Ron Paul Versus the GOP; Peace Versus Perpetual War

The scene at last night's CNN National Security debate was, at times, surreal. The backdrop for this year's GOP Presidential nomination could not be anymore clear. Do the American people want peace or do they favor Perpetual War, a Police State, and the blatant degradation of civil liberties that goes with it? Most of the GOP field showed a complete disdain for the U.S. Constitution and the principles that this country was founded on. Then of course there is Ron Paul, who uses the Constitution to frame all of his political positions and has a pristine voting record upholding our founding document. It did not take long for Paul to draw a clear divide between him and his fellow Republicans on Tuesday evening. The first question of the night had to do with the Patriot Act, which was passed hastily in the wake of 9/11. Newt Gingrich told the American people that he would like to not only extend the Patriot Act, but that "I'd look at strengthening [the Patriot Act] because I think the dangers are literally that great." This is an extremely controversial statement. According to its original design, the USA Patriot Act should no longer even be around. Many of the provisions were to sunset beginning in December 2005. This of course did not happen. First President Bush in March of 2006, and then Barack Obama in May 2011 extended the legislation, which has been severely criticized due to its undermining of civil liberties. Wikipedia reports:

The Patriot Act strikes at the very core of the 4th Amendment, and any interpretation of it which attempts to mitigate or marginalize this fact, should not be taken seriously. This legislation has laid the foundation for broad and unconstitutional intrusions by the Federal Government into the lives of American citizens. Of course, Ron Paul recognizes the inherent danger embodied within the USA Patriot Act and stressed that the legislation is unpatriotic and conflicts with American values. He said, "That is unpatriotic because it undermines our liberty. We have drifted into a condition that we were warned against because our founders were very clear. They said don't be willing to sacrifice liberty for security." The exact quote that Paul was referencing comes from Benjamin Franklin who said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Considering the gravity of the Patriot Act and the controversy which surrounds it, one would think that some of the other GOP contenders might be against it. Not exactly. While Jon Huntsmann took a position which was closer to Paul's, saying "I think we have to be very careful in protecting our liberties," the other contenders offered derivations of Gingrich's position that it should be strengthened and expanded. A considerable portion of the rest of the debate consisted of the GOP Presidential nominees outlining highly antagonistic foreign policy positions. Despite the fact that the American people are clearly sick and tired of the endless wars and fear mongering, various candidates supported engaging Iran militarily, instituting a no-fly zone over Syria, escalating the drone attacks in Pakistan and Somalia, and keeping 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. These positions clashed significantly with Ron Paul, who over and over again has made the case for peace - a stance that the military itself supports, if campaign contributions are any indication. In the third quarter, Ron Paul raised more money from active duty military personnel than all of the other GOP candidates combined. The Republican party, however, does not want to seem to wake up to the fact that the American people and the American military have rejected Neocon foreign policy. This schism in opinion between peace and more war, could end up costing the GOP the election. Ron Paul is attracting significant support within the GOP itself along with a broad contingent of independents and Democrats who have changed party allegiances in order to vote for him in the primary. Given the neoconservative foreign policy views that are being espoused by the other GOP candidates, it is very likely that Paul's expanding base will not vote for Romney, Gingrich or Cain (the other front-runners) in the general election if they get the GOP nomination. This puts the Republican party in a very tricky position. If Paul's message of peace and liberty continues to gain momentum, but he does not gain the GOP nomination, many Paul supporters will likely write him in or stay at home for the general election. Despite Obama's abysmal approval rating and track record, this could be enough to carry him back into the White House. On the other hand, if Paul were to win the nomination, he has an excellent shot at unseating Obama. He would garner the support of the GOP base, who is willing to do anything to make sure Obama is a one term President, while also attracting a huge number of independent and Democratic voters who have become disillusioned with the President's policies. In any event, Ron Paul is offering voters a clear-cut alternative to the entrenched neoconservative dogma of more war and less liberty, and the people are starting to wake up to his message.