Dr. No: Ron Paul on the rise

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

By Bob Stuart

Jackson Hole, Wyoming - For months, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul was considered little more than the darling of the Internet fringe. His zealous web-based supporters were even accused of spamming whenever he won online debate polls.

But that changed on Nov. 5, when more than 35,000 people ponied up $4.3 million to the Ron Paul campaign. Recent appearances on Jay Leno and “Face the Nation” have reinforced his presence in the election. “GQ” magazine just named him one of its “Men of the Year”

Paul, a physician who has delivered over 4,000 babies, earned the nickname “Dr. No” for his consistent and often solitary voting record opposing any measure that violated the letter of the Constitution during his 10 terms in Congress. He continues to stand alone as the only anti-war, small-government Republican running for president.

That appeals to local Ron Paul meet-up group member Lance Ripplinger who said, “I am voting for Dr. Paul because he votes Constitutionally every time.” Wyoming’s libertarian base had a chance to meet Paul during a Cheyenne visit and fundraiser in late October.

While critics label him “isolationist,” the Texas Republican’s Jeffersonian message of peaceful relations with all nations and entangling alliances with none resonates with Teton County Citizens for Ron Paul member Shepard Humphries. “I only wish Thomas Jefferson were alive today to endorse Ron Paul,” he said. Paul’s supporters span the political spectrum from the anti-war left to small-government conservatives and libertarians (he ran for president on the Libertarian ticket in 1988).

Campaign Spokesman Jesse Benton said the Paul camp expects to raise more than $12 million this quarter. Turning that financial support into votes is the challenge, but while Paul is still considered a long shot to win the Republican nomination, he is climbing in the polls.

So, what are Ron Paul’s chances for the Republican nomination? He admits that 12 months ago they were slim, but given his growing support, he told to Jay Leno with a wry grin, “There’s a risk I could win.”

In late November, after Paul’s Cheyenne stop, he reached out to more Wyoming voters when he responded to a dozen questions about his campaign and the issues with a Planet contributor via email.


Planet Jackson Hole: You’re known as a Constitutionalist. Can you define that, and why is it important?
Ron Paul: The founding fathers of this country believed, as I do, that the purpose of government is to secure the life, liberty, and property of its citizens. Having just fought a war of independence against a tyrannical government, they recognized that unchecked government was the primary threat to these rights and went out of there way to provide firm limits on political power. In establishing our republic, the founders provided for the separation of governmental powers into different levels and branches, set up institutional checks and balances between these divisions of government, instituted democratic decision-making processes and elections and, most importantly, established a written constitution that clearly enumerated and limited the powers granted to the central government. The duty to protect these basic natural rights transcends political pressures and popular passions. For this reason, the limits and procedures laid out in the Constitution must always be honored in all of the government’s actions. The duty to defend and abide by constitutional constraints belongs to all individuals acting in a governmental capacity. The members of Congress, the President, and our armed forces, swear an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution and they have no excuse for shirking this responsibility. As the framers intended, I use my best judgment and understanding of the text to determine the constitutionality of a bill or motion before I cast any vote in congress.

PJH: Why are you opposed to the Iraq war?
RP: By the laws of the United States, the war in Iraq is illegal. The Constitution gives Congress, and only Congress, the power to declare war. The current administration involved us in the present war without the clear assent and declaration of the legislature and thus further damaged the checks  and balances of our system and violated the Constitution. Also, in terms of practical domestic concerns, the war is hurting American liberty. Randolph Bourne said, “War is the health of the state.” War necessarily means more power is given to the government and this additional power always results in a loss of liberty. Many of the worst government programs of the 20th century began during wartime “emergencies” and were never abolished. War and Big Government go hand in hand. So far the war has compounded our $9 trillion debt, with no end to the spending in sight. Moreover, the war is hurting our relationships abroad. Diplomatically, the war has been a disaster for our relations with other countries, including our allies. Justified or unjustified, the war in Iraq is winning us few friends in the Middle East and decreasing the security of the American people. And finally, we just can’t afford it. By the end of the year, we will have spent $800 billion in Iraq, while borrowing $3 billion a day from countries like China to pay for it. We are going broke financing this war, and leaving the bills for our children.

PJH: The Bush administration is threatening Iran with military strikes if they don’t abandon their nuclear ambitions. You consider this unwise. Why?
RP: I believe that preemptive war is immoral. Military force is justified only in self-defense. America is the most moral nation on Earth, founded on moral principles, and we must apply moral principles when deciding to use military force. Iran does not pose a threat to us. They do not have a nuclear bomb, and to think that even if they got one they could threaten us is folly. If Iran attacked us, we could wipe them off the face of the Earth. When I was drafted in 1962 during the Cuban missile crisis, we stood down the Soviet Union and their 40,000 nuclear weapons. We have not exhausted all peaceful venues with Iran, but have acted as if we are above diplomacy and dialogue. How would we have fared in the Cold War if President Reagan had not talked with our enemies?

PJH: You favor an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. How do you answer critics who claim an immediate withdrawal would lead to chaos and bloodshed?
RP: I am a medical doctor. If I misdiagnose a patient, I do not continue with the same medicine, I change course. If it was wrong to go in, it is wrong to stay. There’s already chaos and bloodshed. There has been chaos and bloodshed throughout our entire occupation of Iraq. Our troops are now stuck in the middle of an ethnic conflict that has lasted for a thousand years. Every day we are there, our presence is used to recruit new insurgents and terrorists. Yet Washington is stuck on a “wait-and-see” approach, which only motivates the insurgents to expedite the killing of our soldiers in order to influence their decision. On the other hand, a clear decision to withdraw from Iraq would prompt a “wait-and-see” attitude in Iraq, enacting a de facto cease-fire in anticipation of our withdrawal. This would provide a perfect opportunity for the Iraqi factions to hold fire on one another and on our troops, and possibly begin dialogue.

PJH: You speak critically of the “American Empire.” What do you mean by that, and why is it dangerous?
RP: When I reflect on Washington and Jefferson’s warnings against “entangling alliances” with foreign countries, I wonder if they could have even fathomed that today we would have troops stationed in over 130 countries worldwide. This is what I mean by the American Empire. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America, and our real national security is at risk. Our young men and women fear that they will be stripped of their lives and opportunities by another draft. We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. The Constitution requires that no war ever be fought without a declaration voted upon by the Congress, and under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected body, such as the United Nations. We need to return to a non-interventionist foreign policy, of which our Founding Fathers spoke. Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. We have frequently mistakenly supported those who later turned on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price. However, we must not isolate ourselves from the global community. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations – not an imperial America, policing the globe with military might.

PJH: What are the gravest dangers facing the U.S.?
RP: Our economic stability is endangered by war and irresponsible government spending. As a nation, we are $9 trillion in debt, a figure which our children and grandchildren will shoulder if we don’t do something now to drastically curb government spending. This means changing both our foreign and domestic policy to spend within our means.

PJH: What is fundamentally wrong with our monetary system? What are the results? What would you do to remedy it?
RP: Today, we have a rapidly devaluing currency, which is backed by nothing. The Federal Reserve prints money out of thin air to fund projects it cannot otherwise pay for, and makes every dollar in your wallet less valuable with every one it prints. The fundamental problem with our money is that the monetary system is monopolized by the government. The monopoly on money allows the government to replace commodity based currency – money backed by physical goods like silver and gold – with fiat currency, money based on government promises and legal tender laws that require its acceptance for payment of debts. All paper currencies are vulnerable to collapse, and history is replete with examples of great suffering caused by such collapses, especially to a nation’s poor and middle class. This leads to political turmoil.

Even before a currency collapse occurs, the damage done by a fiat system is significant. The primary downside of fiat money is the almost irresistible temptation for the government to inflate the money supply and debase the value of money. Inflation allows the government to finance some of its expenditures through a hidden “inflation tax” by debasing the value of money held by individuals and transferring this value to the government and other privileged groups with access to the new dollars that have been conjured “out of thin air.” Inflation distorts the price signals that investors and entrepreneurs use to make decisions, in this way causing the business cycles, depressions, and recessions. Government controlled money is a terrible idea for the same reasons that socialized agriculture or industry is inefficient, irrational and unjust.

I propose abolishing the Federal Reserve, the primary agent of inflation, and thereby halting the creation of new money and the manipulation of the money supply. I want to remove the restrictions like special taxes and legal tender laws that keep alternative forms of money like gold and silver from competing on a level playing field with government issued notes.

PJH: You favor abolishing the IRS and the income tax. How is this feasible, and where would government revenues come from?
RP: Over half of federal government revenue comes from sources other than the personal income tax. The majority comes from sources like corporate taxes, tariffs and fees. We’ve also seen a tremendous explosion in government spending. We could eliminate the personal income tax and fund the level of big government we had less than 10 years ago. I would focus on cutting government spending, particularly the hundreds of billions of dollars we spend overseas.

PJH: Health care costs are skyrocketing. Millions of Americans are without health insurance. How would you address this issue?
RP: I started practicing medicine in the 1960s, before government got involved, so I have seen first-hand how our healthcare system has eroded. In order to solve the healthcare crisis, we need to end this federally managed disaster and put in place measures to reinstall a real free market in health care where doctors and patients are in charge instead of HMOs, corporations and other third parties. In order to do this, I want to make all medical expenses tax-deductible for American citizens, and eliminate federal regulations which have discouraged small businesses from providing health care coverage. Additionally, I want to empower doctors to collectively negotiate with insurance companies to drive down the cost of medical care for their patients, and I will reform licensing requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and lower costs for Americans. Furthermore, I would make every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and remove the requirement of obtaining a high-deductible insurance policy before opening one. These steps will allow us to make real progress in removing federal regulations, encouraging competition, and presenting real choices, thus allowing us to make our health care system the envy of the world once again.

PJH: Illegal immigration is a contentious issue in Jackson and America. How did we get here, and what is the solution?
RP: Unsecured borders, amnesty, birthright citizenship and lax visa monitoring have facilitated our illegal immigration crisis, and it is time to stop the problem in its tracks. This first requires physically securing our borders and coastlines, to adequately control entry into our country. Second, it is imperative to enforce our current visa rules, making our immigration officials do nothing short of their job to track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays his or her visa or violates any other US law. I cannot stress how important this is, given that several of the 9/11 terrorists were traveling on expired visas. Furthermore, with 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants currently within our borders, we must staunchly oppose amnesty, welfare for illegal aliens, and birthright citizenship. They pose an undue economic burden on American citizens, who already pay an exorbitant amount of taxes to fund their hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services. Allowing others who have not paid into the system to receive such benefits is completely unfair to taxpayers, and amnesty would only increase an already unsustainable tax burden and severely thwart American productivity and prosperity.

Furthermore, birthright citizenship provides incentives to enter the U.S. illegally, since illegal immigrants know that their children born here will be citizens. Only when we employ these guidelines can we then pursue true immigration reform – a necessity given the current system’s incomprehensibility, inconsistency and unfairness. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods, instead of institutionally privileging immigrants from one country over another.

PJH: You’ve been called a maverick within the Republican party. Why are the other candidates wrong, and how can you rally the party to your side?
RP: I’m continually confused by this, but not off-put. The most Republican men I have known and supported – Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan – were plagued by the same sort of criticism, but no one can look back at them and say they weren’t true Republicans today. President Reagan is still known as “the Great Communicator” and didn’t threaten war indiscriminately as others in my party have recently done.

Dialogue and commerce got us through the Cold War, and I cannot wrap my head around why others are unwilling to rigorously pursue the peaceful path and instead talk about “bombarding” Iran when they’ve never even spoken with the Iranians! Or those who say that we “just can’t talk” with some people, and throw diplomacy out the window. I think Americans want a president who will exhaust all peaceful and diplomatic venues before rashly bringing us into another war. So on the foreign policy front, I think my opponents are dead wrong. I also think the other candidates are wrong on domestic economic issues, and do not understand the virtues of the free market and sound monetary policies. The federal government is spending us into ruin and the dollar is rapidly devaluing, and it’s time we just said “stop!” and whipped the economy back into shape. I’m the only one with a plan for bringing the troops home, pursuing a foreign policy of peace, cutting spending, lowering taxes, and encouraging American prosperity. My message of freedom, peace and prosperity is already bringing the party together, from the grassroots on up.

PJH: What is your vision for America? What are your chances of winning the Republican nomination?
RP: My vision for America is what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they endeavored to unite a disparate people under a common banner of liberty: a nation of limited, constitutional government that preserved the individual liberties of each American. A country that believed in “peace, commerce and honest friendship,” as Jefferson said, and “entangling alliances with none.” Under a Paul administration, Americans would wake up to a world where the government would be out of their bedrooms, telephones, wallets, schools and churches. They would find in place a federal government that respected and upheld the Constitution and states’ rights, and truly served the people and their interests. I won’t accept anything short of a return to limited constitutional government, taxes as low as possible for every American, free markets and sound monetary policies.

As for my chances of winning – well, at the rate things are going, we may surprise everyone come February!

Illustration by Mike Weber

PERMALINK:
Dr. No: Ron Paul on the rise | Planet JH News Article: Cover Stories

Leave a Comment