Ron Paul, The Revolution, and Ending Abuses and Usurpations

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare


DIGG THIS

Congressman
Ron Paul's new book, The
Revolution
, is an unusual presidential campaign book in
that the candidate — Dr. Paul — is almost entirely absent. This
is not to say that his presence is not felt; indeed, Dr. Paul is
with the reader every step of the way and writes in a clear and
very direct style. But the reader will find that Dr. Paul is not
offering the audacity of hope or chanting change; he does not argue
that it takes a village or having slept with a former president;
and he surely does not hold up his military service as a reason
why he should be elected. Instead, Dr. Paul politely, laconically,
but frankly lays it on the line for his countrymen: America is in
significant and potentially catastrophic trouble economically, financially,
and militarily; the country's political class is homogenous, gutless,
and ill-educated; its two major parties do not offer a nickel's
worth of difference on important issues, especially foreign policy
[pp. 2, 26, 163]; and our leaders are consciously negating parts
of the Constitution, compromising America's national sovereignty,
and circumscribing the liberties of Americans. But then, astoundingly
and correctly, Dr. Paul does not say "Only I can fix this mess"
— as have Senators Clinton, Obama, and McCain — he says: "Only
you, the American people, can fix this mess." Dr. Paul confronts
Americans with a reality that ought to both chill and inspire them.

Ours is not
a fated existence, for nowhere is our destiny etched in stone.
In the final analysis, the last line of defense in support of
freedom and the Constitution consists of the people themselves.
If the people want to be free, if they want to lift themselves
out from underneath a state apparatus that threatens their liberties,
squanders their resources on needless wars, destroys the value
of their dollar, and spews forth endless propaganda about how
indispensable it is and how lost we would be without it, there
is no force that can stop them. If freedom is what we want, it
is ours for the taking. [p. 167]

At
the risk of angering some of this website's readers, to my conservative-but-not-libertarian
mind no American presidential candidate or serving president since
Abraham Lincoln has put so clearly to Americans the problems they
face and the sole means of their solution. "I wish you to remember
now and forever," Mr. Lincoln told an audience in Indianapolis
on 11 February 1861,

that it is
your business not mine; that if the union of these States and
the liberties of this people, shall be lost, it is but little
to any one man of fifty-two years of age, but a great deal to
the thirty millions of people who inhabit these United States
and to their posterity, in all coming time. It is your business
to rise up and preserve the Union and liberty, for yourselves,
and not for me.

Albeit through
far different philosophical lenses, Dr. Paul sees much the same
thing as did Mr. Lincoln: an approaching national calamity that
only the American people themselves can act to avert. And Mr. Lincoln's
reference to "posterity" is an appropriate point from
which to look at Dr. Paul's concern for America's future because
he, as did Mr. Lincoln, believes that the guide for ensuring the
welfare of our posterity lies in the Constitution left to Americans
by the Founders of their republic.

Dr. Paul reminds
Americans that they are the inheritors — the posterity, if you will
— of the work and guidance of the single wisest, most courageous,
and most foresighted group of leaders who ever lived at one time
and labored successfully to form a new republic. Refusing to be
fashionable — a most admirable characteristic — Dr. Paul forthrightly
declares that the Founders' work and guidance remain just as relevant
to Americans today as it was two-plus centuries ago. [p. 10] In
making this argument, he echoes Oxford Professor Daniel N. Robinson's
contention that the Founders drew from "the political life
of early America [which itself] is an extended treatise on the nature
of human nature," a treatise that held as a certainties the
beliefs that man was a flawed, non-perfectible creature whose attitudes
and character did not change over the ages. The Founders knew that
people do not change, that good and evil are constants in history,
and — most important — that power not freedom is the universal
value.

As Dr. Paul
notes, all U.S. politicians in this era pay lip service to the Founders
and their work, but few seem to know anything about what the Founders
thought, fought for, or passed on to us. In so saying, Dr. Paul
is being kind. I doubt a single one of the other presidential candidates
could extemporaneously compare and contrast the differences over
the draft constitution that put fellow Virginians James Madison
and George Mason at odds in 1787. Indeed, it would not surprise
me if they failed to distinguish between a paper by Ben Franklin
and the latest political pronouncement from Ben and Jerry, the Vermont
socialists. Dr. Paul has a well-honed contempt for charlatan politicians
who talk a good game about their fidelity to the Founders, but by
their actions show they regard them as a group of irrelevant and
thankfully dead white males. "These critics should have the
honesty to condemn the Founding Fathers … [but] they wouldn't dare,"
Dr. Paul writes, "But it would be refreshing to hear it stated
in so many words: our current political class is blessed with historic
genius, and Jefferson, Washington, and Madison were contemptible
fools." [p. 14]

Let me say
that I am not competent to assess the entire range of issues discussed
by Dr. Paul in The Revolution, but that at least makes me
the equal of all his presidential competitors. On the issue of U.S.
foreign policy and its impact, however, I have had a bit of experience
and can say with confidence that no sections of Dr. Paul's book
are more immediately important to Americans than those dealing with
foreign affairs. America today faces a quickly approaching, total,
worldwide, and economically ruinous war — in which the conscription
of our young will be unavoidable — against growing numbers of Islamist
fighters and their broadening support base. And if there was ever
a war that the United States did not need to wage in a total manner,
it is this one.

At base, the
war is about matters overwhelmingly internal to the Muslim world.
America has been attacked and will continue to be attacked not because
the Islamists hate our freedoms and liberties or even because we
are their main enemy. We are being attacked because of the unrelentingly
interventionist foreign policies our bipartisan political class
has pursued in the Muslim world for more than 35 years. This interventionism
— as Dr. Paul so well argues — has involved us in other peoples'
wars in which America has no genuine national interests at stake,
most notably in the Arab-Israeli religious war. We were attacked
in Yemen, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, East Africa, Yemen, again, New
York, Washington, and now in Iraq and Afghanistan because of our
decades-long record of interventionist policies, which have included
unqualified and unconscionable support for Israel and equally unconscionable
and unqualified support and protection for Muslim tyrannies like
Saudi Arabia. So mindless has been what Dr. Paul terms "hyperintervention"
[p. 16] that the United States finds itself in the absurd position
of being the major backer and protector of both sides in the Arab-Israeli
religious war, Saudi Arabia and Israel. As Dr. Paul rightly says,
the Islamists' "grievances are basically that we're u2018over there,"
[p. 18] and we are "over there" because of the lust of
U.S. leaders to intervene. "The point is a simple one,"
Dr. Paul concludes, "when our government meddles around the
world, it can stir up hornet's nests and thereby jeopardize the
safety of the American people. That's just common sense. But hardly
anyone dares to level with the American people about our fiasco
of a foreign policy." [p. 19]

Hardly anyone,
that is, except Dr. Paul. In The Revolution, Dr. Paul has
some kind things to say about my work, that of Dr. Robert Pape,
and for the studies of others who have tried to focus Americans
on the growing dangers to the United States posed by their political
class's overseas interventionism. Always the self-deprecating gentleman,
Dr. Paul does not mention that it is really those of us he compliments
who ought to be thanking him for making it possible to begin a debate
on the issue of interventionism. Without Dr. Paul's courage, persistence,
and the popularity of his non-interventionist views among Americans
in their mid-20s to mid-30s — which must be profoundly disturbing
to the two major parties — there would be no such debate and bipartisan
interventionism would continue to be the unquestioned order of the
day.

Dr. Paul's
detailed and outspoken defiance of our political elite's interventionist
gospel, however, has begun to expand what Alexis de Tocqueville
called the remarkably closed circle of acceptable speech in America.
Dr. Paul's success is evident in that non-interventionists can now
speak publicly and be smeared as appeasers, America-haters, and
anti-Semites no more than 80-percent of the time. This, believe
me, is a marked improvement as compared to several years ago. And
in an April, 2008, talk I gave about my book Marching Towards
Hell to San Francisco's World Affairs Council and Chicago's
Global Affairs Council, I tried in the following brief digression
to make a small payment on the large debt all non-interventionists
owe Dr. Paul. "And, if I may be frank," I said to the
hospitable San Franciscans and Chicagoans,

Americans
today face no bigger threat to their national security than Senators
McCain, Obama, and Clinton who in May 2007, along with those presidential
candidates now withdrawn, condemned and tried to silence Texas
Congressman Ron Paul for speaking the truth. When Dr. Paul said
that the Islamists attacked us on 9/11 because we had been intervening
in their world for more than fifty years, he spoke the non-partisan
truth on behalf of all of us.

And, yet,
Dr. Paul was dismissed as absurd by most of his fellow candidates,
and faced demands that he recant and apologize. On that occasion,
free speech was acceptable only if it meshed with our political
class's all-party line, which is summed up in the phrase: "The
terrorists hate us for who we are, not for what we do." Today,
this is the quite dishonest operating assumption of Senators McCain,
Clinton, and Obama.

The most
important impact of this sorry episode, however, is that Dr. Paul's
fellow candidates and the unctuous media deliberately halted the
first post-9/11 foreign policy discussion among senior U.S. politicians
that would have worried Osama bin Laden and his allies. When Dr.
Paul told Americans the truth and was shunted aside by other candidates
and the media, bin Laden and his ilk breathed a heavy sigh of
relief. For the time being, bin Laden's only indispensable ally
— the status quo in U.S. foreign policy — was safe.

To
conclude, I can only urge Americans to get Dr. Paul's The Revolution;
read and think about it; and then share and talk about it with your
family and friends. But be prepared to feel a new burden of responsibility
in your life because Dr. Paul makes it clear that America's future
is in its citizens' hands. Again at the risk of angering this site's
readers, Dr. Paul's book will tell you exactly what Mr. Lincoln
told Americans 170 years ago: "If destruction be our lot, we
must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen,
we must live through all time, or die by suicide." Dr. Paul
recognizes this reality and closes his book with the simple sentence:
"Let the Revolution begin." [p. 167]

And so let
it, but let us first underscore the importance of Dr. Paul's exhortation
by remembering that it must begin from our recognition of duty.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same Object," a certain Mr. T. Jefferson of
Virginia wrote in the summer of 1776, "evinces a design to
reduce them [Americans] under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
provide new Guards for their future security." Perhaps Dr.
Paul should have written: "Do your duty Americans, let the
revolution begin."

May
7, 2008

Michael
Scheuer [send him mail] is
the author of Marching
Toward Hell: America and Islam After Iraq
and Imperial
Hubris
and Through
Our Enemies’ Eyes
. He recently resigned after 22 years at
the CIA.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare