30 Dec 2011 By Jacob G. Hornberger One of the most fascinating aspects of the Ron Paul
campaign is the standard reaction of his opponents to
Paul's foreign-policy positions. They say that Paul's
libertarian foreign-policy views are outside the
Republican mainstream. What is the Republican mainstream view on foreign
policy? Here are its essential components: 1. Undeclared wars. Those are the things that characterize U.S. foreign
policy within the mainstream of the Republican Party.
Ironically, they also represent the views of President
Obama and the mainstream of the Democratic Party. That's what the mainstream in both political
parties says America is all about and should be all
about. Ron Paul and the libertarians stand against all
those things. Unlike the mainstream, we oppose a
foreign policy based on empire, interventionism, and
militarism. We believe in individual liberty, free
markets, and a limited-government, constitutional
republic, just as our nation's Founding Fathers did.
Another interesting phenomenon is the fact that
young people are flocking to the Paul campaign in
droves. In fact, it seems that as the mainstream press
has ramped up its criticism of Paul's foreign-policy
views, for being outside the mainstream, his support
among young people has soared. What's the explanation for that? One reason might be that young people tend to be
more idealistic than old people and more willing to
change their views if they conclude they're wrong
about something. Old people tend to be more cynical
about things and their views oftentimes become
concretized with age, making it more difficult for
them to reexamine and change long-held perspectives.
My hunch is that as young people flock to the Ron
Paul campaign, they're thinking to themselves: "We
don't want a country that is perpetually starting wars
and crises. We don't want an imperialist, militarist
regime within our midst. We want a country that is
leading the world in the principles of liberty, free
markets, and limited constitutional government. We
want a country in which the American people are
interacting with the world in trade, peace, and
harmony. We want a free, prosperous, peaceful,
harmonious society." I also think that another factor here is that young
people are discovering that old people, especially in
the Republican Party, have been lying to them. For
decades, Republicans have been telling young people
that the Republican Party supports "freedom, free
enterprise, and limited government" and the warfare
state, and many young people have believed it and
accepted it. But then along came libertarians, who also support
"freedom, free enterprise, and limited government" but
who oppose the warfare state. Obviously, something is wrong with that picture.
You have two separate groups of people both standing
for the same principles but standing on opposite sides
of the line with respect to the warfare state. They
both can't be telling the truth. Either the warfare
state is "freedom, free enterprise, and limited
government" or the absence of the warfare state is
"freedom, free enterprise, and limited government. It
can't be both ways. One can imagine a young Republican asking a
Republican oldster, "If the warfare state is freedom,
free enterprise, and limited government, where does
that place Ron Paul and the libertarians? They also
support freedom, free enterprise, and limited
government but oppose the warfare state." What's the Republican oldster say? He answers in
the only way he knows how: "Ron Paul and the
libertarians are outside the mainstream. They're on
the fringe. Don't listen to them. Don't read what
they're saying. Stay away from them." But that's not good enough for many young people.
That just causes them to ask more questions and to
seek answers. And that's why so many in the Republican Party
resent Ron Paul and libertarians so much. We have
exposed their lie and their life of the lie. Without libertarians — without Ron Paul's campaign
— the Republican mainstreamers could just keep telling
young people and everyone else that the warfare state
is "freedom, free enterprise, and limited government,"
and there would be no one to call them on it. With libertarianism on the rise, it has become
increasingly difficult for them to get away with their
lie. And the more they attack libertarians for being
outside the mainstream, the more their lie is exposed.
What really frightens the Republican mainstream is
that their statist view on foreign policy is in danger
of no longer being mainstream. After all, a mainstream
view is never set in concrete. If enough people shift
to a new view, that view becomes the new mainstream.
Don't forget that the libertarian view on foreign
policy was once the mainstream view among our American
ancestors, including the Founding Fathers. The
statists slowly gained ground in attracting people to
imperialism, militarism, and interventionism until
things shifted, making the warfare state the new
mainstream view. Today, nothing is clearer than that the mainstream
view on foreign policy is finished, not only because
of the damage it has done to our country and to people
around the world, not only because it's sending the
government toward more spending, debt, and inflation,
not only because its features are characteristic of
totalitarian regimes, but also because its
consequences include ever-increasing infringements on
our rights and freedoms here at home. As more and more people realize that the current
mainstream view on foreign policy violates principles
of freedom and morality, the libertarian perspective
on foreign policy is certain to become the new
mainstream view in America. Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of the
Future of Freedom Foundation. Comments 💬 التعليقات |