Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who was a 2008 presidential candidate and is an unlikely conservative rock-star, has seen an increase in popularity recently, especially among college students. ASU is no exception.
You’ve no doubt seen “rEVOLution” signs all over campus. And you may have even caught Paul’s speech at Hayden Lawn this past November.
Last week Paul won the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) straw poll for favorite potential 2012 presidential candidate. That victory largely appears to be due to his college-aged supporters.
According to the results of the CPAC 2011/Washington Times poll, 43 percent of those who voted were students, and 49 percent were between the ages of 18 and 25.
Despite all of this youthful enthusiasm, a Paul presidency is enormously unlikely, and we should all be grateful. His weaknesses as a candidate would make him downright dangerous as president of the United States.
Paul takes some responsible stances and can be a very effective advocate for individual liberty and personal responsibility. But just listen to him long enough, and it becomes clear why.
Fancying himself to be in accord with our Founding Fathers, Paul rips America for her extensive involvement in world affairs. His blame-America-first rhetoric is more at home in a Michael Moore film than it is in the Republican Party.
Paul presents himself as a noninterventionist, but what really comes through is naive pacifism.
In his speech to the crowd at CPAC, Paul suggested that we “treat people like we want to be treated, and then maybe they would want to emulate us and say ‘freedom does work and we ought to try it.’”
Well, that sure is sweet.
The problem is sometimes other countries do bad things for reasons not related to the United States. Sometimes a “good example” isn’t enough to prevent shows of aggression that pose a serious threat to our allies and interests.
What Paul and his supporters fail to do is consider the consequences of American withdrawal from international affairs. It’s easy to sit indignantly on the sidelines and criticize an administration for exercising aggressive foreign policy, but unfortunately, our world is one of imperfect choices.
Those responsible for keeping us safe often must pick the lesser of two evils in the execution of their duties.
Maybe it would be nicer if Americans could just stay home, but neutrality and inaction have consequences too.
It’s irrational to believe that the vacuum created by a sudden absence of U.S. influence would go unfilled. Would we really be safer and more just if China filled that vacuum?
In President Washington’s farewell speech, he hoped that we would “choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.”
Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of any given war, but we must be prepared to fight when necessary. The notion that neutrality is always the answer sadly does not comport with reality.
Reach David at dcolthar@asu.edu
