-
ObamaCare Rate Spikes Revealed
May 13, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Quick CISPA Survey
April 18, 2013 | 1 comment
-
To Each His Own Audience (…or Enemy)
March 29, 2013 | 11 comments
-
They Say They Want a Revolution
March 20, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Senate Access Shutdown
March 12, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
In reply to Jim’s final question regarding Ron Paul’s propensity to infuriate proponents of more muscular foreign policy — call me crazy, but I think we can all agree that he’d fare far better if he just stuck to his “spending” narrative. I don’t think I’m stepping out on too slender a limb here… If I were trying to shift America’s collective understanding of an Islamist militant and political group in South Asia that offered safe haven to an epochal visionary of global terror, I probably wouldn’t wait until a conservative barnstorm within shouting distance of the Citadel. Something for the Paul camp to consider.
Nay, if I’m Ron Paul, I’m going to avoid discussion of the Taliban altogether (a group largely misunderstood by many Americans and Rep. Paul, himself) and stick to the more delicate insinuation that we often struggle under the weight of our own power. While terrorism remains a very real threat and foreign actors mean us harm, throwing endless money at a conventional military build-up designed to fight two land wars — presumably on distant continents — doesn’t seem an appropriate response when the U.S. is flat broke.
Perhaps I’m suffering from debate fatigue. From my perspective the candidates’ discussion to date has largely ignored the negative shortfalls of a national security strategy that allocates $700 billion a year to protect a country that’s already defended by the two largest oceans on the planet. Of course, very little of this money actually goes to the defense of American citizens; rather, it is geared toward defending foreign nationals and toward the uncertain proposition that global stability depends on U.S. military deployment. But I digress…
No, if I’m Ron Paul, I’d re-emphasize the waste associated with America’s enduring responsibility to foreign states that are more than capable of handling regional security threats on their own — but choose to free-ride on the American taxpayer’s dime. While this tact won’t suit staunch advocates of our current foreign policy who insist that the liberal institutional order is imperiled absent a ubiquitous projection of American power, I’d argue this is the only way to actually beat Obama on foreign policy. Give me a second to explain…
When it comes to national security, GOP candidates are fighting an uphill battle. Absent a Cold War and after eight disastrous years in Iraq, the Republicans have surrendered (or at least been forced to share) the political heirloom of “…strong on national security.” Rather, an upstart, president from the wrong side of the aisle ended an unpopular war, ramped up efforts in Afghanistan (where they should have been expended from the get-go) and killed “Public Enemy Number One.” Say what you will about the “community organizer” from Illinois, but he’s taken scalps during his time in office. Like it or not, most Americans who don’t list “Conservative Pundit” on their tax return are war weary, and generally satisfied with the defense posture of an administration that’s witnessed the death of bin Laden, the downfall of Gaddafi, and the demise of Kim Jong-il.
I’m going to get some nasty comments for this but — in fairness — there isn’t much difference between GOP rhetoric on foreign policy and President Obama’s national security strategy. Barring threadbare clap-track about moving embassies to Jerusalem, bombing sorties that would drive the price of gas to $300/barrel, and asinine contentions that Turkey is helmed by Islamic terrorists, the narrative is more or less the same: the global, liberal institutional order is imperiled absent a ubiquitous projection of American power.
For better or worse, Paul — and Paul alone — enjoys the opportunity to say something different. Unfortunately, he has a nasty habit of pushing things way past the line of conventional thinking, and into a realm of devil’s advocacy previously unimaginable in mainstream conservative debate. Recognizing that he’s already talked himself out of the nomination, I’ll maintain that it’s not “crazy” to link an unsustainable national debt with the fact that we continue to spend defense dollars at a rate comparable to, or exceeding, the first half of the 1940s. Something to consider come November, if you want to beat Obama on our terms.
View all comments (29) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Reid Smith
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/19/ron-paul-redux
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case
Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Occam's Tool| 1.19.12 @ 7:00PM
"clap-trap," Erdogan is single handedly undermining the relationship with Israel, the Taliban are indeed child raping and mutilating animals, in Kabul you can breathe in the feces in the air (source, my high school acquaintance John R Groch, a State Department employee who was stationed in Kabul), and we don't spend anything like the percentage of the GNP on defense that we did in the 1940s.
Oh, and Islamists mean to kill us and your naivete is breathtaking.
Other than that, nice article, Dr. Pangloss.
Clint| 1.19.12 @ 8:50PM
American Spectator's Resident Screwball Israel Firster Smear Bund Maniac, Tool Job Is The Guy, Who Said He'll Vote For The Peoples Republic Of Massachusetts Chickenhawk,The RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney.
The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Screwball Israel Firster Smear Bund Maniac, Tool Job.
Dai Alanye | 1.20.12 @ 12:06PM
We must remember that chickenhawks are the conquerors of chickens.
Draftee Doctor Captain RonPaul served his time in a relatively cushy spot. Just think if he'd ended up in a field hospital serving the infantry and hearing shellfire instead of spending his time in the glorious Islamic Republic of Pakistan. If you think he fears war now...!
spike59| 1.23.12 @ 2:20PM
the closer the Tinfoil Hat Messiah gets to the cliff, the more hysterical you Rontards get...TOO FUNNY!!!!!
Occam's Tool| 1.19.12 @ 7:03PM
That's the source for the observation about SHIT in the air in Kabul. He's on Facebook, Reid, and shares many of your views. I'm sure you would like to be his friend and vice-versa.
My dear John, despite his Doctorate in American Studies from Iowa State and his undergrad degree at Brown, can't quite put the concepts together that the culture of a place and the fact that shit is breathable in the air might have something in common.
Occam's Tool| 1.19.12 @ 7:03PM
Sorry, "concept," singular. I was on a roll.
Mender| 1.19.12 @ 7:15PM
Best quote ever on this:
"The war on terror is over, and China won."
I think that says it all.
Dan Phillips| 1.19.12 @ 7:39PM
Reid, Ron Paul is what you might call a first principles debater. He always argues first principles rather than specifics. While the we're broke argument is a very important one, it is not a first principles argument. That is why Paul will not rely on it primarily.
lukin| 1.19.12 @ 7:55PM
Some PSC posters agree while others diagree
bill| 1.19.12 @ 7:57PM
Ron Paul's Hypocrisy:
Ron Paul has become the "Godfather" of "black liberation theology." He is preaching hate and "talking black." He is a liar.
In my humble opinion, The American Judicial system is fair and balanced, and rewards redemption and hard work. It does not discriminate.
Majority of blacks are uneducated and lazy, and seek welfare instead of work. Because they are uneducated, they remain unemployed, and commit 90% of all crimes. therefore, blacks are more incarcerated than whites, logically. Also, majority of blacks who have been imprisoned are repeated offenders and convicted of violet crime.
Ron Paul is playing the race card to win the black votes in SC and elsewhere. His lies know no bounds. It's dis-speakable.
Blacks are cancer to American society. Only solution,get rid off them.
Hobbes| 1.19.12 @ 10:11PM
Somebody needs to ban this Bill idiot from the website. He is a klansman pure and simple. TAS keeps deleting his ignorant, racist posts, but he keeps coming back.
johnd2| 1.19.12 @ 10:56PM
With dumb*** guys like this attacking him, Ron Paul should be able to pick up a lot of votes from black and liberal people.
aware| 1.20.12 @ 6:06AM
Hey bill, you are mixed up. According to orders from neocon central, it's Paul you are supposed to say is the racist. You know the "news letters" and stuff. Check in with Jeffy Lord for clarification.
C Bowen | 1.19.12 @ 8:05PM
Mr. Smith;
Good post, but Paul understands the Taliban (rather Afghanistan) better than you appreciate. Back in the day, the 80s while in Congress, he pointed out that the Soviets invaded Afghanistan on a road paid for by...wait for it...Americans in the early 60s--(look it up.)
The Bush Administration was negotiating with the Taliban as late as August 2001, and what will remain a thing to ponder, the drug war which in its current form dates back to Nixon's problem with the CIA (another can of worms)...anyway, that Fox News can do a show on how American troops are protecting the poppy crop against the Taliban's desire to suppress the drug trade--these things get quite impossible to explain to the American people as to what is going on.
In that context, Paul makes a lot of sense and represents a faction (not that I need to tell you this) within the security forces who understand, intellectually, within the confines of our electoral and governmental systems, what is going on.
And yes, I have heard from many a new comer Ron Paul supporter, that ultimately, it doesn't matter, we cannot afford it--and it would be best for Paul to pound that line, like old H. R. Gross from Iowa.
albert constantine jr.| 1.19.12 @ 8:10PM
“From my perspective the candidates' discussion to date has largely ignored the negative shortfalls of a national security strategy that allocates $700 billion a year to protect a country that's already defended by the two largest oceans on the planet.”
I’m unsure what “clap-track” is, but I think the thought that two large oceans protect this land from foreigners who can do harm was disproven (at least from the native American or “Indian” viewpoint) since at least 1492. That skirmish from 1812-1815 where the White House was burned also tends to validate that point (and in the one which preceded it, I don’t recall that the Hessians at Trenton were FROM New Jersey, but rather from across the vast ocean near a place we call Germany today). Ditto again in 1915 (at least for the passengers of the Lusitania), and all along our Atlantic and Gulf shore in 1942. While we can technically exempt the folks in Hawaii in 1941 ( they were only protected by half a large ocean, and they were not yet a state), along with Kiska and Attu the following year (same lack of statehood issue), we learned after 1945 that there were no longer any threats to our part of the North American continent from across the seas, didn’t we?
Oh, and that thing on September 11, 2001; technically, they were domestic flights that originated within our borders, despite the foreign origins of those who commandeered them.
One can argue about how muscular or expensive our defense/ foreign policy should be based on what we can afford (or any other reason for that matter) , but to think that the seas give us serious protection is even more misguided than the isolationism that many Americans subscribed to prior to World War II. It took a whole lot of many, and more importantly, a whole lot of lives to put things right once that delusional bubble burst.
Since then, we’ve spent trillions of dollars, and tens of thousands of lives, trying to keep similar circumstances from occurring again. While a lot of that more and more than a few of those lives have not always been expended wisely, it pales in comparison of what we would likely pay in blood and treasure if we try to bury our heads in the sands of our Atlantic or Pacific beaches, and think that we won’t be endangered again.
Dan Phillips| 1.20.12 @ 9:10AM
Albert, it is basic military science 101 that two large oceans on either side of us (as well as friendly neighbors to the north and south) protect us from invasion. This cannot credibly be denied. A war for independence from the country we used to be colonies of hardly counts as an example otherwise. Colonies by definition are distant from the colonizing country.
Who is poised to invade us now? We could defend this country from invasion with well regulated (hmmm... where have I heard that term?) state militias.
Dai Alanye | 1.20.12 @ 12:15PM
We are already being invaded -- by land across our borders with Canada and especially Mexico, by sea mainly via the Caribbean, and by air. Most of the Muslims arrive in America by air, some to land at airports, others to park their planes within bulidings.
It is the height of simplicity to believe that countering them overseas isn't preferable to waiting until they get here.
Clint| 1.19.12 @ 8:58PM
" CBS Poll: Independents Prefer Ron Paul Vs Obama
In a head to head match up with incumbent President Barack Obama, the indie voter chooses Ron Paul, a CBS News poll suggested on Monday.
A total of 47% of independent voters said they would choose Ron Paul compared to 45% of independent voters choosing Mitt Romney against Obama, and 41% of independents saying they would choose Rick Santorum. If a Paul-Obama showdown were ever to take place, 47% of independent voters would vote for Paul, 81% republicans and 10% Democrats for a total of 45% of the vote. Obama would get just 40% of the independent vote in that contest, with 85% of the Democrats choosing Obama and 9% of Republicans choosing the President on election day in November. Obama would win the general election by a narrow one point margin if the election was held today between the two."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In South Carolina.
spike59| 1.23.12 @ 2:22PM
@Clint:
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In South Carolina
=============================
and kicked RonPaul's moldy old arse OUT!!!!
9thID| 1.19.12 @ 10:23PM
If only the Liberal-tarians were so keen to slash their beloved welfare state & unfunded public sector pensions as they are to gut our national defense, we wouldn't be having this debate. Obama wants a return to the dysfunctional military of the Jimmy Carter era, and Ron Paul to turn it over to the Dept. of Homeland Security...
aware| 1.20.12 @ 6:16AM
If you will check in with leftist media you will see the Welfare State is the main attack of libertarians. You seem to think there are 2 different States, the Welfare one you distrust and hate, and the Warfare one, which you give blind trust and undying devotion to.
The same people run all of it. One pushes you around and the other pushes foreigners around. How can one be so wrong and the other completely right when its all under the same roof?
Red Phillips | 1.20.12 @ 8:58AM
"and Ron Paul to turn it over to the Dept. of Homeland Security..."
9thPC, you mean kinda like you want to turn conservatism over to Morris Dees?
BTW, Ron Paul wants to abolish the Dept. of Homeland "Security."
cfountain72 | 1.23.12 @ 1:08PM
Wow...please do me (and yourself) a favor and go to cato.org and bring back any single article or video where 'liberal-tarians' are defending their 'beloved' welfare state or public sector pensions. And, as far as Ron Paul is concerned, he actually opted out of the Congressional pension benefit. Wonder if Newt or Santorum can say that?
As far as defense policy is concerned, please explain to me how flushing $800B+ in man and material down the Tigris and Euphrates has made us safer?
Peace be with you.
ps. Sorry to disappoint, but Ron Paul spoke out and voted against the creation of the DHS in no uncertain terms: http://tinyurl.com/76y2bcd
Clint| 1.19.12 @ 10:33PM
Let's See Ya Try To Sell That Israel Fiirster Smear Bund Crap Sandwich To Ronald Reagan, Asshat.
Ronald Reagan,
" If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are traveling the same path."
The Tea Party Rebellion Steps On The Israel Firster Smear Bund.
Dai Alanye | 1.20.12 @ 12:16PM
Did Reagan say this before or after RonPaul stabbed him in the back?
cfountain72 | 1.23.12 @ 1:11PM
Ron Paul merely expressed his disappointment that Reagan wasn't better able to turn his limited government rhetoric into reality. Quite frankly, even as a Reagan fan, I'm not sure how anyone interested in limited government can really dispute that claim.
Peace be with you.
Louis Nardozi | 1.20.12 @ 11:39PM
Democrats are utterly terrified Obama will have to run against Paul in the general election. Let's face it, those other three guys ARE Obama, with a little tinkering around the edges.
The only problem Paul has is marginalization and constant media attacks. This is perfectly understandable because papers and tv stations aren't owned by some guy now - they're owned by 6 giant corporations that control over 90% of the airwaves and big chunks of the internet. Look at the comments on any story - you'll see the Paul support there.
What if this is the last chance you'll have to prevent the collapse of the dollar? Our infrastructure can't function without oil and oil is denominated now in dollars. What happens when people stop accepting them? No oil means no diesel. No diesel means no trucking. No trucking means no FOOD - most supermarkets carry only 3 days' inventory. Let's say it only takes a couple months to find a new supply, what do you think will happen in a city with 10 million starving people, people who've never gone hungry a day in their lives? Armageddon.
spike59| 1.23.12 @ 2:27PM
NO ONE is afraid of RonPaul...THEIR fake messiah (ObaMao) would beat YOUR fake messiah (the TinfoilHatTexan) 50 states to ZERO, by about 15-20 percent in the popular vote...time to face reality-it's over, kids...time to spit out the Kool-aid, stagger out of the PaulDavidian Compound and work on getting real lives, Ronulans...it is simply OVER
cfountain72 | 1.23.12 @ 12:49PM
I appreciate your thoughts on the subject. There certainly is value in approaching the topic as you have suggested. And you are right on in claiming that Obomba's foreign policy is little more than third-term Bushism. Indeed, I have long suggested that, had an Iraq War Tax been imposed to force this generation to pay the $2300+/American for that debacle (and not our childrens'), more self-described 'conservatives' would have a decidedly different view of that foreign policy calamity...probably one more in-line with Paul's.
However, I think the issue, from RP's perspective, is that it isn't just about the money. Even if we were flush with cash, invading a country that hasn't attacked you and can't attack you, thereby killing tens (hundreds?) of thousands of innocent humans and creating millions of refugees in the process is bad morality, bad foreign policy, and bad security policy. So while a purely money-based critique of our hyper-interventionist foreign policy points out the 'fat' part of our foreign policy, it misses the ugly and the stupid.
Peace be with you.