Paul's foreign policy misguided

As the Republican primary winds on, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich seemed to be prepared to enter into a battle for the Republican nomination.  However, Ron Paul, a candidate with a libertarian bent has had unexpected success in the primary process, especially among young people.  Ron Paul's positions include that of a smaller government, generally less government interference, and most famously, to end the Federal Reserve.  He also has unorthodox positions, for a Republican, in regards to many social issues.  He supports decriminalization of marijuana use and believes that there is nothing wrong with gay marriage.

However, Ron Paul is also in support of a foreign policy that is isolationist, a marked contrast to the hawkish foreign policy of George Bush and Barack Obama. He supports a policy of non-intervention and no alliances.  Instead he emphasizes diplomacy and trade.  While in a perfect world, a situation in which one could focus entirely on peaceful economic growth would be ideal, this is not the reality we live in.  There are countries around the world that aim to harm the United States and it is unwise to let them flourish and extend their influence while we retract within our borders.  While the United States' policy of interventionism has certainly caused harm in the past, the Vietnam and Iraq Wars being examples, it has also been a great source for good in the world, liberating Europe during WWII and later halting the massacre of civilians in Libya.  

Ron Paul would also support the abandonment of some United States bases abroad, specifically, in South Korea.  In an effort to reduce the size of the military, Paul would leave South Korea open to attack from its hostile and increasingly unstable, nuclear armed neighbor to the north.  Allowing rogue states to violate international norms without any threat of repercussions could cause chaos within the international community.  Additionally, other ambitious states, like China, might try to fill the void left by a US retreat.  While the US' influence waned, other countries would just fill the void, creating a less favorable environment for trade in many places around the world.

Though I don't believe Ron Paul's foreign policy is best for the United States, I do see the merits in its massive reduction in military spending. The US' overblown military budget must be tackled in some manner.  Though it would be wonderful if military spending could be reduced, and in some areas I'm sure it could without negative repercussions, I hold the safety of our nation, and other nations to be paramount.  Spending should be reduced in a sensible manner, not one that jeopardizes the stability of the world around us.  

I like Ron Paul as a person, his passion for the issues he supports is admirable.  This passion, something sorely lacking from most American politics, is admirable and is what I believe draws many people to him.  His earnestness appeals to young people with a dislike of typical politicians.  However, when examining the ideas that fuel Ron Paul's drive, I am concerned that his foreign policy principals jeopardize the safety of not only the United States, but the international community as a whole.  

Fred Irving ‘14 is undeclared from Concord, NC.  Contact him at frirving@davidson.edu.