In Defense of Not Defending Ron Paul

Some people are going to characterize my last post as an "attack" on Paul. The last time I criticized Paul, one of his defenders said it was obvious to him that I just didn't like Paul, and I should be more honest and just "right" (sic) that.

Do I like Paul, personally? Yes. His views on the Constitution as they apply to domestic policy and the deficit are first rate. I have praised him for his stance defending the Second Amendment. So why the criticism? I like Ron Paul, but I love my country.

Whether or not I like Ron Paul has nothing at all to do with whether or not he is qualified to be the next Leader of the Free World. Although he says he would bring the troops home to strengthen our borders, he has exhibited a very dismissive attitude in our allies defending theirs. He characterizes Israel's fight for survival as a "squabble" with their enemies.

He has said he will treat all countries equally, which, if we take him at his word, would mean that we would trade with North Korea, Iran and China identically to the way we trade with Great Britain, Canada and Israel. A Neo-isolationist is not one who cuts off all trade, but one who seeks to retreat behind a fence and and trust that the rest of the world will not deteriorate or mount a world wide threat that would be too massive to stop if we wait until it is on our doorstep.

America is the de facto leader of the free world. We can lead by example and by taking proactive measures when they are prudent and called for. Does this mean we need every military base we currently support around the globe? Probably not. Does this mean we don't need any? How naive can one get?

We give preferential treatment to our allies. We share military technology with them and give pledges of mutual aid because we have mutual goals. We don't depose dictators with overtures of friendship.

Will Rogers said that diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggy" while looking for a large enough rock. Ron Paul doesn't seem that fond of rocks.