Ron Paul’s foreign policy ideas do not benefit nation

Thursday, March, 22, 2012; 9:59 PM | 50 | | Print

by Devin Miller, Regular Columnist

Ron Paul is one of the four remaining politicians currently vying for the Republican Party nomination, and as a true libertarian, he is a bit of an outlier compared to most Republicans.

One idea that separates Paul from most Republicans, as well as many Democrats, is that he is an ardent opponent of U.S. interventionism in other countries, and could reasonably be described as an isolationist.

While many of Paul’s ideas on the role of government and how far our government has strayed from the Constitution are interesting, and perhaps compelling, his views on American foreign policy that preach strong isolationism are misguided, and would be dangerous if applied.

Congressman Paul seems to believe that the U.S. should remove itself militarily from the rest of the world and cease most military operations outside our borders. He also argues against most forms of economic interventionism, such as foreign aid, or using assets and corporations for the country’s interests abroad.

The problem with Paul’s isolationist rhetoric is that U.S. interventionism is extremely important to world peace and the global economic stability.

The presence of the U.S. military in other parts of the world in the post-World War II era has helped ensure World War III doesn’t occur. ‘World peace’ is probably not a realistic goal, but ‘world stability’ is certainly within the realm of
possibility.

Thanks to U.S. interventionism, and the international organizations our involvement in global politics helped create, a general degree of political stability has existed in the world since the 1940s.

There have obviously been conflicts since America began its interventionist policies, but overall, the U.S. presence politically and militarily in world politics has created a certain degree of political stability that has kept the major world powers from trying to annihilate each other again, like we almost did during World War II.

The United States’ economic presence in the world has created a generally stable world economy, the current recession notwithstanding, and is one of the major reasons products, capital and money have been able to spread so rapidly around the modern world. The stability interventionist U.S. economic policy creates in the world is helping people in poor and rich nations alike find success.

Yet, Congressman Paul believes that the U.S. would be better off not intervening in the global scene, in regards to the political, military and economic policies that have led to a somewhat stable system and benefit many countries around the world. He seems to believe that ceasing interventionist policies and minding our own affairs within our own borders is the best thing for our country.

This sort of philosophy, of keeping our eyes trained only on the lands and peoples in the borders of the U.S., perhaps would work in the 19th century, when a country as large as ours could survive without being involved in the rest of the world, but it certainly cannot work today.

Continue Reading: 1 2 Next »

A version of this article appeared in the Mar 23 issue of the Collegiate Times.

Leave a comment 50 Comments Write a letter to the editor

Anonymous | # March 22, 2012 @ 10:40 PM — Flag Comment

Militarily, not meddling in other countries affairs is entirely in our best interest. Otherwise, we experience blowback. I'm sure you've heard of it. According to the 9/11 commission, it is the reason for 9/11. Look it up. I wish you had before writing this article, as, this article would then have no purpose of existing. Thank you, Devin Miller, for your uninformed perspective

Collegiate Times

Leave a Comment