Interesting. The article couldn't resist taking a shot at Ron Paul as an "envenomed crank" solely for his views on 9/11.
This is a perfect example of the type of demagoguery that dominates politics.
See here for what is, I think a good defense of what Paul is saying: http://mises.org/daily/2588
For a longer, more detailed argument see Ivan Eland's "The Empire Has No Clothes"
Instead of giving some kind of rational response to Paul, the neo-cons think they can dismiss him by simply smirking and rolling their eyes. Unfortunately, this sort of response will probably be an effective defeater to Paul. Stroking the egos of dumb Americans that would like to think people in the middle east only hate us because they are jealous of our success and freedoms will be more effective than making them swallow the hard pill that maybe we don't have the right or the resources to police the world.
And as a correction of what the article says: Paul isn't an "isolationist fanatic." As he has pointed out in public debate on prior occasions, there is a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. I'm guessing the author of the article is smart enough to know this, but couldn't resist the cheap rhetoric in keeping with the demagogue modus operandi.
Interesting. The article couldn't resist taking a shot at Ron Paul as an "envenomed crank" solely for his views on 9/11.
ReplyDeleteThis is a perfect example of the type of demagoguery that dominates politics.
See here for what is, I think a good defense of what Paul is saying: http://mises.org/daily/2588
For a longer, more detailed argument see Ivan Eland's "The Empire Has No Clothes"
Instead of giving some kind of rational response to Paul, the neo-cons think they can dismiss him by simply smirking and rolling their eyes. Unfortunately, this sort of response will probably be an effective defeater to Paul. Stroking the egos of dumb Americans that would like to think people in the middle east only hate us because they are jealous of our success and freedoms will be more effective than making them swallow the hard pill that maybe we don't have the right or the resources to police the world.
And as a correction of what the article says: Paul isn't an "isolationist fanatic." As he has pointed out in public debate on prior occasions, there is a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. I'm guessing the author of the article is smart enough to know this, but couldn't resist the cheap rhetoric in keeping with the demagogue modus operandi.