In 2008, a courageous, honest prophet of a candidate appeared on the scene warning with ferocious intensity that the GOP had lost its way. That candidate was Dr. Ron Paul.
But in 2012, Paul who is not running for reelection to the House of Representatives, has little to lose, making him and his followers lose cannons.
Here are the top five best reasons not to vote for Ron Paul.
5. It won’t matter at all if you do
Ron Paul’s brief flirtation with relevance ended the day he took third in the Iowa caucuses. He has steadily declined since, even after a second place finish in Maine. At this point, he is unlikely to serve as anything but a spoiler, and not even a very good one, since most candidates have already written off his voter base.
4. Ron Paul doesn’t believe in evolution
From any other candidate, a public statement to this effect would be irrelevant. But what Ron Paul says in the case of evolution – that it’s “only a theory” and there isn’t “absolute proof on either side” for it – is deeply troubling, because it reflects how Ron Paul thinks about issues generally.
Leave aside the factual question of evolution for a second. How many times have we heard Ron Paul defend his policies with some line on the order of “it will work in theory,” with no proof at all, let alone absolute proof, to support that view? He’s hardly the candidate who should be trying to be the apostle of concrete, evidence-based thinking. Couldn’t a Keynesian say the exact same things about his Austrian theories? After all, there isn’t “absolute proof” of Austrian economic theory either – in fact, Ron Paul’s inspirations don’t believe in proof – so how does Ron Paul reject one and not the other? Hinging a case for a radical, revolutionary overhaul of government on blind faith in a theory doesn’t usually end well. Ask the Russians.
3. He doesn’t believe Iran is a threat
Recently, the US director of national intelligence, James Clapper, said “some Iranian officials…have changed their calculus and are now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States.”
Ron Paul’s response? “Who cares if they get nukes? They’re just trying to defend themselves! That’s their right!” Well, yes, but serial killers who resist arrest are also defending themselves. Do we respect their “rights” too? Moreover, Iran’s people are arguably captive to its regime, and the idea that anyone should respect the rights of a government that acts the way Ron Paul’s craziest supporters think the U.S. government does – let alone those very people – is perverse.
2. He confirms every stereotype about libertarians
Ask any liberal to describe a Tea Partier to you and they will respond that they are racist, conspiracy-minded, disingenuous in their care about debt and entitlements and secret supporters of secession. Every one of these sentiments has been expressed either by Paul himself, under his name, or by his closest associates. Libertarianism just proved it can win elections through the Tea Party. It should forsake any figure who threatens to drag it back into irrelevance.
1. Ron Paul is not only anti-military, but anti-intelligence
No, that’s not a pun – I mean military intelligence/covert ops. And why does this make number one? Because one of the most effective ways to avoid wars is to use intelligence agencies to infiltrate other countries, whether to get information or influence their politics. It’s not perfect, but it’s a lot more cost effective than all-out war. In other words, if Ron Paul is serious about keeping America safe without an extensive military, he needs both intelligence and covert ops.
Yet Ron Paul has been arguing for the abolition of the United States’ intelligence infrastructure since the 1980’s. At the same time, he wants to cut military spending so much that it would effectively end our engagements overseas, citing (irony alert!) the CIA’s definition of “blowback.” This would render the U.S. completely, obliviously flatfooted in response to every potential attack.
In other words, the United States would behave exactly like the Ron Paul campaign. And that is why most Americans realize that putting him in office would ultimately blow back in our faces.