I am not only a priest, I am also a citizen of this country. As such I feel it my civic duty to listen to at least some of the debates going on during the primary season. This primary season that has meant only the Republican debates since there is no opposition to President Obama on the Democratic side. As I have listened, some of the candidates have dropped out of any possible contention in my mind. But, it has not only been in my mind only, but obviously also in the mind of many others since the field is now down to five people as of yesterday’s debate.
There are other candidates that are obviously riding the tide of Republican popularity. Right now Romney is trying to seal the Republican nomination. Santorum and Gingrich are now tied but steadily dropping behind Romney, but Ron Paul is almost even with them though technically in fourth place. As I listened to them, I found myself with a grudging respect for Ron Paul in several areas, though I doubt that he has any chance for the Republican nomination.
I found that he is the one who most would use the phrase that those who are really conservative must hold views that are consistent with the claims of free market conservatism. To that end he chastised his fellow conservatives on a couple of points that I found to be interesting. He said that the country’s approach toward the military needs to be as consistent as the conservatives’ approach toward economic policy. That is, he said that if conservatives say that it makes no sense to simply throw tax money at the economy then it makes no more sense to simply throw tax money at the military. He quoted President Eisenhower who warned about the military-industrial complex and warned that there is a difference between spending money on the military and spending money on defense. I found that to be an interesting distinction. He then pointed out that it makes no sense to have military scattered around the world in over 100 bases, many of them bases that no longer meet a military need, but rather are there for political purposes. He said that if conservatives would be against economic programs being kept for political purposes then conservatives should be against bases being kept open for political purposes.
Ron Paul was also the only one who argued that we cannot find peace in Afghanistan until we understand the difference between the Taliban and Al-Quaeda. His point was that Al-Quaeda is the party who wants to come here and hurt us while the Taliban are folks who simply want any foreigner out of their country and have little intention of going outside the Afghanistan/Pakistan area. He was also concerned that the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strikes has taken us dangerously out into the arena in which we become the aggressor rather than the defender. That is, as he pointed out, a pre-emptive strike is a strike that takes place BEFORE we have been attacked, based simply on someone’s fear that a foreigner might attack. As Christians we ought to be very concerned about this change in just-war doctrine, a doctrine whose beginnings date back to the days of the united Church, long before the Great Schism.
Let me point out that on financial issues Ron Paul is considered to be on the “far right” of the spectrum. But, what I noticed was not whether he was on the “far right.” Rather, what I noticed was his insistence that our policies must be consequent with our beliefs in each and every area of our policies. More than that, he consistently denounced a simplistic approach toward the problems that beset us, but argued that there needs to be an accurate understanding and not a stereotypical understanding.
Do I agree with everything he says? No, I do not agree with him on many issues. And I was certainly horrified with the quotes from the 1980’s and 1990’s in one of the magazines to which his name was attached. But, I can have a grudging respect for someone who strives to be consistent in carrying out what he says he believes in every area of his political platform. More than that, he was openly booed several times, but stuck to his guns, which showed a certain degree of courage. Consistency is something that is normally sorely lacking among politicians. In fact, I wish that many more politicians–on both sides of the spectrum–would be as consistent and consequent in their politics as Ron Paul appears to be.
Interestingly enough, Saint James tells us to let our “yes” be yes and our “no” be no. We most definitely need to pray that our politicians, of whatever stripe, learn to be men and women who learn to say what they believe and then behave in a consequent way. Frankly, we need to pray the same thing for ourselves.
One thing did bother me about the debate, and that was the audience. It has not improved our political campaigns that it is now considered normal to interrupt a speaker with boos and even drown him out to the point that he must pause before he continues. I am not for either side engaging in the stifling of viewpoints with which you do not agree. There was entirely too much of that going on.
“. . . . a pre-emptive strike is a strike that takes place BEFORE we have been attacked, based simply on someone’s fear that a foreigner might attack. As Christians we ought to be very concerned about this change in just-war doctrine, a doctrine whose beginnings date back to the days of the united Church, long before the Great Schism.”
Agreed, but don’t you mean this is a *departure* from just-war doctrine, not “a change” in it? Forgive me if this is quibbling, but your wording seems to open the way for such changes to be applied and then for those who make the changes to claim that what they’ve altered is still the just-war doctrine of the Church.
I believe that when American policy makers invoke just war doctrine, they mostly don’t know or care what they’re talking about and are just giving it lip service, anyway. Same for most citizens hearing the term, too. It’s reduced to a cliche that’s supposed to signal some kind of circumspection about going to war, but then pretty much what happens is we go to war and and the hawks make arguments for why it’s “just.” , But all this is tangential to your topic.
My response to Paul is a lot like yours. So much there that I can’t get behind, but so much that is spot on concerning our military aggression. I respect his consistency, too, but I also remember uneasily that to be so rigidly consistent is usually to be an ideologue. I am somewhat disgusted by the way the media condescendingly pretend that Paul is of no account (a media tic that Jon Stewart has hilariously scorned on several occasions). I am also aghast that now rude interruptions and booing are considered normal behavior for audiences listening to candidates. Actually, I think there are times for that, but it’s become way too common and “normal.”
The reason I used the term change rather than departure was to use a thoroughly neutral term. But, to me it is an inappropriate departure. Those who backed President Bush (W) said that it was an appropriate change. You can look back and Google the debates that went on back then. You can also look at the website of the US Catholic Bishops Conference and read the communications they had with President Bush (W).
Sadly, it is not an issue that is being discussed by the Orthodox or the Roman Catholics or Evangelicals. The issue has been left unresolved.