The unlikely star of the ongoing Republican race for its nominee to challenge President Obama has turned out to be Rep. Ron Paul of Texas. Paul has placed well in both early party contests, and is likely to do well in the upcoming South Carolina primary on January 21.
But despite his extremely conservative (some would say libertarian) fiscal policy platform, many in the GOP fear and withhold support from Paul due to his unique foreign policy views. They argue his non-interventionist foreign policy is “isolationist,” and would both surrender America’s top leadership position in the world and leave the country vulnerable to danger abroad, particularly when Iran obtains a nuclear weapon.
However, Paul’s supporters champion his insistence on following the war-making provisions in the U.S. Constitution strictly, as well as his reluctance to use force barring clear and present threat to American interests. They argue, like Paul, that America’s current foreign policy amounts to unconstitutional “imperialism,” and that the American people cannot sustain it financially.
Would a President Ron Paul invite harm to America through a troublingly naïve conception of foreign affairs, or would his policies actually make the U.S. safer physically and sounder fiscally?
Photo Credit: Justin Ruckman