This is the first in a series of posts on who I will not vote for in the Maryland Primary. Since I am a Registered Republican, I will only deal with Republican Candidates.
Part I: Who I Will Not Vote for in the Maryland Primary: Ron Paul
I am constantly told that I should vote for Ron Paul because he is a man who stands by his principles, that he stands up for what he believes, and that he is the most consistent of all the candidates.
That's great, and if I were voting for "the most honest candidate", I might consider that.
But I don't like Ron Paul's positions on a number of issues.
First, I disagree with him on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He would have voted against it. Some did-- including Barry Goldwater -- on 9th and 10th Amendment grounds (sometimes incorrectly titled "states rights grounds").
While that opposition is principled, it also ignores the reality that in 1964, discrimination and racism were still rampant and still largely enforced by government edict. In fact, in the 1966 World Series, bars in Baltimore were still segregated, and the Mayor of Baltimore had to jump through some serious hoops to get bar owners to desegregate for the Series.
Paul argues that private business owners should not be required to do business with anyone they don't want to. That sounds fabulous in theory, but in practice it is daft. Businesses enjoy a host of protections, structure, and services from government (just like the rest of us), and I think there is a reasonable state interest to insure that people of any race can be served fairly in public accomodations. Race is product of biology, not choice. That one man's skin is darker than anothers is silly, stupid, and just plain asinine. Allowing discrimination on that basis is crime against God.
Second, Paul's desire to revoke all foreign aid is dumb and short-sighted. I feel his pain on how foreign aid is thrown around like rice at a wedding, but why not fix the system that uses US foreign aid like an ATM? It can be fixed-- yes, it will requiring downsizing the State Department by about 90% -- but it can be fixed.
Foreign aid can be a useful tool to change behavior and insure the allies we need on any number of issues. "Charlie Wilson's War" shows this. A free Poland shows this. Peaceful Japan and successful Korea show this.
Where do we agree on this? Well, I would defund the UN and evict them from the country. They have outlived their usefulness. They are not a democratic institution, but rather a collection of (mostly) thugocracies that stand in stark contrast to the hopes and dreams of Americansim. And they are absolutely worthless.
Third, Paul's obsession to return to the gold standard displays an absolute lack of understanding of the role of fiat currency in a world market. That understanding would cripple the United States government and would make every American ONE HELL OF A LOT POORER.
While I don't always agree with David Frum, I think he summarizes the issue with a return to Bretton Woods better than I here. The Bretton Woods pact was a disaster for the US-- and the gold standard previously in existence was even worse. Do we really want our economy controlled by how much gold powder is extracted by some third-world miner?
Fourth, I don't like some of Ron Paul's ardent supporters. Sorry, but I am a big fan of the dictum that you can judge a man by his friends. And some of his are repugnant.
Fifth, I am not a big fan of his approach to foreign policy. I don't believe that every military action needs to be approved by Congress. And I believe that America should be strong and forceful in the world. American foreign policy should be about America's best interests, and sometimes, that means squashing people like bugs. When America pulls back from a forceful foreign policy, the world suffers. We suffer. The blowback is ugly. Remember the 1970s?
Yes, its not detailed. But it is what I think. Ron Paul has some strong values, but I don't think they are realistic. If he were running for head of GOPAC or interviewing for a think-tank, his ideological purity wouldn't be an issue. But he is running for President of the United States -- in 2008, not 1808. His views aren't realistic.