Part 2...
I have a few suggestions on how to alter our consistently foolish policy in Iraq. Instead of hiding behind Wilson’s utopianism of making the world safe for democracy, let’s try a new approach:
* The internal affairs and the need for nation building in Iraq are none of our business.
* Our goal in international affairs ought to be to promote liberty and the private-property/free-market order – through persuasion and example, and never by force of arms, clandestine changes, or preemptive war.
* We should give up our obsession with democracy, both for ourselves and others, since the dictatorship of the majority is just as destructive to a minority, especially individual liberty, as a single Saddam Hussein-like tyrant. (Does anyone really believe the Shiite majority can possibly rule fairly over the Sunnis and the Kurds?)
* A representative republic, loosely held together with autonomy for each state or province, is the only hope in a situation like this. But since we have systematically destroyed that form of government here in the United States, we can’t possibly be the ones who will impose this system on a foreign and very different land 6,000 miles away – no matter how many bombs we drop or people we kill. This type of change can come only with a change in philosophy, and an understanding of the true nature of liberty. It must be an intellectual adventure, not a military crusade. If for no other reason, Congress must soon realize that we no longer can afford to maintain an empire circling the globe. It’s a Sisyphean task to rebuild the Iraq we helped to destroy while our financial problems mount here at home. The American people eventually will rebel and demand that all job and social programs start at home before we waste billions more in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other forlorn lands around the world.
* The Constitution places restraints on Congress and the executive branch, so as not to wage war casually and without proper declaration. It provides no authority to spend money or lives to spread our political message around the world. A strict adherence to the rule of law and the Constitution would bring an immediate halt to our ill-advised experiment in assuming the role of world policeman. We have been told that our effort in Iraq has been worth the 500-plus lives lost and the thousands wounded. I disagree – with great sadness for the families who have lost so much, and with so little hope for a good peace – I can only say, I disagree and hope I’m wrong.
Fighting Terrorism With Big Government – A Convenience or Necessity? Fighting terrorism is a top concern for most Americans. It is understandable, knowing how vulnerable we now are to an attack by our enemies. But striking out against the liberties of all Americans, with the Patriot Act, the FBI, or Guantanamo-type justice will hardly address the problem. Liberty cannot be enhanced by undermining liberty! It is never necessary to sacrifice liberty to preserve it. It’s tempting to sacrifice liberty for safety, and that is the argument used all too often by the politicians seeking more power. But even that is not true. History shows that a strong desire for safety over liberty usually results in less of both. But that does not mean we should ignore the past attacks or the threat of future attacks that our enemies might unleash. First, fighting terrorism is a cliché. Terrorism is a technique or a process, and if not properly defined, the solutions will be hard to find. Terrorism is more properly defined as an attack by a guerrilla warrior who picks the time and place of the attack because he cannot match the enemy with conventional weapons. With too broad a definition of terrorism, the temptation will be to relinquish too much liberty, being fearful that behind every door and in every suitcase lurks a terrorist-planted bomb. Narrowing the definition of terrorism and recognizing why some become enemies is crucial. Understanding how maximum security is achieved in a free society is vital. We have been told that the terrorists hate us for our wealth, our freedom, and our goodness. This war cannot be won if that belief prevails.
When the definition of terrorism is vague and the enemy pervasive throughout the world, the neo-conservatives – who want to bring about various regime changes for other reasons – conveniently latch onto these threats and use them as the excuse and justification for our expanding military presence throughout the Middle East and the Caspian Sea region. This is something they have been anxious to do all along. Already, plans are being laid by neo-conservative leaders to further expand our occupations to many other countries, from Central America and Africa to Korea. Whether it’s invading Iraq, threatening North Korea, or bullying Venezuela or even Russia, it’s now popular to play the terrorist card. Just mention terrorism and the American people are expected to grovel and allow the war hawks to do whatever they want to do. This is a very dangerous attitude. One would think that, with the shortcomings of the Iraqi occupation becoming more obvious every day, more Americans would question our flagrant and aggressive policy of empire building. The American people were frightened into supporting this war because they were told that Iraq had: “25,000 liters of anthrax; 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve gas; significant quantities of refined uranium; and special aluminum tubes used in developing nuclear weapons.” The fact that none of this huge amount of material was found, and the fact that David Kay resigned from heading up the inspection team saying none will be found, doesn’t pacify the instigators of this policy of folly. They merely look forward to the next regime change as they eye their list of potential targets. And they argue with conviction that the 500-plus lives lost were worth it. Attacking a perceived enemy who had few weapons, who did not aggress against us, and who never posed a threat to us does nothing to help eliminate the threat of terrorist attacks. If anything, deposing an Arab Muslim leader – even a bad one – incites more hatred toward us, certainly not less. This is made worse if our justification for the invasion was in error. It is safe to say that in time we’ll come to realize that our invasion has made us less safe, and has served as a grand recruiting tool for the many militant Muslim groups that want us out of their countries – including the majority of those Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the entire Middle East. Because of the nature of the war in which we find ourselves, catching Saddam Hussein, or even killing Osama bin Laden, are almost irrelevant. They may well simply become martyrs to their cause and incite even greater hatred toward us.
There are a few things we must understand if we ever expect this war to end.
First: The large majority, especially all the militant Muslims, see us as invaders, occupiers, and crusaders. We have gone a long way from home and killed a lot of people, and none of them believe it’s to spread our goodness. Whether or not some supporters of this policy of intervention are sincere in bringing democracy and justice to this region, it just doesn’t matter – few over there believe us.
Second: This war started a long time before 9-11. That attack was just the most dramatic event of the war so far. The Arabs have fought Western crusaders for centuries, and they have not yet forgotten the European Crusades centuries ago. Our involvement has been going on, to some degree, since World War II, but was dramatically accelerated in 1991 with the first Persian Gulf invasion along with the collapse of the Soviet system. Placing U.S. troops on what is considered Muslim holy land in Saudi Arabia was pouring salt in the wounds of this already existing hatred. We belatedly realized this and have removed these troops.
Third: If these facts are ignored, there’s no chance that the United States–led Western occupation of the oil-rich Middle East can succeed (70% of the world’s oil is in the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea regions). Without a better understanding of the history of this region, it’s not even possible to define the enemy, know why they fight, or understand the difference between guerilla warrior attacks and vague sinister forces of terrorism. The pain of recognizing that the ongoing war is an example of what the CIA calls blowback and an unintended consequence of our foreign policy is a great roadblock to ever ending the war.
Judicial Review: Respect for the original intent of the Constitution is low in Washington. It’s so low, it’s virtually non-existent. This causes many foolish inconsistencies in our federal courts. The Constitution, we have been told, is a living, evolving document and it’s no longer necessary to change it in the proper fashion. That method is too slow and cumbersome, it is claimed. While we amended it to institute alcohol prohibition, the federal drug prohibition is accomplished by majority vote of the U.S. Congress. Wars are not declared by Congress, but pursued by Executive Order to enforce UN Resolutions. The debate of the pros and cons of the war come afterward – usually following the war’s failure – in the political arena, rather than before with the proper debate on a declaration of war resolution. Laws are routinely written by un-elected bureaucrats, with themselves becoming the judicial and enforcement authority. Little desire is expressed in Congress to alter this monster that creates thousands of pages each year in the Federal Register. Even the nearly 100,000 bureaucrats who now carry guns stir little controversy. For decades, Executive Orders have been arrogantly used to write laws to circumvent a plodding or disagreeable Congress. This attitude was best described by a Clinton presidential aide who bragged: “…stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool!” This is quite a testimonial to the rule of law and constitutional restraint on government power. The courts are no better than the executive or legislative branches in limiting the unconstitutional expansion of the federal monolith. Members of Congress, including committee chairmen, downplay my concern that proposed legislation is unconstitutional by insisting that the courts are the ones to make such weighty decisions, not mere Members of Congress. This was an informal argument made by House leadership on the floor during the debate on campaign finance reform. In essence, they said “We know it’s bad, but we’ll let the courts clean it up.” And look what happened! The courts did not save us from ourselves.
Something must be done, however, if we expect to rein in our ever-growing and intrusive government. Instead of depending on the courts to rule favorably, when Congress and the executive branch go astray, we must curtail the courts when they overstep their authority by writing laws, rubber-stamping bad legislation, or overruling state laws. Hopefully in the future we will have a Congress more cognizant of its responsibility to legislate within the confines of the Constitution. There is something Congress, by majority vote, can do to empower the states to deal with their First Amendment issues. It’s clear that Congress has been instructed to write no laws regarding freedom of speech, religion, or assembly. This obviously means that federal courts have no authority to do so either. Therefore, the remaining option is for Congress to specifically remove jurisdiction of all First Amendment controversies from all federal courts, including the Supreme Court. Issues dealing with prayer, the Ten Commandments, religious symbols or clothing, and songs, even the issue of abortion, are properly left as a prerogative of the states. A giant step in this direction could be achieved with the passage my proposed legislation, the We the People Act.
Conclusion: Emerson’s real attack was on intellectual conformity without a willingness to entertain new ideas based on newly acquired facts. This is what he referred to as the foolish consistency. The greatest open-minded idea I’m aware of is to know that one does not know what is best for others, whether it’s in economic, social, or moral policy, or in the affairs of other nations. Believing one knows what is best for others represents the greatest example of a closed mind. Friedrich Hayek referred to this as a pretense of knowledge. Governments are no more capable of running an economy made fair for everyone than they are of telling the individual what is best for their spiritual salvation. There are a thousand things in between that the busybody politicians, bureaucrats, and judges believe they know and yet do not. Sadly our citizens have become dependent on government for nearly everything from cradle to grave, and look to government for all guidance and security.
Continuously ignoring Emerson’s advice on self-reliance is indeed a foolish consistency which most of the politicians now in charge of the militant nanny state follow. And it’s an armed state, domestic as well as foreign. Our armies tell the Arab world what’s best for them, while the armed bureaucrats at home harass our own people into submission and obedience to every law and regulation, most of which are incomprehensible to the average citizen. Ask three IRS agents for an interpretation of the tax code and you will get three different answers. Ask three experts in the Justice Department to interpret the anti-trust laws, and you will get three different answers. First they’ll tell you it’s illegal to sell too low, then they’ll tell you it’s illegal to sell too high, and it’s certainly illegal if everybody sold products at the same price. All three positions can get you into plenty of trouble and blamed for first, undermining competition, second, for having too much control and gouging the public, and third, for engaging in collusion. The people can’t win.
Real knowledge is to know what one does not know. The only society that recognizes this fact and understands how productive enterprise is generated is a free society, unencumbered with false notions of grandeur. It is this society that generates true tolerance and respect for others. Self-reliance and creativity blossom in a free society. This does not mean anarchy, chaos, or libertine behavior. Truly, only a moral society can adapt to personal liberty. Some basic rules must be followed and can be enforced by government – most suitably by local and small government entities. Honoring all voluntary contractual arrangements, social and economic, protection of all life, and established standards for private property ownership are the three principles required for a free society to remain civilized. Depending on the culture, the government could be the family, the tribe, or some regional or state entity.
The freedom philosophy is based on the humility that we are not omnipotent, but also the confidence that true liberty generates the most practical solution to all our problems, whether they are economic, domestic security, or national defense. Short of this, any other system generates authoritarianism that grows with each policy failure and eventually leads to a national bankruptcy. It was this end, not our military budget, which brought the Soviets to their knees.
A system of liberty allows for the individual to be creative, productive, or spiritual on one’s own terms, and encourages excellence and virtue. All forms of authoritarianism only exist at the expense of liberty. Yet the humanitarian do-gooders claim to strive for these very same goals. To understand the difference is crucial to the survival of a free society.
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas. |
