CMStrapz, occasional contributer here at the RogueNation, after launching his own blog and taking a brief absence, has a couple of posts up on who he is supporting for President and who he is not. Click here to see his endorsement. Conservative Belle also has her endorsement posted as well. I would consider their pick to be mine if Ron Paul wasn't in the race.
What I would like to address in this post is Ron Paul and foreign policy. CB and Strapz have concerns about whether Dr. Paul's philosophy of nonintervention in dealing with other countries is the proper course for us. I'll let Strapz make the argument against Ron Paul:
I have felt that the largest external threat to this country is from Islamic fascism, a philosophy that advocates the killing (or conversion) of innocents in order to further its religio-political goals. In typical libertarian fashion, Dr. Paul has essentially refused to condemn this philosophy as evil, and has instead engaged in a blame-the-victim mentality, by alleging that the foreign policy of the United States, specifically its intervention in Middle Eastern politics, is to blame for attacks on civilians throughout the world and on US soil. This position is in complete contrast to several hundred years of history, dating back to the invasion of Spain by the Moors in 711 (lasting until 1492). The list of current world conflicts at Wikipedia shows that nearly all are a result of militant Islamists either not getting along with their neighbors or going to war against their own country. Surely, these cannot possibly all be the result of American foreign policy.Where Islamic Fascism is a reality that must be dealt with, the question is, has the way that we have conducted ourselves been effective in dealing with that threat, and at what price?
More on that later, but first off, I think "blame America first" is about as accurate a description of Ron Paul's foreign policy philosophy as Kanye West saying "George Bush hates black people" on the government's failure during Hurricane Katrina. While both make good sound bites, they aren't really descriptive for either situation and they don't have a grain of truth to them.
A foreign policy of nonintervention basically means that we don't act like it's high school when we deal with other countries. We treat all countries consistently. Which would mean having the discipline of NOT interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. Also it would mean having the discipline of trading with all countries that want to trade with us (and yes, sanctions are a form of internal meddling in other countries affairs. Which is not to say that private citizens shouldn't be able to choose with whom to do business with or not.) Non-intervention means also keeping up a strong defense by keeping its military strong and its citizens armed.
Is there an example of nonintervention like this in modern times? Yes, if you look at Switzerland in the middle of the last century. That country faced a threat from the most modern war machine to exist at the time, Nazi Germany. Hitler did not invade Switzerland because he knew that to do that his army would face certain defeat.
But the real danger to us is not Islamic Fascism, it is economic collapse. All empires collapse not from conquering opposing armies, but from insolvency. The USSR was a prime example. They overextended themselves with entitlements at home and maintaining an empire abroad and the Soviet Union ended when the bills came due.
Social Security, Medicare, our trillion dollar a year foreign policy of interventionism. The bills are going to come due and unless drastic action takes place soon, misery and depression are going to follow.