Ron Paul quits Republican race

Ron Paul has effectively ended his campaign. I used to think Paul was a bit of a joke but now I hold a different perspective. Ron Paul's candidacy allowed him to provide a number of  important benefits to the Republican Party. These benefits come under two different orbits - 'Tone' and 'Substance'.

On the question of 'tone', Paul's relative humility has provided a notable contrast with the hubris that was often on display from other candidates at the Republican primary debates. Republicans need to remind ourselves of the traditions of respect that underpin the predominantly rural communities that support our party.

On 'substance', while Ron Paul has said many strange things, his willingness to challenge the simple orthodoxy that sometimes infects our policy debates is deserving of praise. Paul's counter-point critiques of Republican foreign policy positions and comfort with domestic civil liberties restrictions should remind us that these issues are far from simple. While many of us (including me) may not agree with Paul's position on these issues, his engagement demands that we provide the American people with a thoroughly researched and articulate postulation of where we stand on the big issues AND why. An honest Republican policy towards Iran cannot begin and end with threats to bomb that country because they are 'evil'. Neither for example, can an honest Republican counter-terrorism strategy begin and end with supreme Presidential executive power.

                 In a political climate in which many Republican linked commentators are making absurd comments (gay marriage issue for example) and generating substantial negative attention for the party, it it important that we Republicans can appeal to a broader base of individuals. In order to protect the party from becoming a bastion of authoritarianism and emotion, Republicans need the involvement of people like Ron Paul. 

If we are going to beat Obama, we need to ensure that our policy debates are wide ranging, robust and necessarily complex. 

Iran and Ron Paul (separate issues in this case!)

US Navy rescues Iranian sailors from pirates.. near the straits of hormuz. You couldn't make it up. 

Some of Ron Paul's specialist moron brigade at work again. 

The people who made this ad are true morons. In their minds, because Huntsman is A) educated B) has adopted two girls in need, he is thus unworthy of the republican nomination. Insane. These Paul people probably think that we should just go around looking to find the dumbest ass hole in america and then anoint him/her as our candidate. 

(I respect that Paul has some v. bright, well intentioned supporters. They need to speak up more though)

Republicans and 'democracy' in the Middle East

This has been annoying me for a while now. 

Republicans cannot condition support for democracy in the middle east on the basis of our personal affinity for particular ideologies. If the party is to stand for democracy in Iraq, it must also accept the need for Palestinian democracy, Egyptian democracy and democracy in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Without honest, genuine support for democracy across the Middle East, Republicans have a total lack of credibility to argue that america's foreign policy is centred around promotion of freedom. In this hypocrisy, Republican candidates serve to provide politically astute adversaries like HAMAS, Hezbollah and the Sadrists, with talking points to suggest that the US only supports those with whom it agrees. In an inescapable sense, this feeds traditional extremist narratives hostile to US interests..

IE -  the argument - 'Don't trust or work with the Americans or their agents, because they have no interest in your welfare but instead only care about pursuing a blindly, pro-Israel agenda'. This narrative serves to unfairly deligitimise the nature of America's regional actions and relationships.

Aside from the diplomatic damage caused, such wilful contradiction between words and reality, ultimately undermines the cause of freedom itself (to which america's extremist opponents in the middle east are ultimately ideologically averse). Supporting democracy does not mean that we should automatically agree with other democracies, but it does mean that we accept the notion that popular power is at its basic but ever developing level, a good thing.

The central point here is that if republicans still believe in democracy as a moderating force (the underlying premise of the Bush ideology that Republicans have overwhelmingly supported since 9/11), then in favour of an ultimately more just, peaceful and stable middle east, republicans must be willing to accept that in the short term, while democracy may not always produce results that we would like, it is crucial to stand in support of freedom.