The more I read about him and his political beliefs, the more I can’t get past the idea that Ron Paul could do great things for the Unites States - specifically, putting traditional Goldwater conservatism and the principle idea of federalism back on the map. Unfortunately, the last few years have seen the rise of “compassionate” big government conservatism, a conservatism that rejects its own core beliefs about the role of limited government, spending, and taxation.
Ron Paul would be the perfect candidate if it wasn’t for his anti-global positions. And I’m not talking about the United Nations or the role of international law in wartime. I’m talking about foreign isolationism and economic protectionism. Here’s an excerpt from Paul’s official 2008 election website:
So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.
First off, the International Criminal Court was something that was never signed off by President Bush nor ratified by the U.S. Senate. Therefore, the ICC issue is null and void at this point in time. Second, free trade agreements are actually a good thing.
Times have changed economically around the world. The world is no longer made up of limited, pocketed financial markets like it once was. Global information technology and the ability to travel overseas has increased our ability to communicate and trade with foreign peoples. As it was to the advantage of the Europeans to trade with America in the 1700’s, it is to our advantage to trade worldwide, with the least trade barriers. NAFTA and CAFTA are making it easier for the United States to participate in global trade, knocking down barriers to trading markets and foreign investment. Protectionism in these times simply does not work because the worldwide economic environment is not conducive to a protectionist philosophy. The reality is that the United States cannot economically isolate itself on the world stage. The consequences of such behavior could promote economic slowdown not only in the United States, but other countries as well.
Update: For an interesting take on Ron Paul, check out this article.
May 14th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
I’ve known Ron Paul for about 20 years. While he opposes “So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA”, he is NOT a protectionist. He favors trade with all nations, and generally opposes protectionist tariffs.
May 14th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
I don’t think he’s an isolationist. Rather, he just disagrees with the trade treaties that we have ratified. For example, he opposed CAFTA because it took the power away from Congress to regulate international trade. Check out his speech, CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade at http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html. Congressman Paul is an absolute free trader. I wouldn’t expect any less of someone whose entrace into politics was the result of a study of economics. His solution to protectionist policies is to decrease taxes and regulations here that make our businesses less competitive abroad. To quote the article, “CAFTA and other international trade agreements do not represent free trade. Free trade occurs in the absence of government interference in the flow of goods, while CAFTA represents more government in the form of an international body.”
Thanks for your time.
May 15th, 2007 at 6:16 am
Phony free-trade agreements do nothing but hurt Americans. Might as well just export money wholesale. Any basic economics class can explain that. If the trade was actually FREE, we’d be doing great, but these agreements are nothing but inducements. There is no reason to offer inducements because we have the most robust economy in the world and that alone is enough to make others want and need to trade with us.
May 15th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Ron Paul has a non-interventionist, non-isolationist foreign policy.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
You need to understand what isolationism means, which is to be both a protectionist and non-interventionist. Ron Paul is not a protectionist, he believes in free trade, not managed trade. I don’t think he would support tariffs.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Right On. Thank you for the info. I totally agree.