This
series of posts comes at the request of some friends who wish to have a dialogue to help
clarify the distinction made in politics between right and left, and
between the Republican and Democratic parties. There is way too much
spin doctoring in the media and online, and it is thus
sometimes hard to get a grasp what the real differences are, indeed
to determine if there are in fact any real differences at all between these
two parties. It is sometimes asserted that the distinctions between
left and right, liberal and conservative, blue states and red states,
Republican and Democrat are overly simplistic. It is also asserted
in tandem with this that a voter should simply choose a candidate
based on his/her stands on certain issues that are important to the
voter, or perhaps simply based on “feelings,” and to avoid being too rigidly tied ideologically to a particular party or party platform. It is also sometimes asserted that
the two parties are simply beholden to different special interests
and are basically pandering to these constituencies.
I
will try to show in this series of posts that there is indeed a real,
clearly discernible and fundamental difference in the world views
underlying the distinction between right and left, and that
Republican and Democratic parties are clearly different with regards to
these views. I will also argue that one of the parties is by far
more guilty of the sort of special interest pandering indicated above
and that one of the parties is actively in the process of trying to
purge itself of its special interest ties. In this regard, I will attempt to share that there has been a real awakening in America with regards to political values and their relation to impending economic disaster, and that business as usual within the parties is no longer an option.
My opinion is that the GOP and the DNC are both essentially Statist, and that increasing the size and reach of the Federal Gov't is the primary factor driving both parties. Outside of Ron Paul, I can't think of any politician of either party preferring to reduce gov't rather than expand it. When was the last time a politician pointed out how egregriously the 10th Amendment has been violated in the last 40 years?
ReplyDeleteI agree that Ron Paul has been very consistent in trying to drive the GOP towards a more libertarian position. But his foreign policy positions are totally crazy.
DeleteIt is also true that Republicans until 2009 probably didn't pay as much attention to the growing deficit as they should have, although George Bush did make an earnest attempt to get Congress to look at entitlement reform in the 2006 time frame, an attempt that was not even taken seriously by Democrats. But since the advent of the Tea Party we are seeing much more pressure on the GOP to straighten up and fly straight. The Dems, on the other hand, don't even pretend there is a need to fix Washington. President Obama commissioned the Debt Commission in 2010 and then promptly ignored all of their recommendations and submitted trillion dollar budgets to Congress. Thus, while the GOP has been guilty of pork politics there are some positive signs that the Tea Party is having an effect. Dick Lugar, hardly distinguishable from a Democrat in terms of his votes, was soundly defeated this week in Indiana.
I don't see what's crazy about Ron Paul's foreign policy. Avoiding War sounds like a good starting point for a policy. Avoiding occupying foreign nations with our troops sounds like a good idea, too. Has the war in Afghanistan or did the war in Iraq accomplished anything good? We've had our troops in Saudi Arabia for nearly 40 years to enforce our status as global currency arbiter (by forcing oil to be priced in dollars). Maybe it's time to re-think that.
ReplyDeleteThe crazy part of his policy has to do with his insinuations that we somehow are responsible for the 9/11 attacks. His attitude toward Israel is irresponsible.
DeleteOf course avoiding war is always a good idea. And when you choose to engage in war you should have a clear end game in mind. Also, in the case of dealing with some of the countries in the middle east, I personally do not believe that we should necessarily promise to rebuild their nations for them. I agree especially with Ron Paul that we cannot afford to do nation building.
Our troops in Saudi Arabia do not enforce global currency standards. It is much more subtle than that. We stationed troops during the first Gulf war to drive Iraq from Kuwait and we kept some troops there at the request of the Saudis to provide a deterrent to Saddam Hussein. That is hardly an enforced currency standard. Perhaps there is a natural, nod-nod/ wink-wink agreement between us and the Saudis to keep using dollars as the standard, but it is not enforced at gunpoint. They are naturally grateful to us for the protection we provide them against possible bad actors in the region such as Iran and previously Iraq under Saddam. There are plenty of oil folks in OPEC who would love to see dollars replaced by Euros or Yuan. The Euro ain't such a smart move these days and the Yuan is a make believe currency. That leaves you with dollars.
I was mistaken about the US stationing troops in Saudi Arabia to enforce the petrodollar system. It seems the US merely armed and trained the personal Army of the Saudi King instead (the armed forces of Saudi Arabia answer only to the King, not to the ministers). Here is a description of how I understand the rise of the Petrodollar system:
Deletehttp://www.financialsense.com/contributors/jerry-robinson/the-rise-of-the-petrodollar-system-dollars-for-oil
As far as avoiding nation-building, I think if you can't afford nation-building you probably should avoid nation-destroying as well.
So the worst part of Ron Paul's foreign policy is his insinuations? I don't think he ever said the US was "responsible" for the 9/11 attacks, but instead he might have said the US "provoked" them. I don't see why that is a "crazy" idea. I would rather discuss what policy changes he advocates instead of what he insinuates.
What is Ron Paul's attitude toward Israel that offends you so?
I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the statements made at this web page http://frontpagemag.com/2011/12/29/ron-paul%E2%80%99s-undeniable-war-on-israel/ but they are consistent with what I have seen and heard of Ron Paul. He can claim he's a friend of Israel all he wants, but he said many things that go counter to that assertion.
Delete