Elliot Resnick writes for The Jewish Press:
Largely unmentioned in much of the presidential election discourse is Texas Representative Ron Paul. This despite the fact that he apparently is the most searched candidate on the Internet and that he recently set a fundraising record by raising six million dollars in a single day.
Who is Ron Paul?
On foreign affairs, he is a non-interventionist, believing that America should trade with everybody and have entangling alliances with none. He wants to shut down dozens of American bases around the world, which, he says, drain America's economy and does nothing to endear itself to the world.
Some have criticized his desire to cut off aid from Israel. But as Paul says, he plans on cutting off all aid to that region and, currently, the Arab states and entities receive three times what Israel gets.
Besides, Paul argues, Israel would be better off not being dependent on American aid. He believes, as I do, that Israel is too subservient to America and runs to seek America's permission for every war it fight and every peace deal it signs.
On the domestic front, Paul is a libertarian, which means that he maintains that aside from assuring the security of its citizenry and establishing courts of law, government should stay out of people's businesses.
He wants to abolish the IRS (the income tax only dates from the 1910's) and replace it with nothing. As a congressman he has never voted for a tax increase or for an unbalanced budget.
He also wants to let the young generation opt out of social security. To me, there is no greater insult than the government taking your own money away from you "for your own good." Paul doesn't discuss social security much nor does he discuss whether he favors eliminating the welfare state entirely or just vastly reducing it. (Perhaps this is because, as Paul has said, the president, as opposed to Congress, has little direct authority over these matters.) But as someone who formerly ran on the Libertarian ticket, his leanings should be clear.
What Paul is most famous for (among those people who have heard about him altogether, as the media have done a good job at giving him minimal coverage) is his opposition to the war in Iraq and his contention that America's presence in the Middle East fuels Al Qaeda's hatred of this country.
A long story needs to be told here, but for the present, voters should consider whether the Arab terrorists, however crazy they are, would have attacked America if we had stayed out of their affairs these past 50 years.
Some would argue that America needs to be involved in the Middle East to protect its interests. But was America's intervention in Iran in decades past to its benefit? Was its support of Saddam Hussein in his earlier years to its benefit? Is stationing American troops in Saudi Arabia to its benefit?
(Nonetheless, a decent counter argument can be made and that's why Paul's position on this subject is not one of my favorite.)
Concerning the Iraq War, voters should consider whether they really want American troops to continue to die for the next 100 years as McCain said may be possible.
And this leads me to a final aspect of Paul's philosophy which is of great appeal among supporters: his respect for the Constitution. If, he asks, the Iraq War was so important, why didn't Congress declare war as the Constitution instructs it to? Good question. On this issue at least, I think we can all say, "Amen."
