I’ve grown weary of hearing Ron Paul’s “Campaign for Liberty” tout the eccentric Congressman as a pure constitutionalist, when he is nothing of the sort. Paul’s antics and extreme rhetoric have appealed to an anarchical fringe in American politics, who apparently know little about the Constitution they claim to defend. As an economic, social and national defense conservative, I’m truly troubled by Ron Paul’s libertarian anti-republican philosophy.
When I refer to Paul as “anti-republican,” I’m not speaking of his opposition to the GOP establishment, but his anti republican philosophy of government, which emphasizes extreme libertarianism at the expense of liberty in law. A republic is a nation of laws, and these laws are designed to check human ambition, which is often borne out of our fallen, self centered nature. The concept of natural, or unalienable, rights stems from the believe that God Himself is the Grantor of these basic liberties. Inherent with such a belief is the conviction that no government, group or individual can legitimately oppose or revoke such rights to some, without endangering their own. One such right is the inherent right to life that is the first right of all free people.
What does Ron Paul believe about this first right? He believes that it ought to be left up to the states to determine its validity as opposed to God, its Grantor. My friends, I’m a strong states’ rights advocate, but the U.S. Constitution was designed to ensure that ALL Americans in EVERY state were afforded certain basic liberties. Though the Constitution does not grant many powers to the Federal government, and favors a strong states’ rights position, it does enshrine and codify natural rights that constitute the cornerstone of our free republic, of our One Nation; therefore, Paul’s belief that abortion should be left to the states indicates that he believes a national pro-life law should not be adopted, and that he doesn’t actually support the Bill of Rights that guarantees the rights to life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness to all Americans.
It appears that Ron Paul has gone so far right that he’s ended-up on the left. He does not support the unalienable right to life, he doesn’t believe that marriage should be defined as the union of a man and woman for life and he has even advocated for the legalization of heroin and other illicit drugs. This man isn’t a conservative, he’s hijacking the concept of constitutionalism to advance his radical agenda. Make no mistake, a candidate like Ron Paul does more damage to the conservative movement than good; his very premise undermines the foundation of constitutional republicanism.
Finally, Congressman Paul recently introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would suspend all foreign aide to Israel. Israel is America’s only true middle eastern ally, and is, arguably, our best friend in the world. They have voted with the United States 97% of the time at the United Nations, and have strong cultural ties, by virtue of Judeo-Christian Values, with the United States. Now, at a time when the world is descending upon them, Paul would pull the plug on military aide to our ally. That’s not only bad policy, its an unethical position. Though his supporters couch it as part of Paul’s overall opposition to foreign aide, that’s not what his bill stated.
The proposal Paul brought to the floor was really anti-Israel more than anti-foreign aide. I’ve long opposed foreign aide for nation building. Americans shouldn’t be funding the construction of bridges and roads in every nation on Earth, when we can’t even pay our bills at home; however, there’s a difference when we’re talking military aide to a military ally. America has a legitimate “dog in the fight” when it comes to Israel’s security. Our national security is closely correlated with theirs. The U.S. Constitution certainly enables the Federal government to defend American national security interests. This provision is yet another that Congressman Paul opposes.
One could read a list of Ron Paul’s proposals and get the sense that he’s more interested in his own political agenda than the U.S. Constitution. We’ve already examined his opposition to the Constitutional protection afforded natural rights, like the right to life, and his opposition to America’s defense of her military allies. Now, it’s time for true conservatives, who believe equally in faith and family values as well as free market economic principals, to make a choice. Do we sit idly by while Ron Paul’s short-sighted message of political self interest defies the very Constitutional values that preserve our natural rights, state rights and the very concept of Americanism?