A weekly column
Opportunities for Peace and Nonintervention
Last week I discussed our worsening economic situation and the fact that there are very few options for the new administration to improve things in the long run. The same is not true on the foreign policy front. Our interventionist foreign policy stands ready to be put on a new course with the new administration. Unfortunately, it seems the new administration is likely to continue the mistakes of the past. I've often discussed interventionist foreign policy and the resulting blowback. The current administration's foreign policy, I'm afraid, has created a huge impetus for blowback against the United States. However, I truly believe much of the world stands ready to look beyond our nation's recent blunders if the new administration proves to be heading in a more reasonable direction.
Other nations around the world find our interference in their affairs condescending, and it is very dangerous for us. We may think we have much to gain by inserting ourselves in these complex situations, but on the contrary we suffer from many consequences. Other countries have their problems, to be sure. But how would we feel if China or Russia came to our soil and tried to depose our problematic leaders or correct our policies for us? Our problems are ours to solve, and we need to give other countries that respect as well. Instead, we have been turning alleged, phantom threats into real, actual threats.
We should follow the foreign policy advice of the Founders - friendship and commerce with all nations. One positive step would be to end our destructive embargo of Cuba, which deprives our farmers of a market just 90 miles from US shores while strengthening the Communist regime. We've seen 50 years of statist restrictions not accomplish anything. A change is needed. Other countries should decide how to govern themselves. Even if we don't necessarily approve, it's none of our business. If other people foolishly choose to live under statist experimental regimes, they need to fail in their own right, and not have us as a scapegoat. We need to focus on our own affairs.
However, the pressures exerted on our leadership from the military industrial complex and big business is not in favor of peace or freedom, or especially nonintervention. Intervention is big business. Defense contracts topped $300 billion last year, and total spending on war and our overseas empire is up to $1 trillion per year. That represents a lot of people earning a living off of war and conquest. But rather than adding to our economy, all of this money is taken from the economy in order to wage war and destruction. Imagine if those resources were put to creative, productive use here at home!
We need to rein in our overseas empire, as quickly as possible. We need to bring our troops home, and get our economy back into the business of production, not destruction. The smartest thing we could do is admit we don't know all the answers to all the world's problems. If the new administration can take a closer look at real free trade and no entangling alliances, we would be much better off for it. Economically - we could save hundreds of billions of dollars each year! The new leadership has the opportunity and the political capital to do this. But unfortunately, it is not likely to happen.
Posted by Ron Paul (01-05-2009, 11:03 AM) filed under Foreign Policy
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 13
Ron Paul would reduce America to irrelevance and the rest of
the world would quickly get even more chaotic, oil would go
way up, and maybe not even be available. I don't buy his
economic advice either.
It is a benefit to not have our currency based on some commodity
that another country could use against us, and we benefit by
being able to float the dollar in many ways.
Ron Paul's idea is not isosationism. It is non intervention. It is none of our business how other countries govern or run their country. Oil would not go up. We are the largest consumer of oil in the world. Why would they cut off their noses to spite their faces?
I doubt a stable dollar can be maintained with hot air as its base.
You don't think Islam and every other entity in the world "intervenes" in the US because we are a fairly open society?
What you are missing is the the US is a natural country to intervene. Natural, not perfect.
WWII and the Cold War and now the War On Terror prove that it is our business how other countries run their countries, just as it is the world's business how the US runs its country, and they sound off about it and try to influence it.
The base of the dollar is the power and trust of the US government, so quit trying to kick our legs our from under us and be constructively critical.
I think we need more and better inventionism, not less, not isolationsism, and certainly not a one-trick pony, Ron Paul, whose answer to everything has to do with the gold standard, doesn't that sound just a little too simple when you think about it?
As to the gold standard. Sometimes simple is better. Ron Paul only wants the Government to be in control of coining money as the constitution says, not a bunch of international crooked bankers.
That is no reason to invade them or try to change their system of government no matter what it is like.
A plalyer yes but we do not need to own it.