Advocating for change, pragmatism, and Ron Paul

Ron Paul in his congressional office with his famous desk decoration.by Abrar Qadir, 3L

I am very invested, if not in a Ron Paul 2012 victory, then in Ron Paul’s candidacy for President. The momentum Ron Paul has can be utilized to give voice to debates on a mass scale which for far too long have remained boiling under the surface.

I have identified four principles advanced by Rep. Paul’s candidacy which warrant public support, and will comment on each in turn:

1. Opposition to the prison industrial complex
2. Opposition to the military industrial complex
3. Equality of peoples, not just individuals
4. The understanding of “perpetual growth” as a fallacy

The prison industrial complex canbe referred to as a descendant of Jim Crow. Certain special interests utilize mechanisms keeping disenfranchised and bereft populations, known in anthropology as the subaltern, in a cycle of poverty and incarceration. The primary means by which this has been accomplished in America is the“war on drugs.”

Under the guise of removing the threat of intoxicating substances from the inner city, public prisons, private prisons, prison guards, and police have entered into a shadowy dalliance with our legislatures: state as well as federal. In exchange for “tough” laws targeting highly concentrated populations of colored, poverty-stricken city dwellers, our Congressmen receive large sums in campaign donations. This allows private prisons to operate at a profit, prison guards to keep stable jobs, and our police force to maintain relevancy. For good measure, the CIA has made sure, in the past at least, to transport drugs from Latin America into our inner cities.

In contrast to all other major candidates, not only does Rep. Paul not speak to lobbyists, he advocates strongly for an end to the “war on drugs.” He has called it out for what it is, a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It is astounding that the candidate speaking most vociferously for a repeal of the most destructive policy for poor minorities in our recent history has been labeled an “anti-poor racist.” America has the highest incarceration rate in the world, last estimated in 2009 at 743 prisoners per 100,000 Americans. Let us work towards the problems of why people turn to drugs with sincerity, not by pandering to the interests of law enforcement and prison lobbyists.

Closely related in theory is the military industrial complex. This refers to the mechanisms by which certain special interests keep Americans afraid of foreign “enemies,” in order to receive our repeated acquiescence to vast resources being funneled into the creation of weapons. Correlated to the creation of weapons is the use of weapons, and highly organized, very wealthy, and remarkably detached people and corporations make sure that Americans fear men such as Saddam Hussein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Mullah Omar, in order that American tears do not turn to protest when our uniformed children return home in caskets or in such withered condition that they spend their life in wheelchairs, begging on the corner of Wall Street.

The national security apparatus is then able to support companies who create technologically advanced intrusive devices which keep a close eye, or at least camera, on Americans. Our civil liberties are at risk by legislation such as the indefinite detention provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) precisely because of our aggressive posturing abroad. Foreign leaders and Muslim populations are portrayed as cartoon villain-like forces of perpetual threat because they are sufficiently “other” for rich men who will never see the bloodied dirt of a battlefield to play on the racist potential of popular fears, ensuring the continued profitability of their guns and bullets.

One reason many Americans are unable to understand foreign frustration with America is because so much of our meddling has been the undercover work of the CIA. One finds the same cognitive dissonance among Pakistanis and Israelis, for example, as to the work of their CIA counterparts, the ISI and Mossad. Voters should be delighted that someone with a national audience has been very upfront and honest about the CIA’s role in toppling legitimate governments, particularly in Latin America and Iran and the Arab world. News personalities interviewing Dr. Paul are often put in the uncomfortable position of having to acknowledge that the Shah’s reign in Iran was the direct result of secretive CIA operations, while somehow denying that it serves as a plausible basis for anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world. His call to terminate the CIA may well be unrealistic, but for their budget (never fully disclosed) and operations to even be put under the public microscope is a development of immense importance.

Although President Obama has been a step in the right direction in terms of foreign relations posturing, he has proven repeatedly that he is not willing to stand up the built-up war machine. Ron Paul is, and has been for years. While most in the 1990’s were sufficiently distracted by good economic conditions and Monica Lewinsky, failing to take particular note of President Clinton’s continuous bombing of and sanctions on Iraq, Rep. Paul was standing on the floors of Congress, reminding his fellow congressmen and women that their policies were literally the cause of thousands of Iraqi children starving. He has routinely shown a basic respect for the life and dignity of people abroad, which brings me to my next point.

Ron Paul’s candidacy stands for the equality of all peoples, not simply individuals. While our country has been a leading advocate of individual rights around the globe, we have also showed remarkable disdain for the rights of other societies. You will not find Rep. Paul pontificating about divine favoritism towards America, the way our “American exceptionalism”rhetoric pushes politicians to do routinely. So it is, most argue, America’s right and duty to police the world, and decide who can or cannot enjoy the privileges of sovereignty. Rather, Dr. Paul famously asks, “What if?”

When he recently said that we should apply the golden rule in foreign policy, asking ourselves, “Would we like it if China decided to deploy troops and set up bases on our land?” he was booed. He receives even more boos when he adds, “If every developed country in the world has considered it a right to develop nuclear technology, why would or should Iran not also be afforded such deference?” As our country experiences deja-vu with repetitive and blatantly false propaganda gearing our population up for war with the Islamic republic, it is important that at least the discourse of equal international footing be put on the public policy table.

Finally, I aim to extract laudable principles from Rep. Paul’s economic thought. To many, Rep. Paul’s obsession with having American currency be backed by the gold standard is simply the quirky musing of an old man. However, it speaks to his realistic understanding of wealth potential. What the gold standard requires is that currency be backed by actual reserves of gold and silver. This is incontrast to our current system of fiat money, which means that the value of money is derived from government regulation or law.

Thus the Federal Reserve prints money or restricts the supply of money at its own discretion, essentially creating money out of thin air. Like all things that sound too good to be true, this system’s benefits are as well. Thus, Henry Ford, the famous automaker opined, “It is well that the people of our nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.

Opposition to the gold standard rests in large part on the idea that growth is slower and restricted under the gold standard. We have been seduced by the idea that an economy can grow perpetually, undeterred by the finite nature of resources. When home prices were going up daily about 10 or 15 years ago, few, except Rep. Paul, stopped to think, “This obviously cannot literally continue unabated.” And our ability to simply print money at our will contributed to this malaise in thought.

Rep. Paul pleads repeatedly, “Let us live within our means.” Many assume he is simply speaking to our poor, asking them to continue to make sacrifices. Rather, he is speaking to our financial institutions, and to our profiteering addiction. The monetary system he supports is one which allows less room for speedy growth, but much less susceptible to topsy turvy market cycles. Those who run our financial institutions are well aware of the constant insecurity attached to our monetary and banking system, but have enough money in reserve to continue playing their games without putting their actual livelihood at risk. For all the talk of Ron Paul not being a friend of the poor, what is lost in translation is that he is advocating for a system under which the rich do not have the incentive to toy with middle class money under the guise of “investing savings.”

In short, despite the potential dangers attendant to Ron Paul’s states’ rights advocacy, support for Ron Paul’s candidacy, or at least vocal acknowledgment of his policy strengths, can be a very powerful tool to put ideas into the mainstream which strike at the very roots of American decline. Other politicians may advertise more obviously charitable ideals, but do so without acknowledging the institutional barriers to progress. As long as our resources are funneled into the maintenance of prisons at home and military bases abroad, the poor in our country have no chance for meaningful advancement. States’ rights in exchange for bringing our soldiers home should be seen as a bargain.

Abrar Qadir, 3L, can be reached ataq32@law.georgetown.edu.