Evaluation of Ron Paul

Like many people, when I first heard about Congressman Ron Paul (Texas’ 14^th District) running for President, I was all for it. At the time, he seemed to be the perfect candidate – in favor of small government, wanted to reduce spending and taxes, had a lot of government experience, and from his publications, he sounded very Pro-Life.

My opinion has changed.

While some of those things are, in fact, true statements (Dr. Paul is in favor of small government, less taxes, and less spending), some of the most important reasons that I liked him as a candidate do not hold water.

Spending

First, while he does want to reduce spending, he doesn't have a practical, realistic way to achieve that. Instead, he plans to simply eliminate a lot of the departments, without looking at the huge ramifications of his actions. Just look at a few of the things he would try to shut down:

- The Internal Revenue Service

- Department of Education

- Department of Homeland Security

- Energy

- FEMA

- Interstate Commerce Commission

- The U.N.

- NATO

- NAFTA

- WTO

Whether or not these organizations are useful is not the question. The question is whether or not he has a practical way to achieve reduced spending. Simply wiping out all of those organizations without regard to the consequences would severely damage the country by suddenly eliminating a lot of the things that our country has come to rely on.

On another note, consider for a moment the sheer number of people that are employed by these organizations. While some use its size as an argument for eliminating all these departments and agencies, don’t forget that just eliminating the domestic agencies on that list puts over 270,000 people out of work.

Diplomacy/Foreign Policy

Also, consider if you will, the diplomatic problems that leaving all of these international organizations would cause. Whether or not we should have joined NATO or the U.N. is not the point here. The point is that within those organizations, we are safeguarded against foreign control by those treaties and charters (which say that any actions must be approved through our Constitutional methods first). However, if Congressman Paul had any idea of how diplomacy worked, he would know that leaving those organizations would send the worst possible message to foreign nations about the United States. It would send the message to the world that the United States, while committed to its allies in the past, was no longer interested in partnerships.

In the words of Elizabeth Jones, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, before the House International Relations Committee: “NATO remains the cornerstone of transatlantic security. In the aftermath of September 11th, Allies invoked NATO’s Article 5 collective defense commitment for the first time in history. Our Allies have provided invaluable support to the anti-terrorist effort.”

Dr. Paul, however, would be eliminating this “cornerstone” of security, among other international organizations that, while they might not all increase security directly, do in fact bring the United States closer to other nations as a friends. He seems to have no concept of how the world is interconnected, and how nations in this age must have global partners in order to have security.

The issue of Iraq is another long subject, so I will not be addressing it in this post, but will write about it some other time.

Abortion

While I believe that Congressman Paul’s foreign policies and spending policies (or lack thereof) would be far too extreme, they aren’t the main reasons that I would not support him. His “social policy” is probably the worst thing that I’ve seen yet. In keeping with his idea of being a “strict Constitutionalist,” Dr. Paul would do nothing to stop abortion and to guarantee the right to life.

Ron Paul calls himself Pro-Life. However, his campaign speeches today contradict what his position has been in Congress for years. His view on abortion is that the federal government has no place in that issue. He calls it a “social policy” and says it should be left up to the states.

I am very Pro-Life. I believe that life begins at conception. This means that an unborn child is as much a human being as you are right now. They should have the same rights of Life and Liberty as you and I. If this is true, then the federal government has the same obligation to protect unborn babies as it does to say that murder is illegal.

Ron Paul believes otherwise. Rather than believing that unborn children are as valuable as any one of us, Dr. Paul apparently doesn’t think that abortion is murder. He said on January 31, 2006:

“Abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion.” (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html)

Not a word? How about Amendment 14?

“Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Due process of law? What crimes have the unborn committed? Congressman Paul may call himself Pro-Life. But if he were Pro-Life in principle and not just campaign speeches, then he would consider the unborn to be protected under the 14^th Amendment along with every other person in the United States.

The question that really hammered this home for me is simple: If Ron Paul wouldn’t do anything to protect the unborn, what makes him different from anyone that doesn’t claim to be Pro-Life?

Nothing.