Ron Paul, the Expatriate's Patriot

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare


DIGG THIS

Ron Paul gives
the more than five million Americans living abroad the opportunity
to hold their heads a little, no, a lot higher. Having
spent twelve of the last fourteen years abroad, in Chile, Malaysia,
and South Korea, this writer, for one, has never felt prouder to
be an American than in the recent months since Dr. Paul of Texas
launched his presidential bid. And if this Incomplete
List of Ron Paul Blogs
is any indication, our foreign hosts
and friends are catching on as well:

Many of my
fellow American expatriates and our foreign friends find in the
good doctor the embodiment of what makes America beautiful, its
original traditions of self-government and non-interventionism.
These are now all but lost save for that quixotic figure, Dr. Ron
Paul. While he may not be as well known (yet) overseas as Obama,
Hillary, or Giuliani, these three are known mostly for who they
are (or, in last case, for where he was), rather than for
what they believe.

Dr. Ron Paul,
quite simply and radically, stands for the principles stated in
our founding documents. The Declaration of Independence has inspired
countless peoples the world over in the grip of tyranny. (For but
one example, take a look at how the Declaration
of Korean Independence
, proclaimed on March 1st,
1919, parallels that one proclaimed on July 4th, 1776.)
Similarly, the Constitution of the United States, described by the
régime as “quaint,” has been a model for governments the
world over, including even the Swiss, who, in imitating American
federalism, are more Catholic than the Pope.

While the ideals
upon which our country was founded are lauded by many, no one wants
them imposed at the barrel of a gun. The wave of spontaneous sympathy
and solidarity from Paris to Tehran that followed the attacks of
September 11th, 2001 was quickly squandered by an administration
that took a “you’re-either-with-us-or-against” approach to diplomacy,
that has alienated us from our allies and further alienated us from
our enemies. The adoption of the neocon “Democracy on the March”
ideology has only made matters far worse.

In the last
six years, ours has become the opposite of the “humble nation” Mr.
Bush promised in the debate of October 12th, 2000. Indeed,
Dr. Paul has publicly stated that his foreign policy is the one
the future president promised on that day: “If we’re an arrogant
nation, they’ll resent us; if we’re a humble nation, but strong,
they’ll welcome us.” We have become an arrogant nation, more arrogant
than ever, and we are resented more than ever.

Merely entrusting
the presidency to the other wing of The
War Party
will do nothing to restore our ravaged image abroad.
Mr. Bush made his “humble nation” remark to the vice-president of
a régime whose secretary of state has called ours the “indispensable
nation,” implying that all the rest just can’t get by without us.
She also infamously called “worth it” the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi
children under the rgime sanctions. This, and Mr. Clinton’s cruise
missile diplomacy, his wagging of the dog to divert domestic attention
from his numerous scandals, and his pravoslavophobic bombing of
Serbia, caused a great deal of hatred for America and Americans.

Of course,
the history of interventionism and its blowback goes back much further
than the era of the Bush and Clinton dynasties. What is the American
Century if not a century of American interventionism in the four
corners of the globe? We have to go back to the end of the 19th
Century to find a president who recognized this to be “every bit
as odious as imperialism and misguided nationalism” and who advocated
that “we never get caught up in conflict with any foreign state
unless attacked or otherwise provoked.” That president was Grover
S. Cleveland, whom Thomas J. DiLorenzo called the “great libertarian
from Buffalo” (and from whose article The
Last Good Democrat
come the quotes in the preceding sentence).
His presidency ended in 1897, the year before the Empire began.
It is time for the “great libertarian from Texas” to take the White
House.

Dr. Ron Paul
stands for non-interventionism, as described in his brilliant essay,
The Original American
Foreign Policy
. They don’t hate us for our freedoms. They hate
us for our Wilsonian foreign policy as advocated by the other candidates
in both parties, which is in direct opposition to the Washingtonian
and Jeffersonian non-interventionism expressed by Dr. Ron Paul.

Oderint
dum metuant (let them hate as long as they fear) is the order
of the day under the current régime. It has succeeded in
that they do, indeed, hate us. They don’t fear us as much as they
did because they realize we’re broke and in perhaps the terminal
decline that has destroyed all empires, but they still hate us.
They have even grown to resent us in allied countries. While most
people understand that people are individuals, not representatives
of their governments, it becomes tiresome for an expatriate to need
to incessantly explain his self and his country to his hosts, although
with Dr. Paul’s candidacy it has become easier and more enjoyable,
which is the starting point for this essay.

But
it is not to make our lives easier that Paulistas abroad support
the man. Most Americans abroad hope to return home someday, and
we hope to return home to a country that we recognize. It is even
becoming doubtful whether we will even have country to which to
return, a possibility pondered by Michael S. Rozeff in his recent
essay, On
Track for U.S. Collapse
. Ron Paul is the only candidate who
speaks of turning things around.

Your fellow
Americans abroad want to come home someday! Support Ron Paul!

November
6, 2007

An American
Catholic son-in-law of Korea, Joshua Snyder [send
him mail
] lives with his wife and two children in Pohang, where
he serves as an assistant visiting professor of English at a science
and technology university. He blogs at The
Western Confucian
.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts