restoring our biblical and constitutional foundations
Ron Pauls Isolationism
The Republican primaries are now in their opening stages of ebullition. It is gratifying to know that it is no longer a question of the lesser of two evils, as a really great American is in the race, and to stay, while others are beginning to drop like flies.
Meanwhile, the whole dreadful business of war grinds on, producing exactly the kind of political, economic, and moral results predicted by Ron Paul in 2003. The funniest feature of the primaries will no doubt be the people who try to make Paul look like a silly isolationist, which, of course, he is not. They will couch their attack in the flag, but the ploy will not work thank God for the Internet! Im glad that the good Congressman is flourishing to the extent he is. Its good for the nation, and its good for the principle of constitutional government. Still, I am always appalled when I hear people who ought to know better prattling away of isolationism and pacifism and the like, when in fact the beast has quite a different nature.
The truth is that Ron Paul is a rational, humble, and utterly civilized statesman. He realizes that Americas greatest aspirations are embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. He alone among the Republican candidates advocates détente with Iran and an end to mindless intervention into the affairs of other nations. Ever vigilant against freedom-constricting pressures, he is fearless in challenging demagogues and exposing political salesmanship. While George W. Bush frightens the American people with baseless epithets and impugns the loyalty of patriots who oppose the ill-conceived and ill-executed Iraq War, Ron Paul insists on focusing attention on the truth about our economy and foreign policy, however distasteful. In short, Ron Paul is attempting to alter the very course of American democracy and to move the United States from a position of unfettered, unilateral power toward a foreign policy based on a scrupulous concern for internal peace and national sovereignty. If this is isolationism, then so be it!
On a recent trip to Eastern Europe and Central Asia, I was asked repeatedly why Americans are so anti-democratic, so uncritical in their attitudes toward American militarism and hegemony. They ask: How is it that the United States, Christian America, could perpetrate the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of Dresden and Fallujah? Incidentally, I am not making claims about being immune from self-deceit. Jesus taught that there was no sin like that of thinking one is not a sinner as other men are, no crime like arrogating moral superiority over other men to yourself. Yet isnt this exactly what our nation has done? We elect Woodrow Wilson because he kept us out of war, and then we follow him into the war to end war. (Substitute Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Bush for Wilson and you will see that, a century later, we are still engaged in issues thought to be settled in 1916.)
The problem is not one simply for social conservatives. Salutes and pledges to the flag are now ubiquitous, and even places of Christian worship put the national flag near altar or pulpit. Evangelical Christians who oppose the war are not only labeled pro-Iraq but un-American. The pejorative pacifist is sometimes tacked on for good measure a term of opprobrium which, of course, misrepresents their position. A pacifist is not an ostrich that ignores evil. He examines the evil and inquires as to the best way to deal with it. As with Jesus and the apostle Paul, he answers that the worst possible way of dealing with one evil is to do another evil. When we as a nation threaten other nations, we do not make them less aggressive; we merely stimulate them to add to their own arsenals. One nation gets a nuclear warhead, not to do anyone harm, of course, but as a precaution against attack. The nation to which the warhead is pointed, however, feels defenseless and thus acquires its own warhead, and so it goes.
I do not mean to suggest that the situation is simple, nor do I approve of or condone every act of protest against the war. Nevertheless, the Ron Paul Revolution has a vitally important role to play in the current debate over the war, and there is now a genuine opportunity for a significant shift in U.S. policy in Iraq. For the U.S. to recognize that its interventionism is at an end would not only save American lives but would be a much more efficacious way to stop terrorism than the policy we are now pursuing. This is not to deny the problem of civil war that might be resorted to by the factions in Iraq, but to insist that if we are fighting for self-determination for the Iraqi people, it is senseless to impose on them democracy. The Iraqis must be able to determine their own future, whatever it may be, without interference from foreign troops.
Meanwhile, the hostility that Mr. Paul evokes among many church people is piercingly clear evidence of the extent to which Orwells Nineteen Eight-Four has come true. But Ron Paul can handle all this and a great deal more. He is an excellent toreador, and tosses his constitutional darts where they have the greatest effect.
You ask: Will it make a difference? I dont know. But I doubt that America can give Nemesis the slip forever.
December 24, 2007
David Alan Black is the editor of www.daveblackonline.com.