Getting Past Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy

[Editor’s note:  Special thanks to Valerie Sargent Martin for permission to repost this article in it’s entirety. It can be found also via We are Politics.  It is a most excellent piece for sharing with friends waking up about our situation and struggling with the disconnect between media spin and the harsh economic realities we face as we deal with difficult foreign policy matters. National security tops globalist interests for most of us, but clearly not the spinmeisters and elitists among us. Having a leader who is not intimidated by globalists is a little unsettling to those few but powerful forces at work among us. Thanks to people like Valerie, more and more people are understanding this dynamic and more importantly than that catching a vision of what must be done about matters.]


Valerie Sargent Martin is a political activist and former candidate for United States Congress.  She holds a Master’s Degree in international business administration from Mercer University. Valerie works as a technical writer and information technology business analyst. Her work involves product development for U.S. Air Force bases around the world.   She can be contacted at:
twitter @valeriesmartin  Facebook page 


On Saturday, September 17th, Constitution Day, Ron Paul won the California Republican Party straw poll with 44.9% of the votes as reported by our own Bill Knowles here at Knowles, however, was quick to qualify his report of Paul’s victory saying, “…no matter how much someone agrees with most of [Paul’s] views they can’t get past his foreign policy.”     Polling numbers support Knowles’  caveat. Of all the top-tier Republican presidential candidates, Paul struggles more than anyone else to gain hisparty’s support.

Ron Paul’s foreign policy is frequently characterized as “isolationism” by both the media and those who disagree with him. But the talking heads know they are purposefully obfuscating the heart of Ron Paul’s foreign policymessage when they use that term. Paul prefers “non-interventionism” to describe his beliefs. Or “mutually assured respect,” which was deliberately    chosen to contrast with the foreign policy of mutually assured destruction the world has known for most of the last century. Mutually assured respect is the “Golden Rule” applied to foreign policy. It means friendship and trade with other nations with no threats, bribes, or occupation. It also means ending taxpayer-funded foreign aid to rich dictators.

The idea of non-intervention is not new in history or unique to Ron Paul.  Thomas Jefferson warned of us of “entangling alliances” in his inaugural address. And as for non-interventionism put into practice, there has never been a terrorist attack on the Swiss, a people whose freedom and security is due in large part to their adoption of a non-interventionist foreign policy. Yet Paul’s endorsement of the message of non-interventionism strikes fear into Conservatives’ hearts.

In a recent video meant to address Paul’s positions on national defense, Paul explains how the peace dividend from the end of the Cold War has been wasted by special interests groups that benefit from perpetual war.  He reminds us that peace, prosperity, and liberty can only be spread by  example, not by force. Paul does not mince words when he says such attempts to “spread democracy” are not only unconstitutional, but result in a world dependent on American intervention, as proven by our military presence in over 130 countries. He also warns that America can not fight an endless series of undeclared, unconstitutional wars halfway around the world against regional rivals without bankrupting itself and abandoning its own civil liberties in the process.

This sort of candor about American Empire and policing the world has become the equivalent of endorsing terrorism for many on the Right. Since 9/11, anxiety over Islamic Jihad, Sharia Law, and suicide terrorism has become the glue that holds together the various factions of the Republican coalition, binding wealthy Wall Streeters to social conservatives in the same manner as anti-communism did a generation ago. For some, Paul’s beliefs seem to contradict all they have been taught about patriotism and love of country. Paul’s demand that we only use constitutional means to accomplish our military goals strikes many as naïve.

It does not matter to many Republicans whether Ron Paul agrees that terrorists must be defeated, or that he voted in support of action in Afghanistan after 9/11. It does not matter that Ron Paul is an Air Force veteran and has received more campaign donations from members of the U.S. military than all other Republican presidential candidates combined.  What matters to Republicans is that Paul does not support, as many Republicans do, the belief that militarism can destroy the threat of terrorism or dramatically deter it. As long as that is the case, Paul may find his brand of foreign policy is an impossible obstacle for Republicans to overcome.

Posted by Sandra Crosnoe for R3publicans
Cross-Posted for OKGrassroots


2 thoughts on “Getting Past Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy

  1. I love Ron Paul’s foreign policy. Why should we have our soldiers involved in places they aren’t wanted? Why do we have to constantly stick our noses in other people’s business? We don’t, and contrary to government belief, it’s not our right. Ron Paul can finally make the US a respected member of the global community again.

  2. I have nothing to add here but HEAR! HEAR!

    (that means I agree vociferously!)

    Rich Grise, Self-Appointed Chief,
    Internet Apostrophe Police

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s