What's happening today What's happening this week #

Calendar Listings

Find Live Music Find Restaurants

Join the Nosh Mob
The latest from LOVE | HATE
Find nearby happy hours with our new free iPhone app

Southern Avenger

« Mark Sanford and His Public | On Independence Day - Zero Toleranc… »

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Ron Paul: 'Fight them over there vs. over here' a false choice

Posted by Jack Hunter on Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 1:38 AM

From the July 1 edition of the Washington Times:

There is no area in which Republicans have further strayed from our traditions than in foreign affairs.

Generations of conservatives followed the great advice of our Founding Fathers and pursued a restrained foreign policy that rebuffed entangling alliances and advised America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, not to "go abroad looking for dragons to slay."

Sen. Robert Taft, the stalwart of the Old Right, urged America to stay out of NATO. Dwight Eisenhower was elected on a platform promising to get us out of the conflict in Korea. Richard Nixon promised to end the war in Vietnam.

Republicans were highly critical of Bill Clinton for his adventurism in Somalia and Kosovo. As recently as 2000, George W. Bush campaigned on a "humbler" foreign policy and decried nation-building.

But our foreign policy today looks starkly different.

Neoconservatives who have come to power in both the Democratic and Republican parties argue that the U.S. must ether confront every evil in every corner of the globe or risk danger at home. We need to "fight them over there" they say, so we don't have to "fight them over here." This argument presents a false choice. We do not have to pick between interventionism and vulnerability. The complexity of our world is exactly why the lessons of our past should ring true and demand a return to a traditional, pro-American foreign policy: one of nonintervention.

Read the entire column

Topics: National Politics

Comments (8) RSS

Showing 1-8 of 8

Add a comment

Believing in a pro-America policy, let's defend our borders stop the constant meddling in 170+ foreign nations. The founding fathers spoke of non-interventionism (not isolationism, but not intervening) and Ron Paul is carrying the thoughts of the Founders.

Posted by Samurai on July 2, 2009 at 11:29 AM | Report this comment

I could embrace Ron Paul if he did not hold those nutty "end public education" ideals.

I'm pretty much with him on the rest of it.

Posted by Newt on July 2, 2009 at 1:44 PM | Report this comment

Newt, he didn't say to end public education. Ron Paul has said the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should not dictate public eduction and the STATES should handle their own education systems.
He's simply saying the Federal Gov't should let the States do what is best for them.
Best Regards.

Posted by Samurai on July 2, 2009 at 3:39 PM | Report this comment

Paul doesn't necessarily want to end public education, if I understand his stance correctly. He wants to (eventually) abolish the Federal Dept. of Ed to stop the federal gov't from meddling in each state's right to choose & govern how their children are educated. Could be wrong here, feel free to correct me if so.

Posted by jshaft00 on July 2, 2009 at 3:40 PM | Report this comment

Paul's position is that both constitutionally and as a practical matter, education should not be in the purview of the federal government. Abolishing the Department of Education has long been in the official Republican Party platform for the same reasons Paul states. When the moderate Bob Dole ran for president in 1996, he mentioned abolishing it frequently. That most "conservative" Republicans today don't even mention it is yet another good reminder of why most of them aren't worth voting for.

Posted by Jack Hunter on July 2, 2009 at 6:53 PM | Report this comment

So yes, let's close down the U.S. Dept of Education and leave children at the mercy of whatever state they happen to be born in....such as South Carolina, or Alabama, or Mississippi, making a mockery of "equal protection under the law." How many kids have to experience the shock of reaching university level only to discover that many of their fellow-students are much better prepared for college work than they are, merely because they happened to be born in a state that takes educational obligations seriously. As long as state education agencies are the captive of yahoos and ignoramuses serving political rather than educational ends, our kids will get the short end of the stick.

Posted by Ecuiram LeVar on July 3, 2009 at 2:18 PM | Report this comment

Ecuiram, Why don't you check out the record? Since the inception of the Dept. of ED. our childrens scores have plummeted. You can abolish that program in a heartbeat and watch our students excel. Get government out of our private lives already.

Posted by Libertad on July 3, 2009 at 7:23 PM | Report this comment

One of the most crucial issues facing this country, and perhaps the cause and effect of where we are today...is the takeover of the minds of the young! How many realize that the text books used in public schools are "revised" and created in all their "Political Correctness", by the most liberal Left, in that model of American ideals...Bankrupt, both morally, and financially...the state of California? Yes, they set the standards and content of what goes into our children's minds! The alteration of history to suit politcal agendas has been instilled, and nurtured for the last few generations, and academic achievement lowered to the point of mediocrity. Connect the dots, and you see clearly the end result!

Posted by LibertyLass on July 7, 2009 at 11:30 AM | Report this comment

Jack Hunter
Columnist

The "Southern Avenger" Jack Hunter is a conservative commentator (WTMA 1250 AM talk radio) and columnist (Charleston City Paper) living in Charleston, South Carolina.