From Sound Politics: RON PAUL VS. RONALD REAGAN
February 02, 2008
Congressman Ron Paul, along with supporters of his presidential campaign, makes the claim that his isolationist foreign policy represents a return to genuine conservative tradition and constitutional principles.
Jonah Goldberg's recent National Review article ("The Tradition of Ron Paul," 12/17/07) suggested important arguments to the contrary, and inspired me to add my own observations.
I recalled Ron Paul's Libertarian Party presidential campaign of 1988, in which he was sharply critical of the Reagan foreign policy. Paul ran in opposition to Vice-President George H. W. Bush, who campaigned on the results of that Reagan policy, and promised to continue it.
Two years after leaving Congress in 1985, and a year before his 1988 presidential effort, Paul authored the book Freedom Under Siege - The U.S. Constitution After 200 Years (Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, 1987). In this volume of 161 pages, he covered a wide range of policy issues, advancing views largely similar to those he is advocating twenty years later. The publication is available online at
dailypaul.com
I concern myself primarily with his specific criticisms of the Reagan administration foreign policy.
In language indistinguishable from that of leftist and liberal critics of the Reagan administration, Paul argues that the U.S. efforts in Korea and Vietnam were unjustified, counterproductive, and that the supposed folly of an internationalist policy was revealed in the fruits of the Reagan presidency's foreign policy efforts:
"Our role as international police became an accepted fact when the policy of internationalism, enhanced by our United Nations membership, involved us in Korea and Vietnam as the result of treaty obligations. This policy ignored and denied the rights to life and liberty of the young men who were maimed or tragically killed. The Korean and Vietnam Wars were conducted without even asking for congressional approval.
"The policy of compulsive meddling worldwide has created nothing but trouble and confusion for America. The most recent scandal, involving weapons to Iran for the release of hostages and the secret and illegal funding of the Contras in Nicaragua, is a perfect example of how foolish the policy of interventionism can be." (p. 49)
Whatever one may think of the particulars of the Iran-Contra events, Paul is wrong in suggesting that our overall interventionist policy directed against communism could only end badly - could only lead to "trouble and confusion." In the end the Reagan policy was successful in bringing down communism. Not a troubling or confusing result, not a bad result at all, and the overall policy was far more important than any tactical or diplomatic errors made in carrying out that policy. Further, at the very least strong case can be made that our interventionist, internationalist policy against communism has much to teach us about how to battle the current threat of Islamic fascism.
Paul goes on to excoriate not only the results of the Reagan policy, but its intentions:
"Our announced policy toward the Iran-Iraq War is one of neutrality. But now we find, and it really should be to no one's surprise, that we have been aiding both Iraq and Iran. Our government leaders maneuver continuously to remain in a position of influence, regardless of which faction controls a foreign nation, friend or foe, so that the interests of the bankers and certain industrialists will be served." (p. 49)
Like the far left antiwar activists of the 1960s and 1970s, the Ron Paul of 1988 and the Ron Paul "revolution" of 2008 see at the root of American foreign policy "the interests of bankers and certain industrialists." Such short-sighted and erroneous views have little in common with the national defense goals and principles of the Reagan presidency. (I myself know something about the antiwar left of the 1960s and 1970s, having been a socialist in those days - but I left the socialist movement in 1990, beginning a slow evolution, first becoming a Democrat and eventually a Republican in 2004 at the age of 52 - which I believe is the same age Ronald Reagan switched parties.)
Paul goes on to criticize Reagan's intervention in Grenada, saying:
"The American people, unfortunately, could not see that both actions were the result of the same flawed policy.... The Grenada invasion was heralded as a great triumph and applauded by the vast majority of American people.... Worst of all, and typical of our tragic foreign policy - in the midst of the Grenada invasion designed to make the world safe for democracy by stopping the spread of communism - President Reagan, behind the scenes, was forcefully lobbying for specific aid to 'Communist-dictators' through additional IMF funding. The invasion of Grenada is hardly the victory the American people were led to believe." (p. 50-51)
On superficial glance, the intervention in Grenada might fairly be considered a relatively peripheral part of the entire battle against communism during the Cold War, but in retrospect it was part of a very important foreign policy objective - that of blocking communism's advance in the Americas.
Whether dealing with communism or Islamic radicalism, Paul took the same wrong-headed approach that he does today:
"The U.S. policy toward Libya further confirms our irrational foreign policy. Under Reagan we have been determined to pick a fight with Khadafi, defying him with naval and air maneuvers in the Gulf of Sidra. As we try to emphasize our right to navigate in international waters near Libya, we totally reject the territorial waters of Nicaragua by mining their harbors. The World Court rulings against the U.S. were ignored by the Reagan Administration...." (p. 51-52)
Who is more in the "tradition" of the Reagan foreign policy - George W. Bush, whose strong action in liberating Iraq and destroying the Saddam Hussein dictatorship finally pushed Libya into retreat - or Ron Paul, who complained sixteen years earlier of how the Reagan administration was "defying" Libya?
Reagan was not the only president with an internationalist and interventionist foreign policy to be sure, but he was the best, most consistent, and most effective. But Paul tries to tie it up all neatly - he summarizes his view that an interventionist foreign policy does not actually advance national security, and that "international bankers and businessmen" exaggerate events in distant countries with cynical warlike intentions:
"Politically, U.S. intervention is justified by claiming it aids American security. But rarely can we see how the foreign activities are of any benefit to the American taxpayers. The Vietnam conflict was lost and yet we are on better terms than ever with the Vietnamese. Castro's thirty-year hold on Cuba has not yet directly affected American security. A plausible argument could be made for our not wanting a Soviet puppet state ninety miles from our shores, but how can an airbase in Grenada or Nicaragua be any more threatening? Our involvement in the four corners of the earth cannot be legitimately justified as necessary for national security. Most Americans do not have the foggiest idea where Chad or Mozambique are located, nor do they see their political system as crucial to our own security. What is done in the name of national security is a disgrace, and the worst kind of disinformation conceivable....
"This has been the attitude of most of the Presidents during this century, with the possible exceptions of Coolidge and Hoover. Is it any wonder that we are so involved throughout the world? The truth is that our worldwide involvement is unrelated to national security in the strict sense, but rather is a result of a policy of intervention and acceptance of the notion that the military follows U.S. economic interests, providing protection for our international bankers and businessmen." (p. 57)
Paul's 1988 references to Cuba, minimizing the threat posed to the United States, presage similar comments he made (to raucous and angry boos) in the December 9 GOP presidential candidates debate at the University of Miami:
"Actually, I believe we're at a time where we even ought to talk to Cuba and trade and travel to Cuba. But let me you why we have a problem in South America and Central America: because we've been involved in their internal affairs for so long. We have been meddling in their business. We create the Chavezes of the world, we create the Castros of the world by interfering and creating chaos in their countries...." (from the Wall Street Journal online transcription of the debate at
online.wsj.com
Was the spread of communism into Eastern Europe, and then into China, and then into the Americas no threat to American security? Was the rollback of communism in Eastern Europe and its retreat elsewhere (all a result of the Reagan policy) not an advance for American security?
The most ominous and ironic of Paul's 1988 statements, however, is his reference to Chad and Mozambique, examples of countries which "most Americans" couldn't find on a map, examples of countries which "most Americans" presumably therefore considered of little consequence, of no conceivable importance, and certainly no possible threat to American security.
To be sure, many Americans are geographically and geopolitically challenged, and this sometimes leads them to make naive assumptions and inferences about the seriousness of threats and the degree of our own safety. This is true, unfortunately, even after 9/11, even in today's world.
President Reagan wisely once told us:
"If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly. We see around us today the marks of our terrible dilemma - predictions of doomsday, antinuclear demonstrations, an arms race in which the West must, for its own protection, be an unwilling participant. At the same time we see totalitarian forces in the world who seek subversion and conflict around the globe to further their barbarous assault on the human spirit." (speech to the British House of Commons, June 8, 1982)
The foreign policy advocated by the current Ron Paul presidential campaign offers little that is different than the foreign policy advocated by leftist and liberal opponents of America's aims. Just as surely as that advanced by its left counterparts, the Ron Paul policy would leave us disarmed, off balance, and vulnerable before our enemies. And, in any case, it certainly bears little resemblance to the successful foreign policy of the Reagan years.
Posted by BerenForCongress at February 02, 2008 04:25 PM | Email This
soundpolitics.com
KLP Note: …There are some most interesting comments to the comment above found at the link, from others as well as from the author, Steve Beren.
|
