Paul 3.0: No Thanks

As if father and son was not enough, the Paul Family is proposing yet another of their kin for a seat in our nation's upper house: Robert Paul of Texas. Hoping to use a springboard from his brother and old man, the younger libertarian seems intent on overcoming name recognition challenges to succeed Kay Bailey Hutchison in the United States Senate. Unfortunately, another member of the family is the last thing America needs in the coming years, especially considering the foreign policy commitments which the country is presently involved with.

(Photo credit goes to elliscountyobserver.com)

The primary argument that the Paul's regularly articulate is that they are the self-anointed guardians of Constitutional principles in the nation today. And while they do not offer solely irrational views, their ideas regarding implementation rather than rhetoric make them a liability instead of the asset that they might otherwise be. When Ron Paul took the chairmanship of a House subcommittee to oversee the Federal Reserve for example, he quickly backtracked on his goal to shut it down, choosing instead to shift into the classic government mindset of inefficiency. This came after writing a book (and presumably making at least a fair amount of money), advocating that the massive private-public merger be discontinued permanently.

It is at this level that the Pauls lose their credibility with those who are willing to pay further mind to their actual behavior in office other than the words which frequently spill from between their lips. Bold as they may be with proposals, they have little interest in actually pursuing the political changes which they so vehemently argue for. Thus instead of progress they offer empty words; a pretext to inaction that slowly strips away the ability native to average Americans to decide for themselves and consider issues outside the traditionalist realm.

More disconcerting however is that the Paul Family seems intent on radically turning American foreign policy against the only true democracy in the Middle East; the State of Israel. According to their rhetorics, the money spent on Israeli defense is a drag to American interests that must be severed simply to return a shred of budgetary integrity. What the Pauls refuse to grasp is that such an action would undermine both national and collective security by weakening possibly the most endearing friend of America in the region for rather selfish purposes. Without Israel, America has no foothold in the region, and lacking a foothold we have no power.

With a Paul now likely to run for president next year and another gunning for the Senate, Americans and Texans need to make the same decision: reject them wholeheartedly. These men may sound sincere or even grandiose with their plans, yet the ending reality is a force of political familiarity that seeks to undermine American strength for the sake of radicalized sensibilities.



Jordan Wells

National Alliance Vice President for Policy