I made the mistake of watching the talking heads on FoxNews.com after the Republican presidential debate last night. Those blabbers treat politics like a reality TV show, always focused only on who "won," and assigning letter grades to candidates. So Perry got a high grade because he said he's the Tim Tebow of the Iowa caucus, Romney got a high grade because he looked presidential, and Gingrich got a high grade because the other candidates didn't attack him too much.
While they were the flapping their lips, the online viewers voted on the statement "Gingrich won the debate." (*Update: On second thought, I believe it actually said something like, "Gingrich performed well in the debate." Alas, now I can't find the exact question. Either way—)
60% disagreed. The talking heads saw that number and were all, "Oh, that can't be right" and "The numbers are probably backwards, that can't be right." I disagree. After all, Gingrich didn't properly reconcile receiving $1.6 million from Freddie Mac, and he wants Congress to have the ability to subpoena jurists. Plus, he comes across as pompous. So maybe people had real reasons for disappointment—maybe they really didn't think he deserved an A-.
But all the talking heads seemed to agree that Ron Paul deserved an F for his views on foreign policy, simply because his views on foreign policy don't fit the current mood of the mainstream Republican establishment (which, hallelujah, won't survive much longer).
Here is it's senseless to argue about who won these sound-bite debates: The talking heads are asking, essentially, "Which candidate parroted the stance the majority of voters wanted to hear?" To answer that question takes the intellect required to play Bingo. Match the number on your sheet to the number just called out.
So Ron Paul's views on foreign policy are to the left of Obama's, and therefore the talking heads gave him an F. But where does the notion of "left" come from? Why do we say "left" vs. "right"? This summary says the idea comes from the French Revolution, 1789. Those who supported the king sat to the right of the president of the National Assembly; those who opposed the king sat to the left.
In other words, those on the left wanted blood.
What I mean to say is that "left" and "right" are meaningless terms when it comes to describing warfare. Ron Paul's philosophy, on the other hand, is sound. His reasoning is this: If we don't like one-size-fits-all solutions from the federal government on domestic policy (i.e. No Child Left Behind), what makes us think that foreign countries will like one-size-fits-all solutions from our federal government? That's a question that merits serious thought.
Israel has 300 nukes, Iran might someday get 1. Last night Ron Paul merely argued that we shouldn't overreact to this situation, that we should instead be extremely cautious before we rush into another prolonged, poorly managed, and insanely expensive war. Why fiscal conservatives can't agree to this, I don't know. We can't rush to war with Iran and simultaneously balance the budget.
And who goes to war? Young people. And who will pay off the national debt? Young people. Some talking heads wonder why young people are drawn to Ron Paul. They should stop wondering.
Further readings:
On Foreign Policy, Ron Paul Is More Mainstream Than His Opponents
About That Iraq Withdrawal (Obama didn't want it)
0 comments:
Post a Comment