…and only the bellicose, damp-handed chickenhawks of the GOP field of candidates (who have never served in the military but who have all sorts of plans for those who do) are capable of understanding how to shovel our troops around like concrete as they enact their Big Dreams of Empire. They and our Nobel Peace Prize winning Prez are Realists, doncha know, while the one guy who says our troops need to be brought home from their ceaseless toils (ordered by an ungrateful Ruling Class who tosses their remains in landfills) is mad.
Yet despite this now agreed-upon fact among our purveyors of beer and shampoo at Fox and on Talk Radio (who always speak reverently of our troops as they afflict them with more burdens of Empire), Paul (who, with exception of Perry, is the only one of the GOP field to actually serve) is garnering, by far, the biggest support from our troops:
But what do those peons know? Their job is to suffer and die, not to interfere with the smooth theorizing of our bellicose chickenhawk Ruling Elites on either side of the aisle.
Hello Mark,
One correction:
“…Paul (who is the only one of the GOP field to actually serve)…”
Rick Perry also served as an officer in the Air Force from 1972 to 1977, leaving at the rank of captain.
None of the other declared candidates have served, unfortunately. But it’s not true that Ron Paul is the only military veteran in the field.
Hi Mark,
first off thank you for the article. Second as a vet I am constantly amazed when I watch these debates and foreign policy comes up. Having done 2 combat tours and then recruiting I noticed that many just do not understand war in the real sense. They see the clean version that has been filtered through the media and never get the full story.
Personally I am all the way behind Dr Paul for president. I just wish I could have found all these chickenhawks when I was on recruiting duty as it would have made those years much more enjoyable, but like you said it is easy for them to call for war if they aren’t the ones taking the risks and doing the dirty work. But they will spout off about supporting us hired hands and whatnot.
For someone who admittedly does not watch television, you claim to know so much of what Fox News broadcasts and promotes. Maybe you base your opinions on what you read other people saying about Fox. I wonder if anyone at Fox is familiar with your blog and what you would think of them if Fox broadcasted criticism of you and your blog based on the views of others in disagreement with you. Just asking.
It isn’t terribly hard to get the tenor of the agitprop Fox pumps out from the internet, Arnold. And radio technology is remarkably cheap and easy to use.
Mark/John and your ilk,
It’s a little hard to take you seriously when you’re really just after FOX news. Better not bring up CNN, MSNBC, Huffingtonpost, Gawker, DailyKOS, Salon, NPR, Newsweek, DemocraticUnderground or any of the sites associated with the liberal elite.
Oh it’s just those FOX people. They are just so troublesome.
Arnold,
I watch Fox News and listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh (at least until the taste of vomit begins to enter the back of my throat, which, admittedly, isn’t long). Mark’s observations on the matter are sound.
yep, dis-engage – and bring all your troops home. they have no business to be fighting wars in foreign lands.
Were Paul to become the Republican candidate, it would ensure O’s re-election. All the current incumbent need do would be to issue a Presidential Ukase legalizing sativa, the immediate effect of which would be the mass defection of half of Paul’s supporters, from what I have observed and heard.
I happen to think there’s a happy medium between (1) a mindset that espouses insane nation-building exercises in the Near East/permanent military installations in central Europe and (2) another that holds to an amoral isolationism which cares only about the flow of commerce.
I don’t care to pick either poison, thanks.
Noninterventionism is what Ron Paul advocates, not isolationism. It’s a mistake to conflate the two. Peace, commerce, and honest friendship would rule the day under a Ron Paul presidency. We would honor our treaty commitments, but without playing world police.
True isolationism just barely exists in the modern world. There’s North Korea and maybe Bhutan. Even Burma is transitioning away from “true isolationism.”
Non-interventionism, particularly as Paul tends to favor withdrawing from many international bodies, is basically as close to isolationism as a modern nation can get. Paul’s thinking on this is much like “Mr. Republican” Robert Taft. Taft never became President nor did his foreign policy ideas become guiding for the US.
His ideas aren’t insane, IMO, because he doesn’t want war with Iran or whatever. They’re insane because he wants to pretend the US can just withdraw into “peace, commerce, and honest friendship” without that also inspiring massive blowback. I mean what happens if we see another tsunami, but do nothing because “they have to care for their own, we won’t intervene in internal matters”? Or the next Rwanda or Khmer Rouge?
When Pat Buchanan and the legendary ‘pitchfork brigade’ held similar views in the 90s, they were roundly criticized from both sides, primarily because of what you say (though often with different base reasons). The perspectives they espoused were seen by many as ‘my house first, then – if ever – I’ll worry about my neighbor’, or ‘of course I’ll be my brother’s keeper, but first things first.’ I think that approach has appeal today because of the lousy and inept approaches to foreign and domestic policies we’ve seen over the last decade or so. Plus, the growing fear that there’s a noose tightening on our freedoms. But the problem many have is that while Paul gets his finger on the problems, his solutions bring up just as many moral quandaries, just like those you mention. Well said.
This is exactly why Paul makes me uncomfortable. I second the “well said”.
“Rwanda or Khmer Rouge?” What exactly did we do the first time these things happened? Sorry, but we just sat on our hands while millions died…in fact that is one of the problems with playing “World Cop” you have to pick your battles…otherwised get drawn into every ethncic, religious, ideological conflict everywhere. The more I hear about Ron Paul’s “Wacky” or “Crazy” foreign policy the more I like it. Noninterventionism is not the same thing as isolationism…
Labels can be misleading, however. “Isolationist” has a bad odor now, so it’s not surprising that Paul would be reluctant to embrace it.
I suppose it’s true that Ron Paul would “honor our treaty commitments,” in that these treaties have withdrawal clauses. And withdraw is what Ron Paul has said he would do: withdraw from NATO, the WTO, NAFTA, the IMF, the United Nations…and so on. He’s on record as advocating all of that, and has even sponsored legislation t that end. So we’re not just talking about closing bases overseas, or bringing soldiers and ships home – which would be no small thing in itself. Pulling everything out of, say, Japan sounds well and good, save that Japan pays pretty much all of our costs, and that withdrawal would almost certainly trigger a Sino-Japanese (and who knows who else besides) nuclear arms race in East Asia.
Is that isolationism? We can debate the label. But Paul *is* on record as desiring the withdrawal of the U.S. from a wide range of multilateral institutions and treaties, and that will have profound effects on the international order.
I think a lot of…even conservatives have “nation-building fatigue.” And many desire that allies such as those in Europe shoulder more of the burden of their defense. But there’s surely some real daylight between that and the much more comprehensive withdrawal from treaties and institutions that Ron Paul advocates. Some of us think, however much we admire some of other positions of Paul, all of that imprudent in the extreme, and I think that’s what Dale was trying to get at.
Yes, that’s what I was thinking on too. He does, as far as I understand, what to drop out of many of the organizations we belong to and that is at least radical. Maybe “insane” was an inelegant term.
Thanks, Mark, for another thoughtful post about Ron Paul’s candidacy. Ron will be a superior president for our country; it’s apparent that the men and women of our armed forces have confidence in him and support his run for the nomination.
Mark, each day I pray that we can have the president we need, not the president we deserve. My hope is that that president is Ron Paul.
I wasn’t planning to vote in the primaries at all, honestly. Now with the passage of the NDAA I feel morally compelled to advance the campaign of Ron Paul, the only candidate I believe will stand up against the pervading darkness that is overtaking our country.
I disagree with Paul’s economics, but I don’t believe our country is in danger of slipping into his approach if he becomes President. I am convinced now that our country is very much in danger of destroying the foundation of Common Law if any of the other candidates succeed.
Peace and God bless!
Agreed. The betrayal of our most foundational liberties by a coalition of GOP and Dems has solidified me behind Ron Paul like nothing else could have done. The Prez and every member of Congress that voted for this should be impeached and jailed for treason.
Padre Pio said “Fear is an evil worse than evil itself.” Those who voted for this horrible law are guilty of caving in to fear, or else they are guilty of something even worse.
I agree with you, Mark. This is somewhat of a watershed moment. I would never vote for anyone who approved the NDAA, which will likely include my GOP congressman, and Ron Paul seems to be the only one left that hasn’t bought into the fear-mongering.
Has the House voted on this yet? As of early last week -they had not;
They may be able to change some of the things in the bill before voting on it.
I thought I’d read that they had. If not, then obviously ping your representative.
You are right, Sean. Thank you.
The House has already passed the Bill with some modifications that actually grant broader authority for arrest and detention, which is what Obama wanted. Last I heard it’s in reconciliation, and then on to Obama’s desk and he’s said he will sign it.
All right. email the WH, then. and your congresscritters to tell them they’re soon to be fired.
NB: in a GOP candidates poll today on Fr. Z’s blog, Ron Paul is winning handily.
A vote for Paul is a vote for more Obama. We do not have the luxury of a perfect candidate this time. We have to get this American hating man out of OUR White House and boot all of his fanatical left wing cronies out with him. You bet I will support Romney or (God forbid) Newt over Obama.
I am not a Paul supporter. But this kind of response makes me sick. We were told that with McCain, we were told that in California with Schwarzenegger (oh McClintock cannot win!)
It is that attitude that has gotten us here in the first place. Traditional moral values will continue to be lost, and the common good hurt, because people are too “pragmatic” to abandon such failing rhetoric.
No. A vote for Paul is a vote for Paul. If Paul wins, Obama is gone (a consummation devoutly to be wished).
Oh, and “OUR White House” is excellent code language, Scott. Like it or not, Obama won the last election. The White House belongs to the American people, who put its current occupant there. It does not cease being ours (the American people’s) when somebody you dislike is there. If you don’t like him, vote him out. But cease the seditious talk about a duly elected President being somebody other than an American. The Civil War has already been fought. You lost.
Mark:
I am curious, you wrote “Vote him out”. But this seems precisely what you are opposed to. In your voting posts you say that one ought to vote for the best candidate even if he will not be able to win. But a “vote him out” strategy is precisely voting so that the guy currently in office does not win. So which is it??
Matthew
Sir, are you meaning to be obtuse or are you actually asking a question?
Whoops, after re-reading your post, I see what you mean. Pardon me. I don’t know Mark’s thoughts on this but when I use the phrase “vote him out” it usually implies voting for another party.
If people vote for Ron Paul in sufficient numbers, Obama will not President. Not complicated.
I am tired of hearing that Paul can’t win. In every poll that’s been done asking voters about Paul vs. Obama head-t0-head, Paul is running even to or slightly ahead of Obama.
Don’t believe the nonsense about Paul not being “electable.’
Given that Paul has won 12 elections, it would appear our Chattering Class in the media and the party are a bit premature–particularly since they are now talking about the vengeance they will wreak should he win those elections he can’t win.
Mark,
The Blogosphere is now and entrenched part of the media, and you, sir, are a poster child member of the Chattering Class.
Touche.
I don’t think people think Paul’s policies are insane. I think there are people who think they are extreme. He himself is what comes off as a bit half-cocked. Though I’ve seen a few interviews in recent days, and have to say he’s calmed down a bit. I don’t know if he’s getting a little more under control because he really thinks he could pull it off, or if his advisors are telling him that he needs to, I’m not sure. But the last couple interviews were actually more informative and less bothersome than ones in the past. If he does manage to take a chill, as he might be doing, then all he will have to do is work to convince people that his policies are not nearly as extreme as so many people think they are.
Oh, and the polls. Paul has such a strong following, such a powerful fanbase, that it’s tough to tell. In smaller samples, he often trounces. But as the polls get broader, such as a recent WSJ poll that showed Paul getting smashed by Obama almost to the tune of 20 points, he doesn’t do as well. The lack of consistency in Paul’s polls is an issue that nobody seems able to explain, but it likely has something to do with his devoted following.
Could be. I think it’s telling that Fox is already launching pre-emptive striked to say, “Even if he wins in Iowa, ignore him”. That’s not journalism. That’s naked agitprop. I will laugh my butt off if he keeps winning.
Yeah, I don’t think Fox ranks right up there in the Ron Paul fan club. They are right, of course. Huckabee won Iowa and didn’t really pick up speed from there (and yes, I was a Huck fan, him sharing my same Protestant roots). But I don’t know where Paul is in New Hampshire or beyond, so it’s tough to say. Like people love to point out, Reagan didn’t really catch Carter in 1980 until around September. So we’ll see. But Paul’s poll numbers, as well as his devoted base, have become the stuff of modern political legend, that’s for sure.
Obama didn’t exactly steamroll through the primaries, either.
No he didn’t. That’s sort of the point. Iowa is Iowa. A lot can happen between Iowa and the end. Obama won. Huckabee won. There you go.
If memory serves, didn’t Huckabee win the straw poll but not the caucus?
I believe he won the Caucus. That was the big upset. Until then, he was on the side wings of the debates. But he lacked money. He really had a grass roots campaign, and he himself was in no way rich, so when Thomson and McCain moved against him in S. Carolina, that was pretty much it (though he did finish 2nd behind McCain, so it isn’t to say winning Iowa is nothing, it just doesn’t cement the nomination).
Greetings from the Hinterlands. As of the latest poll numbers, Newt is losing ground in NH as Paul and Hunstman surge. I saw a lot of Huntsman signage out this weekend. I believe the numbers are Romney 35% with Paul in second place with 21%. It’s also butt freaking cold and cloudy today with no snow. This concludes your update from the Hinterlands.
In foreign policy I think his ideas are basically insane. He’s at times advocating withdrawing from the UN and NATO. It doesn’t matter if you dislike those institutions, the idea the US can just abdicate from the world is ridiculous. The level of neutrality and non-interventionism he wants would be both untenable and callous to the world’s poor.
I know “but troops support him!” I don’t know if there’s a poll to this effect. What we know is troops willing to give money to candidates give to him more than most. And to be honest even if they do support him, so? We don’t live under a military dictatorship and soldiers aren’t the only people who can or should influence foreign policy. Many in the military have very strange ideas on the global situation and I say that even though my eldest brother is retired military.
In 2008 the people online I saw who supported Paul were mostly oddball libertarians and pacifists. It sort-of saddens me to hear him get as much support as he does from people I might actually respect.
Thomas R., your last paragraph begs the question. Did you ever go to a Ron Paul rally in 2008? I did twice and regarding your last paragraph, nothing could be further from the truth.
I have only ever been to one political rally of any kind in my life, although I went to a couple “gatherings”, and I didn’t much care for it. I don’t like big loud crowds on the whole. And to be honest I didn’t care for the gatherings I attended either. Seeing as I never had any remote intention of supporting Paul, and am not a journalist, it would have been weird to go to a gathering or rally for him.
So yeah I was just going on my online experience with Paul supporters. They might be rather non-representative. Still if it’s not libertarianism or anti-war sentiment than what is the appeal? He’s not particularly charismatic and there are many other Pro-Life/Anti-Choice candidates.
Most people I hear don’t think they are insane, just extreme. What bothers me, and others, is how he often defends the positions. Several times he has pointed to Iran and then pointed back to our policies dealing with the USSR. The two are not alike. Just because a country isn’t us, doesn’t mean that you can treat them all as one monolithic ‘any country that isn’t us’ nation. He has said that several times, so it wasn’t a fluke. Such a ‘they’re all the same to me’ approach to defend his non-intervention ideals is bothersome. I would rather him come out and say ‘of course Iran in 2011 is a completely different kettle of fish than the USSR during the Cold War that demands a different approach. But here is why….” There are other problems in how he unpacks his viewpoints, but that is one that leaps to mind.
To add to the point, another Paulism at the Republican debate. Bachmann and Paul were going at it over his stance on Iran. Bachmann fired over that Iran getting a nuke is the concern. Paul responded in a way that illustrates the problem.
He said, basically, we can look at the real nuke issue during the Cuban Missile Crisis. What happened there? Why, the USSR was putting nuclear missiles in Cuba. And how did it get resolved? According to Paul, Kennedy simply picked up the phone and worked it out with his Soviet counterpart, using diplomacy and good will.
Nope. Didn’t happen that way at all. And his tendency to use such stories to support his policies, to reduce complex events that often required things he stands against to mere ‘they reached out the hand of friendship and everything turned out fine’, is bothersome to the extreme. Either he beleives those accounts, or he knows it isn’t true but just says it to deflect criticism of his more radical solutions. Either way, not the stuff of ‘that’s who I want behind the wheel’ leadership.
As I said above about Paul’s economic views, I just don’t see the U.S. falling into the more dangerous extremities of Ron Paul’s views. We’re not a country on the verge of withdrawing from NATO or the UN, and we’re not a nation on the verge of dismantling the Federal Reserve or returning to the Gold Standard. Ron Paul may advocate such things, but acting alone as President he doesn’t have the power to implement the more radical of his ideas, and the nation isn’t drunk on these notions like it is drunk on the “War on Terror”.
We are a nation on the verge of wiping out Habeas Corpus and extending a vague “War on Terror” indefinitely and enshrining it in law. This is no longer tin-foil hat conspiracy theory, this is 93-7 votes in the Senate reality. We need a President who will veto this kind of dangerous non-sense, because this is the kind of thing we can continue to expect from the Senate and Congress for awhile. We’re 10 years out from September 11, and this vote came now and not in the midst of the panic of the attacks.
The Federal Reserve and NATO are safe, even with Ron Paul as President. Common Law and Habeas Corpus are evidently not safe without a President like Ron Paul.
Interesting. See this measured support makes some sense. If I get it you’re saying the things that’s oddest about him aren’t really possible, and in fairness I grant that he’s of late saying some of his more extreme ideas would “need to happen gradually”, so not worth worrying about. One supports him for what he says that’s possible and better than the other candidates.
I’m intrigued by that, but I admit something about that sounds risky to me. Maybe he has some ideas that are extreme, but still possible. Or maybe we don’t know for certain what is possible.
“What we know is troops willing to give money to candidates give to him more than most.”
No, what we know is that troops willing to give individual donations over $200 give to him more than most, assuming that most donors are accurately reporting their profession. See Politifact’s check on this claim.
Donations under $200 are not measured. And those donations usually account for most political donations in a given campaign.
That said, I don’t doubt that Ron Paul bats above his weight level among military donors. But we really don’t know by how much.
I wouldn’t lump withdrawing from NATO and withdrawing from the UN in together, at all. NATO is a reasonably-effective alliance of Western democracies with (more or less) shared values. The UN is a hopelessly incompetent, corrupt cesspool dominated by ugly little dictatorships, with despotic ambitions of supranational rule. Good riddance.
I have a better opinion of NATO than the UN too, but considering even Switzerland has been in the UN for years now withdrawing from it is pretty big. Particularly as it’s main/most-famous HQ is in NYC.
Mark,
Your book “By What Authority” helped me become Catholic. As a 20-year veteran of the US Foreign Service, I like to think I know something about foreign policy. I’m always thrilled to see traditional believing Catholics who understand that Ron Paul is not insane.
blessings, Craig
…what a fine comment…
Craig:
Thanks for your service. And what an honor to read your kind words! God bless you and yours this Advent and Christmas!
Craig, I suspect you already have, but be sure to look into Catholic convert Thomas Woods articles on Ron Paul. Good stuff! And welcome to the Church. My wife and I crossed the Tiber 32 years ago and have never regretted it for a moment. God is good!
Not only did Dr. Paul get the most from servicemen, but if my math is right, he earned slightly more than everyone else combined from the numbers you posted above.
.Answering a question about his libertarian ideas in a debate in May-
“Paul said he believes that states should have the right to legalize gay marriage, marijuana, and prostitution if they choose to do so.”
I heard him say in a short interview that he has no problem with Iran obtaining a nuclear bomb. In fact he thinks they have a right to have one.
Polls show that Obama will win again if Ron Paul is the nominee. Perhaps that is what it is all about. I am sure David Axelrod has been very busy in Chicago.
Even assuming that Mr Paul’s proposed foreign policy would not be a complete disaster, your take on this is wrong, Mark:
Once the US made the decision to supplant a conscripted army of citizens into one of hired soldiers, no one can expect candidates for political office to have served in the military.
Decisions about foreign and security policy, including the deployment of military forces, do not belong to military man, either currently or formerly serving. It belongs to the legitimate political leaders.
Soldiers in the US military have the same political rights as any other US citizen, but not more. How many of them support whichever candidate is a completely irrelevant statistic.