The Danger of Ron Paul

I love an (electoral) insuragency as much as anyone else - remember, i remain proud of my support for ralph nader in the gore-bush election - but I'd like to suggest that the movement in favor of ron paul is harmful, not helpful, to the cause against the war. And let me be straight here: there is no moral or political cause more pressing at this moment than war, and i would vote for almost any candidate who i beleived would end our role in it.

Ron Paul is a radical libertarian whose focus is on economic libertarianism (in other words, supportive of a government too limited to regulate toxic industrial emissions but big enough to reach up into a woman's womb). Ron Paul's core supporters, however, are butressed in a big way by those like myself - people who don't pray to free market for every social solution but WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THE WAR IN IRAQ.

From an anti-war perspective, Ron Paul is the best candidate. He's been opposed to the war from day one. He's openly against American military intervention in world affairs for any purpose whatsoever besides true defense. He want to restore the protections against unjust wars built into the Constitution.

However, Ron Paul is also against social security, the irs, and just about any other government program or regulation, regardless of the proven benefit (of which his supporter religiously deny). He, or his staffers, are also on the record saying some pretty racist stuff. And for this reason, he will not win his party's nomination much less the presidency.

Barak Obama and John Edwards, while not as unequivocal as Paul, are also for a withdrawal. Obama has been particularly couragous because he's defied the war lobby and said he'd have talks with Iran (though his seeming support for military action to reign in our unloyal and undemocratic allly Pakistan is disturbing). And Obama and Edwards, unlike Paul, have a chance of taking the nomination from Hillary and ultimately winning the White House.

But to do that, they have to win or have strong showing in the early primary/ caucus states. In New Hampshire (as well as other states, including New Jersey), independents can vote in either party's primary. If anti-war independents vote in the primary elections, their votes will be sunk in a lost cause and tied to an ideological campaign whose anti-war position is merely ancillary to a philosophy most anti war independents could not support the practical effects of. A pro-war wing nut, such as Gulliani, will still win the nomination. Worse, the campaign will siphon anti-war independents away from the Obama and Edwards campaigns and help ensure a hawkish democrat, namely Hillary Clinton, will get the nomination and likely be the next president of the United States.

As such, I urge those for whom ending war is a pinnacle issue to support Ron Paul's position on interventionalism, but ultimately back an anti-war democrat in a vocal way.