If Ron Paul could somehow claim royalties for use of the phrase “I like Paul except for his foreign policy,” then his campaign would shatter every record for money raised by a presidential candidate. Unfortunately, there are no royalties coming from the phrase and Congressman Paul likely would not take one silver dime from something that is free speech anyway. That phrase alone, though, brings up a series of questions that should be posed to those who utter it so liberally. Discussion should abound regarding isolationism versus non-interventionism, the fiscal wisdom of committing so much money to overseas entanglements while the U.S. economy languishes, and the Constitutionality of the U.S. serving as the world’s police. Unfortunately, most foreign policy skeptics refuse to have an open conversation about any of these topics and instead revert to the standard neo-conservative banners regarding how our enemies hate us because of our freedom and prosperity and that we must protect our ally Israel at all costs. To these people, I can only pose one final question. Why aren’t you serving in the Armed Forces?
This question is usually met with a mix of surprise, embarrassment, and anger. It is also usually followed by profuse stammering, inability to make eye contact, and excuses such as “I have a family here to take care of,” or “I would but I can’t just walk away from my job,” or just “I’m too old.” A quick look at the military service members would reveal that not only do they have families (gasp!), but many of them were actually employed before joining the service. Amazing, right? Not only that, but there are rumors that a good percentage of the fighting force is advanced in age and past their prime physically. Some didn’t even join up until they were already past the age of forty.
The fact of the matter is, it is much easier to be vocally supportive of a hawkish foreign policy when you are doing it from afar. When you don’t have a physical gun in the fight, it is much easier to abandon diplomacy and sound the call for war. Campaign donation statistics showing that the U.S. military has donated more to Ron Paul’s campaign than the combined total received by the remaining GOP candidates should lead the average citizen and voter to believe that those who do actually have a gun in the fight are tired of being the brass knuckles and are ready to give diplomacy a shot. Unfortunately for the troops, the average citizen does not equate “supporting the troops” with actually listening to what the troops are saying. Supporting the troops means giving them 10% off their purchase and putting a yellow ribbon magnet on back of your car. While service members are genuinely grateful for the support that they do receive, I would venture to float the conjecture that most troops would trade every discount and every yellow ribbon magnet for more time out of harm’s way to spend with their families. I’d even go so far as to say that many would trade it just for the mere appearance that elected officials and the general public were willing to attempt diplomacy prior to using them as the hammer to smash any country that dare cross the United States.
It is hard to blame most citizens for their viewpoints. After all, for every Ron Paul there are a dozen Rick Santorums and ten Michelle Bachmanns who will toe the Grand Old Party line and tell us it is our patriotic duty to defend Israel and the United States against all aggressors. For every Ron Paul there are twenty John McCains and Lindsey Grahams who can barely walk upright due to all the money stuffed in their pockets by lobbyists who profit from international conflict and robust military spending. For every Ron Paul there are hundreds of Glenn Becks, Mark Levins, and Rush Limbaughs on television and the airwaves making millions of dollars peddling discord among the citizens. It is not easy to see the small light of truth and reason through the blazing fires of obfuscation and propaganda that the American public is hit with on a daily basis.
Many Ron Paul supporters will admit to having an establishment mindset in the past. I, myself, openly laughed and derided Ron Paul in 2007 and 2008 during his Presidential campaign. Like so many others though, this was before having studied Paul’s principles in depth and having come to the realization that there is nothing “crazy” or “kooky” about following the Constitution and using the United States military for its intended purpose of defense and not as the Department of Offense. The trick for the Paul campaign has been and will continue to be to present his foreign policy in such a logical fashion that even die-hard neo-conservatives have a difficult time arguing against it.
Until the day comes that Paul’s foreign policy is no longer viewed by mainstream GOP voters as a hindrance and is instead viewed as the positive that it is, Paul supporters should expect to continue to hear “I like Ron Paul except on foreign policy” or a variant thereof. In the meantime, I politely suggest to Paul’s foreign policy skeptics that they take a quick trip to the local military recruiting station and prove that they truly believe what they are saying by enlisting and picking up a gun. The current troops are sure to welcome you with open arms.