2008 Woodie Awards
Foreign policy of freedom
Jonathon Norcross '09
Issue date: 9/26/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
"How would the American people respond if a foreign invader of different color, religion, and language imposed itself on us to make us conform to their notions of justice and goodness? None of us would sit idly by." - Ron Paul, June 2005
Republican presidential nominee Ron Paul faces much adversity within his party when it comes to his long-standing noninterventionist foreign policy. Paul, unlike his colleagues, opposes the self-defeating foreign entanglements our government pursues and reminds us of the death toll that accompanies them.
Such a view may seem radical among today's conservatives who, according to Paul, "strongly endorse an American Empire," "believe that lying is necessary for the state to survive," and "endorse attacks on civil liberties," but in actuality, Paul's views are consistent with the original intention of America. Proof of this is best articulated by Thomas Jefferson, who encouraged "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none," and James Madison, who said, "The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
Today, we are rich and powerful and our government, more often than not, works. But does that grant us the right to be the world's executioner and judge? Paul, back in 1981, said that "we need less meddling in the affairs of other nations." Perhaps we should have listened.
It has become a popular belief that terrorists must have some psychological complex that compels them to kill us because we live in a prosperous democracy. Paul saw it differently when he said in 2003, "To dismiss terrorism as the result of Muslims hating us because we're rich and free is one of the greatest foreign policy frauds ever perpetrated on the American people."
Our country was founded in opposition to tyranny, yet we've fashioned our own form of tyranny abroad. We carry with us overseas the most monstrous tyrant of all: death. We wield it when we please and deem it horrible only when it happens to us. Of course, our government has found other ways of embracing intervention beyond armed conflict.
Republican presidential nominee Ron Paul faces much adversity within his party when it comes to his long-standing noninterventionist foreign policy. Paul, unlike his colleagues, opposes the self-defeating foreign entanglements our government pursues and reminds us of the death toll that accompanies them.
Such a view may seem radical among today's conservatives who, according to Paul, "strongly endorse an American Empire," "believe that lying is necessary for the state to survive," and "endorse attacks on civil liberties," but in actuality, Paul's views are consistent with the original intention of America. Proof of this is best articulated by Thomas Jefferson, who encouraged "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none," and James Madison, who said, "The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."
Today, we are rich and powerful and our government, more often than not, works. But does that grant us the right to be the world's executioner and judge? Paul, back in 1981, said that "we need less meddling in the affairs of other nations." Perhaps we should have listened.
It has become a popular belief that terrorists must have some psychological complex that compels them to kill us because we live in a prosperous democracy. Paul saw it differently when he said in 2003, "To dismiss terrorism as the result of Muslims hating us because we're rich and free is one of the greatest foreign policy frauds ever perpetrated on the American people."
Our country was founded in opposition to tyranny, yet we've fashioned our own form of tyranny abroad. We carry with us overseas the most monstrous tyrant of all: death. We wield it when we please and deem it horrible only when it happens to us. Of course, our government has found other ways of embracing intervention beyond armed conflict.
Be the first to comment on this story