides -- the Americans because they were totally unprepared for war, and the British because a) they underestimated the Americans, and b) they were pre-occupied with France. Oh, and Jefferson's gunboats? They were useless.

The underlying point is that US weakness led Britain to abuse Americans, which would not likely have happened if they'd thought there would be consequences. Same thing with Santa Anna messing with settlers in Texas leading to the Mexican War; same thing with the South thinking the North wouldn't fight the Civil War; same thing
with German disdain for the American military during WW I; add Japanese disdain as a direct inducement to attack Pearl Harbor.

Fast forward to today. Ron Paul's idea of pulling back international commitments, while attractive in a kind of simple-minded way, takes for granted the benefits the US derives from them in deterrence of nascent enemies who don't attack and generally don't screw with the US as long as they can see that we're strong and prepared to strike back. For example, absent US troops in South Korea, does anyone not think that the North would long since have unified the country under one of the lifetime supply of Kims that run it? Does anyone seriously think that the price and/or availability of oil would not be adversely affected absent a US presence in the Middle East? And OMG, Ron Paul doesn't see a problem with Iran having nukes? If Ron Paul were somehow elected, his foreign policy would not survive until his inauguration. I'll bet he actually does see the problems with it, but would rather maintain the purity of his position than deal with reality. Even Obama got more real after seeing that the ridiculous stuff he ran on ("if we're nice to them, they'll be nice to us") doesn't work.

Only the young and/or clueless could support a guy like Ron Paul. The young because they simply do not yet have enough knowledge to understand that the knee-jerk appeal of such ideas in no way makes them applicable to the real world. Clueless covers the rest, but I'm guessing that Ron Paul's supporters are the youngest among any Republican running. They'd have to be to fall for such clap-trap.