{"id":13439,"date":"2011-12-30T00:09:35","date_gmt":"2011-12-30T08:09:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=13439"},"modified":"2011-12-30T01:26:38","modified_gmt":"2011-12-30T09:26:38","slug":"pauls-foreign-policy-focus","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2011\/12\/30\/pauls-foreign-policy-focus\/","title":{"rendered":"Paul&#8217;s Foreign Policy Focus"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>One doesn&#8217;t have to agree with all of\u00a0Ron Paul&#8217;s libertarian views to admire his principled anti-interventionism and opposition to America&#8217;s eternal wars: clearly his foreign policy\u00a0positions\u00a0intersect at the\u00a0point where character meets ideology.\u00a0In<a href=\"http:\/\/www.usatoday.com\/news\/politics\/story\/2011-12-29\/ron-paul--iowa-caucuses-interview\/52278332\/1\"> this interview <\/a>with<em> USA Today<\/em>, he responds to the ever popular\u00a0if-only-Paul-would-moderate-his-&#8216;isolationism&#8217; meme:<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;<em>His poll status has attracted fire from his Republican opponents, who have criticized his views on Iran \u2014 he opposes a U.S. strike to stop their nuclear ambitions \u2014 and Israel, which he says no longer needs U.S. foreign aid. They&#8217;ve called Paul &#8216;outside the mainstream&#8217; for those and for calling for the speedy removal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>&#8220;Paul cares little for calls that he &#8216;go more moderate&#8217; on foreign policy. He is who he is. &#8216;That would be the last thing I&#8217;m<\/em> going <em>to do \u2026 water down my beliefs.<\/em>&#8216;<\/p>\n<p><em>&#8220;&#8216;Others have argued &#8216;Oh yeah, if Ron Paul would just go more moderate on this foreign policy all of the sudden he would get a broader audience&#8217; and that&#8217;s isn&#8217;t it,&#8221; he said. &#8216;The more I&#8217;ve been talking about what I&#8217;ve been saying for a long time, the more people we have joining us.<\/em>&#8216;&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>This is the same argument I make in my Friday column on the subject of <a href=\"http:\/\/original.antiwar.com\/justin\/2011\/12\/29\/ron-paul-and-the-future-of-american-foreign-policy\/\">&#8220;Ron Paul and the Future of American Foreign Policy<\/a>&#8221; &#8212; that Paul&#8217;s success has changed the discourse inside the GOP and the conservative movement, and transformed the political landscape. His\u00a0Iowa surprise\u00a0debunks the myth of a monolithic militaristic &#8220;conservatism,&#8221; which hasn&#8217;t been the case since the implosion of the Soviet empire &#8212; and really never was the case, since libertarians dissented <a href=\"http:\/\/books.google.com\/books?id=H5l3Q1hGwnoC&amp;lpg=PA46&amp;dq=\">early on <\/a>from their conservative cousins&#8217; enthusiasm for nuclear war with the commies.<\/p>\n<p>What has charmed millions about Paul is his purity, and I don&#8217;t just\u00a0mean ideologically. It&#8217;s his insistance on emphasizing precisely what is supposedly &#8220;controversial&#8221; about his candidacy &#8212; \u00a0because he recognizes its moral importance as well as its centrality to his\u00a0own worldview. How unlike a politician can you get?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>One doesn&#8217;t have to agree with all of\u00a0Ron Paul&#8217;s libertarian views to admire his principled anti-interventionism and opposition to America&#8217;s eternal wars: clearly his foreign policy\u00a0positions\u00a0intersect at the\u00a0point where character meets ideology.\u00a0In this interview with USA Today, he responds to the ever popular\u00a0if-only-Paul-would-moderate-his-&#8216;isolationism&#8217; meme: &#8220;His poll status has attracted fire from his Republican opponents, who [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,36],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-13439","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news","category-ron-paul"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13439","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13439"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13439\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13441,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13439\/revisions\/13441"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13439"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13439"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13439"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=13439"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}