Yes, before you burst a sac or two, this will be another post in support of Ron Paul. And I’m going to explain why Ron Paul’s foreign policy (the bane of mainstream “conservatives” and one of my points of concern in my support for him) doesn’t really matter. There are two big reasons I say this.
First, the assumption is that the Ron Paul foreign policy is full-bore isolationism, and will be a disaster for the country. Consider also that the assumption that the Obama foreign policy is also hella-weak, and therefore a disaster for the country. And the assumption that all other GOP candidates (with the exception of Jon Huntsman’s relatively nuanced policies (my fav, actually) and Gary Johnson’s similar stance as Ron Paul) who favor continuing the status quo, or even escalating the size and scope of the wars can prevent disaster.
So let’s look at the Obama foreign policy so far. As of right now, it does, on the diplomacy front, leave us looking weak. If I were a terrorist, I think I’d blow a city or two up, because it’s an election year and Obama is going to want to suck up to the antiwar bunch that was one of his voting blocs. Especially since, despite his 2008 bullshit, he’s kept most of the Bush-era war in place. So we can agree that he’s kept the status quo in that area in place while looking like a limp-wristed weenie to the rest of the world.
Then there’s the Ron Paul way. This is more of a focus on getting us out of entangling nation-building missions, reducing the number of troops protecting countries around the world from the Red Menace and the Yellow Peril (we won that war), and less military and financial engagement than we have since the days of WWII. I will admit that this could lead to more instability as there will always be some country who will be the leader in terms of diplomatic, military and commercial power. Pulling back does carry this risk. I will point out we can still be the most powerful military even if we cut a lot (because China isn’t even close to us and they’re the biggest), our diplomatic power is diminished when we’re entangled in too many ongoing wars (especially wars of choice, which can describe the current state of most of our overseas missions now), and we know we can dominate commercially (assuming we can sort out our economy, which is playing catchup with the disaster known as the EU).
This brings me to the second point. We simply can’t afford to keep spending large chunks of our economy on the engines of war. We have to get this spending under control, in addition to all the other spending boondoggles we’re entangled in. The specific numbers I leave to people who know the specifics better. But with no other candidate even talking major cuts (especially considering the big-government aspirations of NewtMitt), financial stability IS foreign policy. The fact is that our enemies without we can deal with as necessity dictates. The real threat to our lives, liberty and property is from within, from a federal government that wants to point a gun at us and dictate more and more of our lives (like the volume level of TV commercials on the lame end and controls over the Internet and powers to imprison Americans, in America, in the unending “war” on terrorism on the truly dangerous end).
And it is ONLY in fighting the tendency toward the status quo in this country that we can stop the madness of an out-of-control and ever-growing government. No terrorist, even in nuking a city can defeat us. But we can defeat ourselves by continuing down the path we are on.