Freedom is a good thing! Both traditional conservatives and libertarians agree on this. Indeed, the United States was founded on the promise of liberty for all. It is written into in The Declaration of Independence, a document we rightfully honor.
But even a good thing can be taken too far. As Ralph Waldo Emerson taught us, “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” Today one of those who is taking his political principles too far is Ron Paul.
In seeking the nomination for the presidency, Paul is providing an object lesson in libertarianism run amok. Given what he is saying, it is remarkable that his poll numbers are so high. Perhaps not everyone realizes the implications of what he preaches. Much of it implies an unwillingness to learn from experience.
Paul has in recent weeks presented what can only be described as a crackpot foreign policy. Yet he is so beloved by ideological libertarians that they cheer rowdily for every word out of his mouth. It is as if they aren’t listening.
Exhibit number one is his expressed indifference as to whether Iran acquires nuclear weapons. As far as Paul is concerned, this is their right. Because Iran is a sovereign nation, it is supposedly not our business to dictate how its leaders choose to defend themselves. This is presumably their decision, not ours.
Paul undoubtedly thinks of himself as applying libertarian principles to the world stage. He evidently believes everyone should be free—including rogue states. He even asks why we should care what Iran does, thereby implying that there are no negative consequences of their actions.
Paul fancies himself intellectually consistent, but he is guilty of failing to think ahead. Why should we worry about Iran getting nuclear weapons? The reasons are many. To begin with, if they do, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Algeria and Iraq will all want to follow suit. In their desire to protect themselves from an aggressive neighbor, they will feel obliged to enter an arms race.
But if this happens—if there are too many undisciplined fingers on the nuclear trigger—someone is likely to do something foolish. The situation will be comparable to Europe just before World War I. The Middle East will then become a tinderbox where one stray match can set off a conflagration.
So what does Ron Paul want? He clearly wants to play Neville Chamberlain and appease the Iranians. Instead of stepping in to stop a Hitler before he goes feral, he wants to disengage. Somehow he believes that the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans can protect us if the world descends into chaos.
This is worse than wishful thinking. It is willful ignorance of history disguised as high-minded statesmanship. While it is true that Paul has the courage of his convictions, he is trapped in an ideological time warp that prevents him from the flexible thinking required of a president.
Another example of this tendency has been revealed by his reaction to the aftermath of hurricane Irene. He has suggested that it is inappropriate for the federal government to help out its victims. Paul even wants to put FEMA out of business.
In fact, Paul does have a valid argument when it comes to offering government insurance to people who live in areas prone to natural disasters. He is correct in describing this as a subsidy for bad behavior. Private insurers won’t issue policies because they know this amounts to paying people for predicable losses. Why then should the federal government squander our money?
Nevertheless, one of the jobs of the government is to help people when they suffer from unpredictable losses. The hurricane was not the fault of people who live in Vermont. Why should they suffer? Don’t we want to be there for them?
So should we abandon tradition merely to be intellectually consistent? This would amount to what the English did during the Irish potato famine. They refused to send aid to Ireland on the principled grounds that people have a duty to help themselves. But wasn’t this going too far? And isn’t Paul doing the same thing?
Melvyn L. Fein. Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment