2nd Republican Debate

I too am a conservative with libertarian leanings, and I too find that the "conservatives" of today are mere shadows of true principle and right reason. What shall be our guide if not the founders, the Constitution, and the tradition of American conservatism we come from?

Congressman Paul is the epitome of this tradition, complete and non-contradicted. In the debate last night, contrary to your perspective, he stated the obvious, that if you intervene in a bar fight, even if you are far bigger and stronger than the two belligerents fighting, one of them may, in an irrational and angry moment, punch you square in the nose. This does not mean that you deserve the punch, just that, by intervening, you dramatically increased your chances of being hurt. Paul is not isolationist, he is non-interventionist. There is a profound distinction, isolationists promote protectionist-America-first mentality, non-interventionists merely advocate free commerce with all, peaceable relations with the willing, and consistent and compatible domestic and foreign policies. You say you agree with Ron on Constitutional issues, good, so perhaps the Congress should in fact have declared war as Article I demands? You write that his philosophies could perhaps be viable if the United States were only dealing with “nation-states,” and not stateless terrorists, but this does not answer Congressman Paul’s fundamental challenge, that by interfering in the domestic affairs of foreign nations, the U.S., clearly militarily beyond the retaliatory reach of any such regime, could only be vulnerable to attacks by “stateless” terrorists. Individuals fight as they are able. Merely because the Islamic fighters are fundamentalists does not mean that they are devoid of reason. They have no intention of just dying for anything, they will trade their lives, but only to cause harm. It is not appeasement to say, “let us alone, and we will let you alone.” If indeed we are, as we were attacked on 9-11, we can expect President Paul to support an immediate and constitutionally-mandated forcible response. Afghanistan would not be under Taliban rule if the U.S. adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy before 9-11. Non-intervention does not mean inaction, it merely means America does not seek global hegemonic domination.

Best