Ron Paul Support: It’s Not All Just about the Iraq War
October 19th, 2007 by Steve
As the word about Ron Paul is getting out, I’ve been running into more and more Ron Paul supporters who actually favor the war in Iraq. Here are clips from two recent articles shedding light on support from people not necessarily motivated by Dr. Paul’s foreign policy position.
Anecdotally, of the ten or so key supporters of Ron Paul in my home state (Alabama), three of them are physicians. Here’s a Dartmouth Review article (emphasis added) on Dr. Paul’s appeal to doctors:
On September 29th Texas Congressman and Republican Presidential Candidate Dr. Ron Paul—the only candidate who is a doctor—spoke to students of Dartmouth Medical School about his health care platform. A palpable air of anticipation filled the room prior to Paul taking the lectern. The students in the room, predominately liberal, were actually excited to hear what this Republican had to say about health care. I’ve seen talking heads assign Paul’s popularity on college campuses to his stance on the Iraq War (decidedly non-interventionist), but in the auditorium students weren’t talking about foreign policy. Instead, praise for Paul abounded based on his honesty and integrity. Students knew that he said what he actually believed, and, if elected, he would act on what he has promised.
Cyd Malone adds some insight covering a broader spectrum of supporters:
So why do they all support Ron Paul? Doubtless, the war plays a part, but MoveOn.org couldn’t pull this off — I’ve been to some of their events and the turnout wasn’t even close. I asked Jessica, who was leaning on a bar with her friend Chris, what it was about Ron Paul that attracted them, and she gave me the same answer I would hear all night. “You know,” she said, “it’s about freedom, and having rights.” Like almost everyone I asked, they had only known about Ron Paul for “a couple of months,” yet were willing to pay $100 each to drink to his health.
His hold on this crowd goes deeper than merely being antiwar. One flyer given to me by a young bearded kid read, “Who is Ron Paul?” and listed his beliefs, as expressed by his voting record. Pro-gun, antitax, for freedom of the Internet, anti–Patriot Act — his opposition to the war was listed near the bottom, almost like an afterthought. The people I spoke to were more about how Ron Paul matches their urge for “freedom and rights” than on any specific issue he stands on.
Ron Paul’s support base is truly interesting. I’ve spoken with three national reporters about this topic in the last week, and will be interviewed by one of them on Monday. If anyone has some information about pro-war Ron Paul supporters, I’d be very interested in any tidbits you can steer in my direction.
8 Responses to “Ron Paul Support: It’s Not All Just about the Iraq War”
Leave a Reply
About
Archives
Categories
- Alabama Politics (138)
- Articles (12)
- Bad Democrats (50)
- Bad Media (25)
- Bad Republicans (128)
- Bob Barr (14)
- Civil Liberties (68)
- Culture (43)
- Economic Policy (14)
- Election Reform (10)
- Fiscal Responsibility (30)
- Foreign Policy (21)
- Graphics (1)
- Health Care (17)
- History (3)
- Housekeeping (12)
- In the News (13)
- It's a Southern Thang (56)
- Judicial Issues (1)
- Just for Fun (37)
- Libertarian Movement (208)
- Libertarian Party (81)
- National Politics (279)
- Other places I blog (1)
- Prohibition Mentality (10)
- Regulatory Burden (5)
- Ron Paul (186)
- Satire (25)
- Sex and Politics (15)
- Supreme Court (2)
- Taxes (20)
- Tech (11)
- The Media (2)
- Travel (7)
- Wasteful Spending (29)
- Zero Tolerance (7)
Meta
TriggerFinger wrote on 10/19/07 at 3:33 pm :
Steve — I am a Libertarian and generally support Ron Paul. The only significant point of disagreement is on foreign policy, and that disagreement is on details rather than principles. Specifically, I think the decision to go to war with Saddam’s Iraq was correct and also within Libertarian principles (remember that Iraq had been blatantly violating the terms of the cease-fire from the last war for years, and was regularly shooting at our aircraft enforcing those terms; the situation was not stable and needed to collapse one way or the other).
Unfortunately the disagreement on foreign policy is significant because it forms a large part of the President’s responsibilities.
So far, my “dream ticket” for 2008 would be a Thompson/Paul run. Thompson first, because he makes the right noises about the issues and his voting record mostly agrees; Paul second to reinforce the libertarian angle to domestic policy and to the principles (rather than the pragmatism) of his approach to foreign policy.
If those two candidates could get together and come up with a coherent message together, I think they could really shake things up.
Ghillie Suits » Ron Paul Support: It’s Not All Just about the Iraq War wrote on 10/19/07 at 3:40 pm :
[…] Check it out! While looking through the blogosphere we stumbled on an interesting post today.Here’s a quick excerpt record. Pro-gun, antitax, for freedom of the Internet, anti–Patriot Act — his opposition to the war […]
GordonUnleashed » Blog Archive » Micheal Kinsley Misunderstands the Concept of Freedom wrote on 10/19/07 at 5:19 pm :
[…] I noted that I’d been talking with several national reporters about just exactly who supports Ron Paul. Robert Stacy McCain of the Washington Times is one of those reporters, and he’s currently blasting a piece Micheal Kinsley wrote for Time on the topic. […]
David M wrote on 10/19/07 at 5:45 pm :
Trigger,
Let the Congress declare war and President Paul would carry it out. The bulk of foreign policy decisions, apart from moving around the armed forces in battle and signing treaties, should be coming from the Congress. For a libertarian to not support Paul because he wouldn’t have attacked Iraq in 2003, even though there is agreement on most or all of the principles, seems quite strange to me.
TriggerFinger wrote on 10/19/07 at 6:19 pm :
David,
Paul wasn’t running (at least not for President) in 2003. Badnarik was the nominee for the LP. I supported him, though not without reluctance over the foreign policy question.
Let’s not forget that the war in Iraq was, in fact, Congressionally-authorized. I don’t understand why people keep claiming otherwise, except as a matter of political opportunism in hindsight. Quibbling over the exact words of the authorization isn’t very useful, except to demonstrate how unwilling to take responsibility that body can be.
Frankly, I’d take a libertarian president even with the foreign policy caveats. Don’t mistake disagreement on some issues and concerns about actually winning an election with lack of support. IF such a libertarian president could actually get elected on his own, I’d support him and accept the few practical differences. The problem is that I don’t think that’s possible right now.
I do think an alliance between the libertarians and the traditional conservatives could pull enough support to win. And that would be the result most favorable to liberty.
GordonUnleashed » Blog Archive » Justin Raimondo, Ron Paul and the Anti-War Vote wrote on 10/19/07 at 6:21 pm :
[…] Would he prefer that Ron Paul limit his base to a single (albeit very important) issue or expand it to a broader base of support so he might actually win the election and end the very war Raimondo so eloquently […]
Joe Schembrie wrote on 10/21/07 at 3:59 am :
The framers of the Constitution had no idea that their words on war could be parsed so much that sustained wars could be fought without declaration.
If you read the War Powers Act of 1973 (http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm), you see that it is basically an abdication of the Constitutional power of Congress to wage war. It basically says that the President can wage wars, and just needs to keep Congress informed. Not that Congress will do anything to stop him.
However, even in the context of the War Powers Act, the President has long since exceeded his Congressional mandate to wage war in Iraq. The 2002 Iraq Resolution, in the words of Wikipedia, ” . . . authorized the United States to use military force to ‘defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.’” So now the President’s supporters are down to arguing that we must stay in Iraq because of the national security threat posed by Iraqi car bombers. Which doesn’t fool anybody, but it does fill the letter of the law.
When bullets and bombs fly between nations, it’s called war. If the phrase ‘declare war’ has any weight at all, it must mean that a sutained conflict must be supported by an official declaration of war from Congress, or the President must withdraw from the conflict. Otherwise, the phrase, “Congress shall have power to declare war” is utterly empty and meaningless, and one wonders why the generally straight-talking framers of the Constitution bothered to put those words on paper, when, according to current interpretation, what they really meant was, “The President shall have the power to wage war at any time and for any duration, and Congress shall have the power to receive dubious progress reports which it will be utterly powerless to do anything about.”
A question arises: if Congress has the power to authorize the use of force, does it not also have the power to de-authorize the use of force? Apparently not. Once you waive a right, you’re not likely to get it back without a fight. Lawyers know this, and so should libertarians.
TriggerFinger wrote on 10/22/07 at 10:21 am :
Joe,
It is good that you concede that the war was Congressionally-authorized to begin with. Once engaged, Congress can of course force a withdrawal; the catch is that they have to get past a Presidential veto to do so, and they have not been able to muster the votes for that. There’s a world of difference between “unable to get the votes for ending the war” and “congressionally unauthorized”.