"WHEN WE SACRIFICE LIBERTY FOR SECURITY, WE LOSE BOTH": Ron Paul is a slam dunk

In the republican debate yesterday, Ron Paul was nothing less than brilliant. In my opinion, there is absolutely nobody in this country, republican or democrat, who can deliver such cogent and absolutely on-the-mark arguments for national security and against the war in Iraq, arguments which are also informed by a mature understanding of US history, that I find absolutely wanting in every other politician. When Paul was challenged by the weasly and cowardly Chris Wallace who wanted to score cheap points, his reply was thundering, almost prophetic-sounding. And just hear his simple argument about how it is the responsibility of airlines to protect their passengers and prevent 9/11 type attacks, and how delegating it to them rather than the government and allowing their officials to possess guns could have possibly prevented 9/11. Just watch him.



Unfortunately, people in this country are still swayed by rhetoric, and abstract feel-good notions such as "honor" and "freedom", both of which ironically they are rapidly losing. I think that Iraq unfortunately is becoming a big emotional prestige point for parents who have lost their sons and daughters in the failed conflict; they will just not accept that their children died in vain (and that too due to no fault of theirs) and more alarmingly, now keep thinking that the only way their children's sacrifices can be justified is if the US stays in Iraq. They are also misled into thinking, as one bereaved mother was, that the US is actually going to become more safe if they continue fighting there. This is a notion that seriously needs to be dispelled because it is a path straight towards devastation.

Ron Paul is probably the only person who understands this thoroughly and has the guts to say it aloud in public. Given his very clear libertarian stance, I can almost bet that he is also pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage, both of which are fundamentally issues about individual freedom and rights. But given the currents of irrational thought and puritanical nonsense widespread in the nation, it is not surprising that he does not say it publicly. It is the unfortunate destiny of this country that he will almost certainly not be nominated as the republican candidate.

Addendum: As much as I immensely admire Paul's stand on the war, I find his opposition to abortion and gay marriage bizarre and disconcerting (notwithstanding the fact that he may be taking these stances only for pleasing his republican electorate), and I also find him in danger of running afoul of his libertarian principles in these matters. For example, he says that the libertarian approach towards banning abortion is sensible because you are respecting the right of the foetus. Even if we buy this argument (which is tenuous at most for a month old foetus), what about the right of the mother to choose? What does the libertarian ethic say about that? I also don't agree with his absolutist sounding positions on gun control (quite apart from letting airline officials carrying them). As for stem cell research, he cleverly skirts the discussion towards taxpayer dollars. The point is, and I have said this before, I don't agree with a libertarian approach to anything and everything, but in some matters, it hits the nail on the head.

The real problem of course is that there is not a single candidate, Republican or Democrat, who I find ideal to be President. I wish we had technology that could pick the good qualities from each candidate and create a chimerical president.

BASHING THE MODERATES

Gaurav points us towards Bill Maher's latest segment, where he interviewed Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. Maher is one of my favourite 'comedian-intellectuals', and I was disappointed to hear him take such a one-sided stand against Ron Paul. Most of what Paul said was right on mark. As Gaurav pointed out, he also shows a sound understanding of American history, including the many dark deeds that the CIA has orchestrated. It was also disappointing that Maher did not agree with this absolutely accurate assesment about the role of the CIA; that makes it clear that he was there mainly for bashing Paul.

Paul was also quite correct about the Civil War.
The Quakers in England had been campaigning to end slavery for many years, purely based on personal conviction, without any political agenda. Their pacifism was not the political pacifism of Gandhi. Yet, they were very effective in ending the slave trade that England had. The Quakers accomplished their objectives because they had limited goals. They realised that ending slavery itself was a goal better left to their future generations. But ending the slave trade was a goal they could realistically achieve. They also did not see the end of slavery as punishment for slave owners. In fact, they crucially persuaded the government to actually pay compensation to the slave owners for giving up the acquisition of new slaves. The result was that the English made a smooth transition to a society free from slave trade. The American contrast was much more striking. One can only speculate that a similar strategy would have been possible in America too, and the Americans could have been spared the horrors of the Civil War. England's example bears testament to this possibility. But as Paul points out, the American leaders and especially Lincoln were not as interested in ending slavery as in unifying the nation. He and his associates traded blood for unification, when it could have been achieved more smoothly, if slowly.

The one place where Paul does not get it quite right is global warming. He deflects the issue by asking whether the government should invade China or try to stop volcanoes to suppress global warming. Both of these questions are extremes, and there is much that that government can do in other areas; as an aside though, Paul still recognised the key oil-induced situation in the Middle East that the US has brought upon itself. As of now, it is extremely difficult, if impossible, to practically envisage how the free market can regulate global warming. As I mentioned in a past post, there are so many sources of CO2 emissions that the cap-and-trade programs that worked so well for sulfur emissions cannot be seen to work for CO2 emissions especially in the short term. In such a case, a government tax may be the only optimum solution to curb such emissions.

I have something to say to Maher; stop calling yourself a libertarian. And I have something to say to Paul; stop calling yourself a Republican (although he is a moderate Republican by any standards). Assigning political labels consigns us to following textbook definitions in their entirety. Social science issues need us to know much better than deal with absolutes. If one dons a political label for too long, then he faces the danger of becoming a slave of that label. Long after he has taken such a position, changing that position even for a justifiable reason could make people call him a hypocrite. To avoid such pitfalls, better not take any absolutist position. Not the free market, not government, and not any single entity or system can be the solution to all problems. One needs to find a balance. Just like a well-made recipe, the correct political solutions need to showcase at least an effort of mixing all the ingredients in the right proportion. No matter how much I like a particular dessert, an excess of sweetness-that quality which is after all the sine quo non of the dessert- nevertheless spoils the whole act. As in other aspects of life, moderation is the key here too.