I watched a few interviews with Ron Paul after last Tuesday’s debate on FOX News. One noted that some want future debates restricted, and questioned whether Paul should participate as the lone Republican who opposes action in Iraq. Now, let me be clear that I’m not confident, as Paul is, that complete non-intervention is responsible in terms of security or morality. But, Paul’s argument is as informed and internally consistent as any other candidate, and probably more so. It is cheap and inaccurate to charge Paul with cowardice or blaming America. Historically, he is right about the blowback of American intervention. The question is what is security and moral prudence, given the state of technology today with regard to weaponry, travel, and communications. But, none of the other candidates is as studied and clear on history and The Constitution as is Paul. As I’ve said, a shallow perspective doesn’t recognize that.
And perhaps even more importantly for Republicans, all candidates need to refine their views relative to Paul’s, and more clearly than with visceral indignation. In case no one has noticed, there is concern about Iraq in the general populace. Leaving aside its origin and justification, Republicans can expect to be hammered with the issue in the general election. The united voice of Republican candidates will leave any nominee less prepared to engage the issue than he would be debating Ron Paul, who’s case is more refined than any that the crop of Democratic candidates will offer. Republicans will have to disarm the attacker with more more intricate tools than a shield of chest-thumping bravado.
Besides all that, he's more educated on social and economic policy, too
Larry
No comments:
Post a Comment