Is Ron Paul a Conservative Republican or is Opposition to the Fed Something Else?
As a former conservative turned free-market libertarian, I have always been intrigued by Ron Paul's strong advocacy for the free market. After all, conservatives claim to stand on the same principles. So, I found it quite odd during the Republican presidential debates of 2008 when all of the other candidates actually had answers for how they would better "run" the economy. Having lived in Russia, China, and Europe, each candidate's answer scared me to death. Had they somehow missed the memo about how planning economies doesn't work, has never worked, and never will work? Cold War, anybody? The proper answer should have been that no president can or should try to "run" the economy, which Paul thankfully pointed out. It was at that moment, combined with hearing a Republican presidential candidate bash the free market and greed on Wall Street (failing to mention, of course, the government's own role in that) and watching George W. Bush abandon any pretense of a free market ideology, that I had a revelation about the modern Republican Party. Paul was the only true free-market representative on the Republican stage, and other Republicans viewed him as a threat. Fox News certainly treated him like a joke. But why? And what happened to the Republican Party, the natural home of free-market principles?
The answer seems to lie in Paul's foreign policy. I think most conservatives appreciate his free-market policies, especially today when both parties have run us into a planning nightmare of epic proportions. Even while listening to Mark Levin almost every night, coincidentally a quite libertarian economic mind, he often finds time to praise Paul for such staunch support of the free market. What conservatives vehemently disagree with are his constant and very sharp criticisms of US foreign policy, specifically the War on Terror and the Iraq War. When I first encountered Paul, I had a similar reaction. He seemed to be one of those "blame-the-US-first" types. In fact, this is where I find the most disagreement with Paul. In reality, almost every single global diplomatic problem stems from the simple fact that all countries pursue their own self-interests. This means that the US does both good and bad things just like any other country on the planet. To pretend otherwise is mere naivete. Paul, however, differs from the anti-war liberal, who, in my opinion, attributes all world problems to the US and capitalist imperialism, which is quite the oxymoron. He opposes wars for the exact opposite reasons: war is the enemy of capitalism, war is expensive, war hurts the US economy, war depletes resources better spent on defense. The US didn't become the strongest nation on the earth as a result of constant warfare; it became the leader of the free world owing almost entirely to capitalism, its strong free-market economy, its relatively isolated geographical location, and the fact that the rest of the world was constantly embroiled in war after war. So, one has to wonder: Why is there no room in the Republican Party for one who thinks that the strongest possible America is a capitalist America? Are conservatives really willing to sacrifice capitalism and the free market for hawkish RINOs? We've seen what this has done to the GOP. It now finds itself out of power.
It is in that same capitalist spirit that Paul opposes the Federal Reserve System, which he explains in the video below:
A former Fed governor, Frederic Mishkin, calls Paul's legislative proposal to audit the Fed "incredibly dangerous". To whom? Politicians? Bankers? Mishkin goes on to claim that such a move would be very dangerous because it would promote inflation. His justification? Politicians would use the audit to promote their own interests. Now, that gives one moment for pause. Is he talking about the same Fed most of us are thinking about? You know, the Fed that is marred in political corruption or the one that is entirely too dependent or the one that promotes a boom-and-bust economy with its outrageously idiotic monetary policies and Soviet-style planning or the one that has already set us on the road towards Zimbabwe-style inflation? It seems that Mishkin is thinking of the fictious, theoretical Fed. One that is independent of government, run by economic geniuses, and promotes a sound monetary policy. Such thoughts must fit well with his cozy Columbia Professorship. The unfortunate thing, however, is that it fails at each stage of its goals, which the recent run of easy money and the economic crisis that ensued should have made painfully clear. The worst result of all is that "we the people" suffer at the hands of these busybody planners and it seems that neither party is concerned about stopping it. As Tom DiLorenzo at the Mises Institute points out, "So-called 'scientific socialism' may have been the most absurd and destructive idea of the twentieth century, but it is nevertheless the guiding ideology of central banking."
The only remaining question is whether free-market conservatives will join Paul in his quest to bring down the Fed or will they continue to prop up the antiquated system of economic planning?
The answer seems to lie in Paul's foreign policy. I think most conservatives appreciate his free-market policies, especially today when both parties have run us into a planning nightmare of epic proportions. Even while listening to Mark Levin almost every night, coincidentally a quite libertarian economic mind, he often finds time to praise Paul for such staunch support of the free market. What conservatives vehemently disagree with are his constant and very sharp criticisms of US foreign policy, specifically the War on Terror and the Iraq War. When I first encountered Paul, I had a similar reaction. He seemed to be one of those "blame-the-US-first" types. In fact, this is where I find the most disagreement with Paul. In reality, almost every single global diplomatic problem stems from the simple fact that all countries pursue their own self-interests. This means that the US does both good and bad things just like any other country on the planet. To pretend otherwise is mere naivete. Paul, however, differs from the anti-war liberal, who, in my opinion, attributes all world problems to the US and capitalist imperialism, which is quite the oxymoron. He opposes wars for the exact opposite reasons: war is the enemy of capitalism, war is expensive, war hurts the US economy, war depletes resources better spent on defense. The US didn't become the strongest nation on the earth as a result of constant warfare; it became the leader of the free world owing almost entirely to capitalism, its strong free-market economy, its relatively isolated geographical location, and the fact that the rest of the world was constantly embroiled in war after war. So, one has to wonder: Why is there no room in the Republican Party for one who thinks that the strongest possible America is a capitalist America? Are conservatives really willing to sacrifice capitalism and the free market for hawkish RINOs? We've seen what this has done to the GOP. It now finds itself out of power.
It is in that same capitalist spirit that Paul opposes the Federal Reserve System, which he explains in the video below:
A former Fed governor, Frederic Mishkin, calls Paul's legislative proposal to audit the Fed "incredibly dangerous". To whom? Politicians? Bankers? Mishkin goes on to claim that such a move would be very dangerous because it would promote inflation. His justification? Politicians would use the audit to promote their own interests. Now, that gives one moment for pause. Is he talking about the same Fed most of us are thinking about? You know, the Fed that is marred in political corruption or the one that is entirely too dependent or the one that promotes a boom-and-bust economy with its outrageously idiotic monetary policies and Soviet-style planning or the one that has already set us on the road towards Zimbabwe-style inflation? It seems that Mishkin is thinking of the fictious, theoretical Fed. One that is independent of government, run by economic geniuses, and promotes a sound monetary policy. Such thoughts must fit well with his cozy Columbia Professorship. The unfortunate thing, however, is that it fails at each stage of its goals, which the recent run of easy money and the economic crisis that ensued should have made painfully clear. The worst result of all is that "we the people" suffer at the hands of these busybody planners and it seems that neither party is concerned about stopping it. As Tom DiLorenzo at the Mises Institute points out, "So-called 'scientific socialism' may have been the most absurd and destructive idea of the twentieth century, but it is nevertheless the guiding ideology of central banking."
The only remaining question is whether free-market conservatives will join Paul in his quest to bring down the Fed or will they continue to prop up the antiquated system of economic planning?
Ron Paul is more conservative than most "conservative" politicians. The only real difference between a GOP conservative and a Ron Paul conservative is that the Paulite has no desire to tell other people how to live.
Refreshing, I say.
Reply to this
It is refreshing...if Republicans would learn to stay out of moral socialism, then they would win every election. In a free market vs. socialism election, the free market always wins.
Reply to this