Full disclosure
I like Ron Paul, and I’m a fan of hands-off government. But this isn’t coming from a campaign staffer or some anonymous voice; it’s just me, appreciating someone who stands by their principles.
Even Ron Paul’s toughest critics have to admit he has maintained a remarkably consistent record throughout his political career. From the day he entered politics, Dr. Paul has stood his ground, never wavering from his original beliefs. This consistency makes him stand out, especially when discussions about “true conservatism” bring up names like Romney, Gingrich, and Bachmann. It makes me cringe that Ron Paul is often left out of that conversation, especially when he’s the embodiment of unwavering conservative principles.
Some dismiss him as a Libertarian, which is fair, but does that really disqualify him from being considered a conservative? Libertarianism and conservatism overlap on many core issues, particularly when it comes to limited government and individual freedoms. By the traditional definition of conservatism, Ron Paul passes the test with flying colors—99% right, as I see it.
The problem for Ron Paul in today’s GOP seems to be that he hasn’t changed, while the party has shifted the definition of conservatism without him. The GOP’s evolving stance on foreign policy, for example, makes Paul’s non-interventionist approach seem out of place. Today, voices like Mark Levin criticize Paul’s views on the Middle East, labeling them as naive or weak, as if they amount to sending a holiday card to Iran. But that’s an oversimplification. Paul’s position is one of strength—focusing on taking care of our own country and staying out of costly, unnecessary conflicts. Watching, listening, and thinking before acting isn’t weakness; it’s wisdom.
Yet, the media consistently paints Paul’s foreign policy stance as a disqualifying factor. Why? It seems they need a reason to push him aside. In the last election, it was claims of racism. This time, it’s his views on foreign policy.
But let’s not forget the irony here: if we can give a Nobel Peace Prize to a president who sent 30,000 troops to war and armed Mexican drug cartels, surely Ron Paul’s approach should earn him four of those awards—if only he’d switch parties, of course.
Even if you disagree with his stance on foreign policy, doesn’t the fact that Paul is consistently 99% right on other issues count for something? His adherence to his values over four decades speaks volumes in an era where “politics as usual” is a growing frustration for many voters.
When people clamor for “hope and change,” what could be more of a change than a politician who has never changed his core beliefs in 40 years? Ron Paul’s consistency may be out of sync with today’s GOP, but that’s precisely why he stands out.
