For GOP, the danger of Ron Paul’s consistency
One of the big dangers for the Republican Party in this year’s protracted, fractious primary, is that it has given enormous play to some of the fringe ideas that hover on the edge of the conservative movement.
Ron Paul, the libertarian from Texas, embodies a lot of those, ranging from the abolishing of income taxes to a plan to return the U.S. dollar to the gold standard.
But I think a bigger risk for Republicans is the fact that Paul’s consistent, unwavering message highlights some of the illogic and inherent contradictions within the conservative movement itself, particularly when it comes to taxes, national defense, and foreign policy.
Most GOP leaders have continued to advocate for deep tax cuts, despite persistent deficits and staggering national debt.
They argue that deep cuts to the size and scope of government would allow us to balance the books over time.
But those same leaders have demanded and supported staggering growth in the size of defense and homeland security budgets.
According to one survey of spending since the 9/11 terror attacks, the Pentagon’s budget has grown 43%. Spending on nuclear weapons has grown 21%. And the homeland security budget skyrocketed 301%.
And those tallies exclude the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which total more than a trillion dollars in additional expenditures.
The U.S. now spends more on military preparedness than the next twenty nations in the world combined, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute — and roughly five times as much each year as China, our closest competitor.
There are a lot of good arguments in favor of a strong military.
But it’s very difficult — as Ron Paul points out — to argue that this kind of defense program, and the aggressive foreign policy supported by many conservatives, can be sustained without higher taxes.
It’s also difficult to see how the current global reach of our military jives with the founding fathers’ discomfort with “foreign entanglements” and their aversion to the idea of America growing into a military empire.
As Republicans continue to clamor for tax cuts and for costly new adventures such as a military strike against Iran, Paul’s more consistent narrative will echo in the background.
And at a time when polls show that Americans are particularly weary of war, the GOP might find that for many voters, this particular fringe message has moved to the center.
Tags: analysis, election12, politics
“And at a time when polls show that Americans are particularly weary of war, the GOP might find that for many voters, this particular fringe message has moved to the center.”
We’ve had a president bring Keynesian economics to the center. At least to the center of his governing theory.
I suppose a fringe move from the right might be palatable.
I’ve never understood the appeal of the gold standard. Money is a medium of exchange. Tying a currency to the amount of gold bars piled up in a vault somewhere has nothing to do with a country’s economy unless your primary industry is mining gold. OTOH our stock market doesn’t seem to be too accurate a measure of value either. It goes up and down on whims and rumors, the “irrational exuberance” that Greenspan famously commented on. If there’s a rational way to value currency I’d like to hear it, but I’m confident that the gold standard isn’t it. The gold standard solution is simple but like many simple solutions to complex problems, it’s the wrong solution.
JDM –
No, come on. Seriously. It’s fine to criticize Keynesian economics — that’s fair game. But to suggest that it’s a “fringe” economic theory is just a complete factual non-starter.
Keynesian theories dominated American policy — among Republicans and Democrats — from the 1930s through at least the 1970s.
And even today, politicians and economists across the ideological spectrum use many of his ideas
(It is widely documented that George Bush’s economic team went to the Keynesian playbook in 2008 as the economy was imploding.)
So go to town on disliking the theory. But I’m calling foul on the effort to rewrite history.
-Brian, NCPR
Keynesian economics are not on the fringe considering the US economy has continued to use these principles to some degree since FDR.
It is interesting to hear news reports with interviews of Iowa caucus voters who are saying “too conservative” when referring to some in the GOP field. Is the Tea Party over?
I completely agree with Mr. Paul’s thoughts on the military/industrial/congressional complex as well as his idea of completely dismantling the DEA. Frankly, all these entities survive on the idea of perpetual war. Overseas, offensive wars, the war on drugs, and the war on our freedoms (Homeland security). As the musician Michael Franti mentions, there’s war against everything in America. A war for me and a war for you.
And our perpetual wars are not just supported by conservative Republicans, the Dems are just as guilty at maintaining the American war machine.
“….And the homeland security budget skyrocketed 301%.”
Do you need to say more? It’s a Military budget disguised as Civil Defense.
Brian Mann, thanks for pointing out that late in the Bush admin, the bailouts and policy change were consistent with that thought. Most large gov’ts move towards that during economic down turn. I agree with many of Mr Paul’s ideas, especially in regard to our military and the Drug laws/enforcement. However, I am fearful of his full scale assault on the fed gov’t. The EPA has done such great work since it’s inception in protecting our commons and health. Yes it would be an economic boon but at what cost in the future.
I am glad Paul is on the scene with his “consistency,” for he represents the quintessence of the Republican ideology, 100% pure, for all to see. A democrat could not make a better case for what the extremities of Republican thinking mightlook like: why, it looks like Ron Paul. The GOP in its various guises is a stalking horse for something quite simple: it is, at its heart, the party of people who do not want to share with strangers unless is it is an expense that protects them against their perceived enemies; it is about personal freedom and personal security. Indeed, it is libertarian—anti-tax, pro-gun, pro-defense. Everything else is to be subjected to free market forces, with government so tiny it can fit into the bedroom (Colbert’s line). I am glad to see Paul there, glowering in his selfish and paranoid afflictions. He hasn’t a chance in the general electorate, but he does splinter the GOP, who cannot get behind Romney with sufficient numbers and enthusiasm. Obama in a walk.
The trouble with Ron Paul is that most of us agree strongly with at least a few of his positions, but most of us also disagree strongly with some if not most of his views.
In general he has got a lot correct and some things are utopian dreams that will never happen. A land of individuals taking care of each other without being forced to by the government, a land where individuals are free to do what they please without any interference from authorities as long as you don’t hurt anyone else. Because we are free we don’t have to have huge taxes and without taxes the economy will be fine and so forth.
But there has never been a country like that there is no model of a developed nation that can operate without a social safety net or without a regulatory structure.
But he is mainly correct on some things such as our empire building. Why not be like Canada? Do people call Canada isolationist? If we got rid of our giant military we could afford all of those social programs.
Maybe its time that South Korea and Japan and Saudi Arabia learned to take care of themselves? Saudi Arabia should be protecting the Gulf not us, Japan and South Korea should be worried about North Korea and China not us. Maybe its time that Europe spent more time worried about the massive old and still dangerous Russian nuclear and conventional army?
One of the things that warrants a think, though, when considering Paul’s ideas, is the loss of the advantages that have accrued with America’s global military influence.
The downsides are well documented. America has done some foolish, unethical, empire-like things in the last half-century. But it’s also arguable that our reach has produced some really positive benefits.
South Korea is not North Korea. Japan is demilitarized. For all its tensions, there hasn’t been a full-scale war in the Middle East for a long time.
Again, I’m not suggesting that all of this is unambiguously positive. On the contrary.
But it’s fair to ask what would happen in a world where the United States pulled back, creating a significant power vacuum.
How would that affect the behavior of countries like Iran, China, North Korea, Russia and Pakistan?
–Brian, NCPR
Brian,
What also should be considered with regard to the advantages of our global military influence is the tremendous decades long opportunity cost of that global reach. What could we have done with the billions upon trillions in treasure spent on this global reach? Fathom if you will a United States investing the majority of those trillions over these past nearly seventy years on its own infrastructure, research and development in other things besides weaponry, its education system, renewable energy, etc., etc…
One more thing, our global military reach and occupation has also created very expensive problems that lead to ever more expensive fixes. “Blow Back” as our also gargantuan intelligence apparatus refers to it.
My point is for every dollar in benefit our military reach produces, it arguably creates far more dollars in costs when you consider the consequences and opportunity costs. I really wish one of the many tax payer funded “think tanks” in Washington would do a study to determine the real costs/benefits of our decades long apparatus. I’d be willing to bet it’s a net loss all things considered.
The reason the GOP establishment hates Ron Paul is because he is what they claim to be. He believes in smaller government not only when it’s convenient to the Republican mainstream (less regulation, lower taxes) but also when it’s inconvenient (his positions against theocracy and militarism). The GOP establishment hates him because in calling their bluff, he shows them to be the hypocrites that they are.
With all due respect, Brian, I don’t think Paul has “ideas.” He has a strategy to reduce government and ensure that American citizens answer to no one. It is as much of an idea as sitting in your cabin with your weapon loaded. The world is too complicated for such ideation as that. It should be dismissed, just as all extremist and so-called fundamentalist ideas (from shariya to John Birch) should be dismissed: their simplicity is simply brutish. Such “ideas” as, well, Saudi Arabia should police the gulf (hello Mervel) would make sense in what sort of world? A world where an American president and a congress give over security interests in the gulf? Maybe in some virtual war-games xbox game, but not in this century, or the last. Or the next, given our lame attempt at lowering dependence on fossil fuels. Oh yea, and republicans are against that as well.
Brian, I know you were not trying to provide and exhaustive list of the benefits of U.S. military over-reach, but if you consider the lives lost (ours and others) and the money spent, “South Korea is not North Korea. Japan is demilitarized” and “a full-scale war in the Middle East” is not much of a payoff.
Brian Mann: “It’s fine to criticize Keynesian economics — that’s fair game. But to suggest that it’s a “fringe” economic theory is just a complete factual non-starter.”
Ok, fine. Let’s call it acceptable, mainstream. Why is Obama afraid to run on it? Why is he afraid to even mention it?
He probably wrote on it and taught on it in Harvard. Why is hiding his writings from us?
Why the cover up if this is mainstream economics?
Ok. I’ll answer my question.
Obama would lose hands down if he ran on Keynesian economics. He has to run, hide, lie, and cover his tracks.
Except when it comes to governing. Then, we see.
Walker –
Again, I understand the costs — moral, fiscal, etc. — to the United States’ military and foreign policy posture.
But I think it’s reasonable to point out that prior to the rise of America as a Superpower there were two global “hot” wars that led to the destruction of tens of millions of lives.
And after 1945, America was the primary bulwark against a brand of Soviet expansionism that was a phenomenally brutal, genocidal doctrine.
We stopped that threat with relatively small loss of life.
In the years since the Soviet Union fell, the United States has made some awful blunders.
But I would argue that we have also used our superpower status to help nurture a fairly remarkable expansion in peaceful global interconnectivity.
(This globalism is now suspect in many quarters, but it is surely better than the armed conflict and isolationism that preceded it.)
Through the vast majority of this history, meanwhile, America and Americans have prospered, and lived for the most part remarkably peaceful lives.
Traumatic as they were, and are, the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq have been miniscule in scale and in casualties, compared with earlier conflicts.
Again, I’m not arguing that any of this was done “cleanly.” This is the real world and America is not governed by saints.
But I think it skews the conversation not to look at both sides of the ledger.
Would the world have been a better place after 1945 if America’s military had packed its bags, gone home and pulled up the drawbridges?
I think that’s a hard argument to make.
–Brian, NCPR
JDM –
I think you’ll be hearing plenty from Mr. Obama over the next year about how his administration’s efforts saved the auto industry, provided affordable healthcare to millions of Americans, and kept thousands of teachers, cops and firefighters from being laid off in the darkest months of the economic crisis.
He may not use the word “Keynsian” — no more than Mitt Romney will be talking about the “Austrian school”.
But I suspect he’ll make a pretty robust argument that government had a big role to play in averting a full-scale depression, through stimulus spending.
–Brian, NCPR
The fact is all of those countries got a free ride on our military providing stability to the world. This was fine when we were relatively wealthy, but our middle class is now objectively poorer than most European nations middle class, in real terms. Why should we be asking our people to pay and die for countries that have more money and wealth than we do?
So we see people sitting around the globe with government paid health care, with paid leave for a variety of things, with all of these benefits and they don’t have to pay for a military because they know papa USA will take care of them if the Chinese or the North Koreans or the Iranians get aggressive.
The fact is they all could afford to stand up for themselves, they woefully underfund their military relying on our taxpayers who are all now LESS well off than many other industrialized nations. Plus throw in the fact that most of the world seems to hate us because of these interventions and our massive military. Who benefits? Certainly not the middle class in the US that is for sure.
Empires always fail. Paul has that correct. Why doesn’t Canada feel guilty about not worrying what happens to Asia if China dominates? They seem fine with it, why are we the ones to have to die and pay for that?
The flip side is that Obama has presided over the largest increase in poverty that we have seen in a long time. He is very vulnerable on that count.
Brian, fair enough, there are two sides to the question. But are you really prepared to argue that our wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq are responsible for the relative global peace since WW II? We let the Iran-Iraq war drag on for eight years without substantial intervention, while half a million Iraqi and Iranian soldiers and civilians died. Did our actions in Panama, Grenada, and Nicaragua contribute to world peace? Surely a more restrained military posture toward the rest of the world would have sufficed, and might just have kept us from becoming the targets of Jihad. And the deficit would be *far* smaller today as a result.
“But I suspect he’ll make a pretty robust argument that government had a big role to play in averting a full-scale depression, through stimulus spending.”
I can fix anyone’s financial problems, with an unlimited credit card. Need $10 trillion, no problem.
Borrow from China and roll the printing press for $$$.
Doesn’t mean it’s sound economic policy. In fact, it’s a fast track to doomsday.
If you want to claim we “saved or created 1 million jobs”, then why not claim 40,000,000? There’s no proof.
The proof that Obama doesn’t have a clue is the unemployment he quoted, not going above 8% if we pass the stimulus, and 10% or higher otherwise.
Well, we got the stimulus, and we got the 10.1% unemployment.
If you say “things were worse than Obama expected” then that proves he doesn’t have a clue. You don’t make a claim like that and then back away when you’re wrong.
He’s either clueless or gutless.
The problem is that Romney would have stayed in Iraq,maybe forever and ever and ever. Obama I agree has failed domestically, but the President does not have that much control over our economy, some for sure but it is marginal. So if I was a Democrat I would ask these GOP guys with the exception of Paul; how long would you have stayed in Iraq, would you go back now? How long will you stay in Afghanistan, 10 20 30 years? How many more wars should we get ready for? You know this has been great for us so far.
To those who repeat the lies and propaganda heard on Fox News, Limbaugh, etc, I have to ask, again:
How do you benefit from this?
Has it made one damn thing better?
Please provide a demonstrable example of the talking points you parrot.
Again, those talking heads get paid a lot of money to spout this nonsense. The rest of us are waiting to see what benefit may result from repeating it – or, really, even listening to it.
Brian M.: “I think you’ll be hearing plenty from Mr. Obama over the next year about how his administration’s efforts saved the auto industry, provided affordable healthcare to millions of Americans, and kept thousands of teachers, cops and firefighters from being laid off in the darkest months of the economic crisis.”
Why would the president boast about something that is unpopular with the public? Support for his health law stands at 29%, down from 36% in June. Support from democrats alone is down to 50% and was 59% in June. All the health care law did was create a lack of confidence in Obama by large coporartions. Money that might have been invested in growth was suddenly put under the pillow. Why hire new workers with this increase in health insurance hanging over your head. I could list several companies that will see an increase of over one million dollars.
At the end of a year when the stimulus money was gone so were many of those unions jobs. I know this for a fact.
On second thought, if he thinks these are his major accomplishnents for the last four years, go for it!
Hmm, Gary, your mileage may vary. A Kaiser Foundation poll shows the split at 44 unfavorable/37 favorable, with 19% undecided. They also note that much of the unfavorable opinion rests on misinformation, pretty clearly based on intentional disinformation spread by the disloyal opposition:
“Substantial shares […] incorrectly believe the law does two specific things that it does not. For instance, more than half (56%) think the law includes a new government-run insurance plan to be offered along with private plans (while another 13% don’t know if the law does this). And a third (35%) think the law allows a government panel to make decisions about end-of-life care for people on Medicare (with another 12% saying they don’t know). Those numbers have changed little in the past year.”
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/8259.cfm
The Big Lies (Death Panels, et al.) die hard with a substantial segment of the public, almost certainly the loyal Fox “News” audience.
wj and walker have a point that continues to bug me. Its one thing for the talking heads to spout non-sense. Thats what they get paid to do. But for regular people to repeat it as fact – I just don’t get. (e.g.death panels etc). These are beliefs that are not just wrong – but they are actually very much counter to the interests of most of the people who claim to believe them.
It happens on both sides though. MOVEON MSNBC etc are just as biased and full of pablum talking points that are repeated; as Fox news.
Both sides have talking points that are repeated.
Mervel – yes it happens on both sides – talking points get repeated, but not nearly to the same extent, and not so obviously counter to people’s apparent self-interest.
Although, I suppose those of us with good jobs and good health insurance benefits who support a single-payer system or progressive taxation and government concern for providing education for children from the lower income brackets are guilty of not looking out for our own self-interest.
The self interest point I have to admit is fascinating. What I mean is I saw some tea party protesters interviewed last year, several were on military pensions, one was drawing social security disability and another was laid off form work on unemployment. I mean do they not understand that deficit spending and big government is floating their boat?
It goes back to kind of what I have always thought, this is about culture not logic. I guess you could make a tortured argument that very small government and zero or small deficits will some day lead to a better economy and that will lead to me hopefully getting a better job, but how long would that take? The short term results of smaller government, lower taxes and smaller deficits are going to hurt anyone getting anything from the government.
So I would agree about protesting or being against your own self interest. What is the mindset to do that?
This reminds of Joe the Plumber. He said he didn’t want increase in taxes on those who make $250k, not because of fairness, but because he was about the get rich. “I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes 250k a year. Your new tax plan’s going to tax me more, isn’t it?
Turned out he made $40k per year, was never really going to buy a business and will never be rich. I am sure he was motivated by self interest, but obviously not financial self interest. Perhaps interest in getting on TV.
I don’t know Steve we have a love hate relationship with rich people in this country. Do we dislike them because we find greed offensive or because we wish we were rich? I think Joe the Plumber really thought he was going to be rich.
Until we as a nation realize that materialism does not bring happiness or contentment, that careers are fine but not who we are; I think we will continue to go around on this. I listen to some of the occupy protesters, particularly the young ones and they say “we did what we were supposed to do and now we don’t have what we deserve”, essentially they are not offended by greed and wealth they are offended because they want wealth and don’t have it. (Not that they all say that)
Mervel, you are missing the message of the Occupy movement.
I did not mean that was the message of the whole occupy movement. But I do hear one of the messages being reported; which says “we did everything we were supposed to do, where is ours?” Which is fine and maybe true but I think misses the point; why would anyone want to be like these greed heads?
The point should not be we all want to be materialistic and really wealthy, the point should be that is the wrong goal to start with.
I think their point is they just want jobs that can help them pay off their student loans.
The Occupy movement is diverse, has identified the problem and inequities of the system but does not have the answers, atleast in a unified voice. It is not a problem with a simple answer, like “get out of Vietnam.” The peasants are threatenting to revolt, let see if the aristocracy can make changes before a revolution. They have aired their grievances. Time for the legislative branch of our gov’t to accomplish something meanigful.