Friday, September 28, 2007

Deconstructing America's Savior

Libertarians and constitutionalist conservatives typically support Ron Paul. Since I consider myself to be moderately libertarian in my political views and I lean towards originalist interpretations of the Constitution, I feel compelled to explain why I do not and will not support Ron Paul as a candidate for the Presidency. This is the first in a series of several posts in which I pick apart his policy platform and explain my objections.

To begin, let's look at the introduction to his policy platform:
Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.
The protection of individual freedoms for American citizens is the fundamental goal of Paul's political philosophy. Because Paul sees the U.S. Constitution as the bulwark of individual freedoms, all of his policy prescriptions are measured against an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. This desire for individual freedoms and his respect for the original intent of the founding fathers are admirable, but he holds these principles in such high regard that he is blind to the practical impact of his policy prescriptions in the real world. I don't disagree with Paul's principles, I disagree with several of the policies he advocates based on a blind devotion to those principles.

Let's pick apart that introduction:
Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital.
First and foremost, Ron Paul's goal is to protect individual freedoms. Although he doesn't specify any qualifiers here, further analysis of Paul's platform reveals an important qualifier: Paul isn't concerned with the individual freedoms of non-citizens.
As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies.
In Paul's view, almost any government activity results in the destruction of individual liberties. This is especially true when government engages in activities that aren't explicitly approved by the Constitution. Consequently, "limited constitutional government" is the first item on Paul's priority list. "Low taxes" and "free markets" make the priority list because an originalist interpretation of the Constitution would force the federal government to drastically curtail its interference in the lives of Americans. Paul demands "sound monetary policies" because he sees the current Federal Reserve system as a tool for government to play games with money and impose a silent tax on Americans. His solution--return to the Gold Standard.
He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.
His devotion to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution is so unswerving that Ron Paul is nothing if not consistent in his legislative record. Political expediency has no influence in his decision making process. The practical impact of legislation isn't a major concern either
I agree with some of the principles upon which Ron Paul bases his policies. I admire Ron Paul's devotion to those principles. But I can't vote for somebody who takes admirable principles and turns them into a blind devotion to absurd policy prescriptions. As we'll see when I begin breaking down the individual components of Paul's policy platform, I strongly object to his foreign policy, his trade policy and his monetary policy. Those policies are so misguided and dangerous that I simply can't consider voting for him.

Next up: Ron Paul's policies with regard to Debt and Taxes

1 comment:

Ben said...

I'm looking forward to future posts (try to note them on pleonast if you remember). If you're going where it seems like you're going, I have similar objections to Paul.