| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Jonah Goldberg: why Ron Paul is an idiot |
| 2007-05-16 |
Quite a few readers want to know what specifically I objected to in Ron Paul’s comments last night (video here). Here’s a more-civil-than-most e-mail from a reader:The last debate you complimented him on making a good case for a noninterventionalist foreign policy. This time you state "And good for Rudy. Sticking it to Ron Paul on his blame America First Isolationism." Time for Ron to go, heh? It’s difficult to tease out all of my objections to Paul’s approach to foreign policy, but I’ll try to cover the big points as they relate to last night. First, Ron Paul anointed Osama bin Laden the authentic expression of the entire Middle East. “I’m suggesting we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it,” he declared. And: “We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody did it to us.” So, in other words, Osama bin Laden & Co. get to determine the legitimacy of our policies because these terrorists are the truest expression of the will of the people? Isn’t this a bit like saying a farmer can’t clear a field if it might upset a rattlesnake? There are far, far, far more Arabs and other Muslims who did not become terrorists because of our actions in the Middle East. But their “perspective” accounts for nothing in Paul’s analysis. The upshot seems to be that our foreign policy must always be held hostage to whichever group of murderers decides to get pissed off at us. Sorry, no sale. Even more annoying, Paul seems to invest in bin Laden a certain strategic omnipotence and takes his word for everything. This is usually a leftwing trope. The terrorists are “delighted” we’re in Iraq, he claims, because Osama bin Laden says so. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t (my guess is that opinions vary wildly between those terrorists who are dead and in Hell and those who are still awaiting their travel orders). But either way, why on earth is their opinion dispositive? If, as Paul gushed, the CIA is correct that there is such a thing as “blowback” (and there obviously is) surely Osama bin Laden is as subject to this immutable law of the universe as the rest of us are. “Careful what you wish for” is good advice for terrorists and dictators, too. Or perhaps Saddam Hussein is still cackling with laughter about how he has the Americans exactly where he wants them? Again, blowback hardly blows in only one direction. . . . Go read it all, and you will be well armed the next time you find yourself arguing against a neo-isolationist. (I don't yet know who I'm bopping the touch screen for in the primary next spring, but Rudy scores a point for taking R.P. down last night.) |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #3 I like Ron Paul also but he is saying some moonbat things such as 9/11 was our fault and that there might be something dark and conspiratorial about it. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-05-16 15:41 |
| #2 I used to dig Rep. Paul. But that was before 9/11. Now when I hear him, I'm reminded why I can't in good conscience vote Libertarian. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2007-05-16 15:13 |
| #1 It's all of a piece and it's all guilt mongering. I'm told I bear a stain because of slavery, but my ancestors didn't even arrive here in America until the 1920s. I deserve to be blown up because some arab or muslim is upset about foreign policy choices made before I could vote. I. Just. Do. Not. Buy. Any. Of. It. NONE! |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2007-05-16 14:09 |