Saturday, May 26, 2007

Could Ron Paul Win in New Hampshire?

Could Ron Paul Win in New Hampshire?

I’ve thought of this. To say the least, it’s interesting to think about. Paul certainly could and I expect will if he’s still around, surprise in New Hampshire. Because of his heterodoxy on Iraq/foreign policy among Republicans, even liberals tend to discount him. He should fare better in the field, the larger that it is. With 9 rivals, he could easily win. With 3 or 4 maybe not, though New Hampshire is an uncommon lot.

But, the linked post talks about “gaining momentum” in New Hampshire, which would seem not as likely given Paul’s distinctive foreign policy views, which many Republicans will regard as dangerous. But, what is interesting to me is how the conventional media would respond: Would they be aroused and infatuated with the idea of an ant-war candidate knocking The Republican Party off balance, which a strong Ron Paul showing certainly would do?

But, if they are so diverted, they might to some extent overlook the unprecedented threat that a president Ron Paul would pose to the gargantuan and expensive status quo of their precious federal bureaucracy. If they think Ronald Reagan was a threat to government activism, they ain’t seen nothin’. Ronald Reagan was an American romantic who voted 4 times for FDR, before he came to see runaway government growth and flaccid defense as a threat to the country he loved.

Ron Paul is pro-life (he sees Roe v. Wade as another outrageous contra-constitutional government presumption), but he is no mere romantic sentimentalist. He is and always has been a by-the-book intellectual constitutionalist libertarian. Ron Paul served in The Air Force. He believes that activist foreign interventionism is counter-productive and costs greatly in not only treasure but blood, unnecessarily. But anyone, especially terrorists, who think Paul would be soft on an offense to national security, would be sorely mistaken. Attack America, and you’ll get a more determined response out of no one. Personally, my fear and the reason I’m not supporting Ron Paul, is that he may not grasp the dangers posed by today’s world, to the extent that vulnerability to that provocative attack might make it an unacceptably costly one, in both property and blood. In today’s world, I want every precaution, even preemptive if demonstrably necessary, taken to prevent a calamitous assault on an American city. If hundreds of thousands of people were killed and an American city destroyed when a nuclear device was detonated, Paul would respond decisively. Heck, at that point Hare-Krishnas and PETA members would probably be war-mongers…AFTER they blamed George W. Bush for the attack.

I agree with Paul that The Patriot Act was not scrupulously-enough worded to preclude future potential abuse of constitutional rights. I said when it was enacted that (particularly social and 2nd Amendment) conservatives could expect to have their backs mowed by The Patriot Act in the future. But, scrupulously defined as it can be, every possible precaution should be taken to preclude any such unprecedented calamity on our soil. Plainly, Islamic terrorists have more against us than our presence in The Middle East. We are infidels that technology puts within arm’s length. Our presence in The Middle East is an additional, not a solitary irritant. I also question the morality of a strict indifferent isolationism in the world of today’s technology of travel, communication, and destruction.

I feel very positive about the character and sincerity of Mike Huckabee. I feel strongly that his disposition is what America sorely needs. But, I never thought I’d get within a dream of an American chief executive as conscientious about liberty and The Constitution as Ron Paul. That dream would be augmented by the hope that intelligence and military would keep it crystal clear to a President Paul, what dangers are posed in the world and what steps needed to maintain American security and defend against brutal inhumanity. America founding document recognized the value of “all men.”


No comments: