Breakthrough: Learned a big lesson yesterday. We are all on the same team!

[MrAustin]

Long, but important - please read:

I have been going about this all wrong!!!! Instead of helping to unite people behind Ron Paul, I have been dividing and separating myeslf from people who agree on 90% of the issues and who share my same values. The reason: misunderstanding!

I am convinced that THIS is what stands between us and winning the primary. Misunderstanding. That's it.

We all know the line: I really like A lot about Ron Paul, but uuuuuuuughhh!!! That foreign policy!

I have lost count of how many threads I have on facebook filled with heated debates with a variety republican friends who are mad at me because I'm not willing to suppport whoever gets the republican nomination and because I am so "obsessed" with Ron Paul. And all these discussions honeslty, have accomplished nothing. It just makes people hate Ron Paul supporters.

Here's what I found out through a very down to earth discussion I had in person with my friend/neighbor (and I believe it extends to most conservatives):

They actually think that Ron Paul wants to bring ALL of the troops home, close ALL of the bases, wants to majorly downsize our national defense, wants to leave our borders open, thinks that there is no such thing as terrorists, and thinks WE are the terrorists terrorizing the rest of the world. This is huge, so I hope someone is paying attention. THIS IS LITTERALLY WHAT THEY THINK RON PAUL'S FOREIGN POLICY IS! And THAT is why people don't like his foreign policy. If someone was preaching that foreign policy, I would be against it as well. And I would call it isolationism.

Next, I proceeded to correct the mis-understanding (rather than try to challenge his values and beliefs). I explained that Ron Paul is for a STRONG national defense, and that is one of the few things that be believes the federal governemnt SHOULD do, but if we go to war, Ron Paul simply wants the wars to be authorized by congress, have a clearly defined enemy, accomplish the mission, and come home. (he gave me a look like: Oh. really?) Then I pointed out the danger of not having a clear enemy or mission, we can't afford the wars, and we are losing our liberties for them. (He of course agreed). Then I pointed out that if fighting the terrorists was so important, why do we give up all this freedom, spend all this money, and sacrifice all these lives, and then leave our own borders wide open? He obviously agreed that makes no sense and we are still in danger. So I ended my mini-lesson by mentioning that Ron Paul also wants to use the troops to protect our own borders. (I could see in his eyes that his opinion of Ron Paul was actually changing!!!)

Here is the kicker though: I was the one misunderstanding him all along. That's why it was so hard to talk to him before. I assumed he understood Ron Paul's foreign policy like I did, and that with that understanding, he was still against it. I discovered that misunderstanding by asking questions, and listening. Once the barrier was broken down, we proceeded to have a wonderful discussion about politics, the founding fathers, the constitution, the federal reserve, the mainstream media, and much more. Before we started talking, it seemed like we agreed on about 80% of the issues. After, it seemed more like 99% honestly. My realization: There are a lot of Americans out there who are just like me and you. We are on the same team!!!! I now believe there are a lot of republicans that believe in liberty. They know history. They love the constitution. They know we need change. And they know Romney, Gingrich, and firends are AWFUL!!!! (My friend admitted to me that he HATES them ALL! And he used the word hate.) They simply don't understand Ron Paul, and we don't understand them. (we assume we do, just like they assume they understand Ron Paul). The media spin has worked. Mis-understanding. That's it.

We are one the same team! We need to try to unite through understanding rather than divide by bickering over assumptions about each other. Try it!

[tsetsefly]

Great Post, many republicans base their assumptions on Ron Paul's foreign policy is bsed on what they hear in the media. 21 question must always be asked before starting the debate.

1. What do you think Ron Paul's Foreign Policy is?

Then you go about changing that misconception. Most debates are made on the assumption that the other person knows what Ron Paul's foreign policy is, as you pointed out!

[Rafi]

I wrote about this on my blog. I'll repost it here.

http://settlersofsamaria.org/guide-to-neocons-iraq/

Until a few months ago I was a neocon, hoping that Mike Huckabee would run for president so I could vote for him. Until I started listening to Ron Paul and a paradigm shift snapped my brain nearly off the stem. To Ron Paul supporters trying to court the neocon vote, here’s what you need to understand about the neocon mentality. Please use this guide to speak with them on their terms in order to convince them to come to our side.

Rule Number 1 in the neocon brain: America is a fundamentally good country and most of the rest of the world is evil.

I understand that this may seem a bit childish to believe, but it is extremely deeply rooted in the neocon mentality. You won’t get through to them if you deny this principle. We are in Iraq and everywhere else because we are good and we sincerely want freedom for all Iraqis. We bombed Lybia to save lives. Iran really is a threat to the world. They really, truly believe this. They’re being sincere. It’s not a game to get oil or power or control of the world. It has nothing to do with “empire” in their heads. Empires bring to mind the Emperor in Star Wars and crazy people like Caligula. Not the United States. They can’t bare to think that America is anything resembling an evil empire. Once you even hint that, they’ll stop listening entirely.

Given that, how do you work around the goop?

Work with them. Agree where you can. Avoid sensitive words and terminology. The truth is, and all Paul supporters would agree, America really is a force for good in the world, or at least it can and should be. Agree on that. You must make it clear to them that you believe this. The only question is “how” to be a force for good in the world. Don’t say things like “we’re in Iraq for the oil”. Say that you, too, want freedom for all Iraqis. Don’t you? Yes, you just don’t believe that we have to station troops there to do it, or spend a dollar enforcing it.

From there, you’ve got to curve it around. Tell them you’d support the Iraq war if war were declared by Congress with a clearly defined goal. But every undeclared war America has ever fought without a clear goal has been lost. Talk like a person interested in American victory. Korea, Vietnam, now Iraq and Afghanistan have all been lost causes. Neocons understand victory and defeat. They want to win, and they don’t want to lose. So tell them that if we want to win, we have to have Congress declare a war and declare a clearly defined goal. Until then, our troops will continue to die to no end and you can’t stand defeat. So in the meantime, we HAVE to pull them out until Congress can get its act together and stop letting them die for nothing.

And you care about America too much to let them keep dying for nothing.

Tell them you would support any just war that the Congress declares. Tell them you want victory as much as they do. That’s rule number 1.

Don’t use the word “constitution”. It just doesn’t interest them. I know that’s hard to accept, but it’s the truth. It means very little to them in a practical sense, so just talk in the language of victory and defeat.

[McDermit]

More people need to think like you!!

I've been working on local tea party leaders this same way. It's working! They've gone from vehemently anti-Paul to making him their second choice! Still have a little work to do, but just listening and not making assumptions is the first and most important step.

[MrAustin]

I wrote about this on my blog. I'll repost it here.

http://settlersofsamaria.org/guide-to-neocons-iraq/

Until a few months ago I was a neocon, hoping that Mike Huckabee would run for president so I could vote for him. Until I started listening to Ron Paul and a paradigm shift snapped my brain nearly off the stem. To Ron Paul supporters trying to court the neocon vote, here’s what you need to understand about the neocon mentality. Please use this guide to speak with them on their terms in order to convince them to come to our side.

Rule Number 1 in the neocon brain: America is a fundamentally good country and most of the rest of the world is evil.

I understand that this may seem a bit childish to believe, but it is extremely deeply rooted in the neocon mentality. You won’t get through to them if you deny this principle. We are in Iraq and everywhere else because we are good and we sincerely want freedom for all Iraqis. We bombed Lybia to save lives. Iran really is a threat to the world. They really, truly believe this. They’re being sincere. It’s not a game to get oil or power or control of the world. It has nothing to do with “empire” in their heads. Empires bring to mind the Emperor in Star Wars and crazy people like Caligula. Not the United States. They can’t bare to think that America is anything resembling an evil empire. Once you even hint that, they’ll stop listening entirely.

Given that, how do you work around the goop?

Work with them. Agree where you can. Avoid sensitive words and terminology. The truth is, and all Paul supporters would agree, America really is a force for good in the world, or at least it can and should be. Agree on that. You must make it clear to them that you believe this. The only question is “how” to be a force for good in the world. Don’t say things like “we’re in Iraq for the oil”. Say that you, too, want freedom for all Iraqis. Don’t you? Yes, you just don’t believe that we have to station troops there to do it, or spend a dollar enforcing it.

From there, you’ve got to curve it around. Tell them you’d support the Iraq war if war were declared by Congress with a clearly defined goal. But every undeclared war America has ever fought without a clear goal has been lost. Talk like a person interested in American victory. Korea, Vietnam, now Iraq and Afghanistan have all been lost causes. Neocons understand victory and defeat. They want to win, and they don’t want to lose. So tell them that if we want to win, we have to have Congress declare a war and declare a clearly defined goal. Until then, our troops will continue to die to no end and you can’t stand defeat. So in the meantime, we HAVE to pull them out until Congress can get its act together and stop letting them die for nothing.

And you care about America too much to let them keep dying for nothing.

Tell them you would support any just war that the Congress declares. Tell them you want victory as much as they do. That’s rule number 1.

Don’t use the word “constitution”. It just doesn’t interest them. I know that’s hard to accept, but it’s the truth. It means very little to them in a practical sense, so just talk in the language of victory and defeat.

Yes! This is exactly what I am talking about! Thank you for sharing this. The "Neocons" are starting to look at Ron Paul as thier next option. This really is a perfect storm, and we can capitalize on it by seeking to understand others and build on the huge ammount of things we have in common rather than bickering over things we don't fully understand.

[ryanmkeisling]

Aren't neocons essentially hardcore Trotskyites coming from the far left (essentially Marxists)? At least I have heard Ron Paul define them as this...

Am I missing something?

[MrAustin]

Another thing I learned about my friend - he is part of a team that maintains a website all about the founding fathers. They base everything on a book called the 5000 year leap (which I am assuming some of you have read) and they are trying to promote the principles that the founding fathers taught. He actually knew more about the founders and our nations history than me! Not 24 hours ago however, I would have never guessed that about him. People base thier actions on the lens through which they see. We make a huge mistake to assume we all see throught the same lens. We are not the only people who care about liberty in this country. We are just all divided by mis-understanding.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Another thing I learned about my friend - he is part of a team that maintains a website all about the founding fathers. They base everything on a book called the 5000 year leap (which I am assuming some of you have read) and they are trying to promote the principles that the founding fathers taught. He actually knew more about the founders and our nations history than me! Not 24 hours ago however, I would have never guessed that about him. People base thier actions on the lens through which they see. We make a huge mistake to assume we all see throught the same lens. We are not the only people who care about liberty in this country. We are just all divided by mis-understanding.

If he knew so much then he wouldn't parrot the Neo-Con paradigm on foreign policy. I mean just reading the Anti-Federalist papers is a primer on the evils and perils of Standing Armies, loss of liberties to the Kings War authorities, the dangers of Executive and unitary powers especially War, the dangers of far too large a population for a Republic and representation, the paramount sacredness of all political action which is the preservation and protection of our natural liberties, that under no circumstance should one trade a liberty for anything, and that the Constitution is a growth and centralization of Government which will undermine and destroy the liberties they fought for. They wrote hundreds of papers in argument against Police, Standing Armies, Moral busy-bodies legislating, Despotism of all kinds, Representative Government, Democracy, etc.

Now, as far as Ron Pauls position, he does want to close all bases outside the United States. He wants to bring all the troops home. End all the wars. Cut the budget starting off with by 200 billion, and continue to chop it down. He thought the military was too large in 1975, too expansive, and far too dangerous. So, the military would hopefully be smaller than it was in 1975 (and accordingly the taxation). He wants to end all embargos, sanctions, and trade restrictions (WTO, CAFTA, NAFTA, GATT, etc.). Out of the UN, NATO, etc. Pretty sure he would like to end quite a few treaties also, but that is the authority of the Senate.

As far as borders, we would probably see an increase of troop presence until the Drug War / Welfare-State has been ended, and then you would see a relaxation of policy and a more open borders attitude because the problem with the 'borders' is the argument of them getting Welfare & causing violence which is a by-product of the Drug War / Welfare-State. Ron is ultimately for open borders. Do not confuse open borders with the surrender of jurisdiction and sovereignty because it is not. It is FREE-TRADE. Free movement of capital, services, goods, labor, and people. The same shit we have within the US among the 50 States.

Obviously he does think there exist terrorist. Who would deny such? I mean they watch any debates, he should know that is bullshit because he brought up the terrorist Timothy McVeigh.

We are terrorizing much of the rest of the world. Either economically, or militarily. We've killed millions and millions in the past twenty years alone. No the US is not a force for good in the world. The US (Government obviously) is a terrorist organization both domestically and foreign. CIA is one of the worst offenders, probably worst than KGB.

Yes, Ron Paul is for a strong defense, but that means friendship with all, and strong support of the 2nd Amendment (which means repeal of all the gun bans / regulations), and a drastic reduction of military forces, because he understands correctly that Standing Armies are offensive tools, not defensive. He does support Standing Army, just drastically reduced (I presume...don't think I've really ever read his true position on this issue).

Yes, Ron Paul wants Congress to follow the Constitution which means a declaration of War. No he doesn't make a blanket support for any declared war (IE he would vote against any unjust war).

I am sure there are folks out there who misunderstood his positions because of the media, just like some Ron Paul supporters misunderstand his positions also.

Obviously speaking the truth to these folks is probably not the best way to win them over, but...it's the truth. If you get a chance Mr. Austin please hand him the Anti-Federalist Papers and ask him what he thinks of that segment of the Founding generation. I would be intrigued on what he thought.

[LibertyEagle]

Aren't neocons essentially hardcore Trotskyites coming from the far left (essentially Marxists)? At least I have heard Ron Paul define them as this...

Am I missing something?

Yes, but you do realize that they are only a small group of people? What happened is that thanks to FOX news, et al, many traditional conservatives were propagandized to believe that the choice was between someone like Guiliani vs. Hillary. Then, they were constantly told that if they were patriotic, they would support the militarism against, well, anyone. Over time, they forgot.

[gerryb]

Aren't neocons essentially hardcore Trotskyites coming from the far left (essentially Marxists)? At least I have heard Ron Paul define them as this...

Am I missing something?

You're missing that neocon has been watered down to mean anyone who labels themselves conservative and believes in an interventionist foreign policy.

This is just the most common trait among neocons, but shouldn't be the defining trait.

[gls]

Aren't neocons essentially hardcore Trotskyites coming from the far left (essentially Marxists)? At least I have heard Ron Paul define them as this...

Am I missing something?

Yes, and they managed to take over the conservative movement, snagging many good people along the way. They just won't go away; they've latched onto Romney and Gingrich is like their wet dream.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yes, but you do realize that they are only a small group of people? What happened is that thanks to FOX news, et al, many traditional conservatives were propagandized to believe that the choice was between someone like Guiliani vs. Hillary. Then, they were constantly told that if they were patriotic, they would support the militarism against, well, anyone. Over time, they forgot.

It started long before that. National Review and Buckley destroyed the Old Right libertarianism (which I guess is euphemistically conservatism, at least in those days). Fox is merely the continuation of the National Review fascists (sorry Neo-Cons). Wish we could go back to 1948 and stack the deck in favor of Taft (and route Buckley), boy would history be a lot different.

[parocks]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol

[dvalukis]

I wrote about this on my blog. I'll repost it here.

http://settlersofsamaria.org/guide-to-neocons-iraq/

Until a few months ago I was a neocon, hoping that Mike Huckabee would run for president so I could vote for him. Until I started listening to Ron Paul and a paradigm shift snapped my brain nearly off the stem. To Ron Paul supporters trying to court the neocon vote, here’s what you need to understand about the neocon mentality. Please use this guide to speak with them on their terms in order to convince them to come to our side.

Rule Number 1 in the neocon brain: America is a fundamentally good country and most of the rest of the world is evil.

I understand that this may seem a bit childish to believe, but it is extremely deeply rooted in the neocon mentality. You won’t get through to them if you deny this principle. We are in Iraq and everywhere else because we are good and we sincerely want freedom for all Iraqis. We bombed Lybia to save lives. Iran really is a threat to the world. They really, truly believe this. They’re being sincere. It’s not a game to get oil or power or control of the world. It has nothing to do with “empire” in their heads. Empires bring to mind the Emperor in Star Wars and crazy people like Caligula. Not the United States. They can’t bare to think that America is anything resembling an evil empire. Once you even hint that, they’ll stop listening entirely.

Given that, how do you work around the goop?

Work with them. Agree where you can. Avoid sensitive words and terminology. The truth is, and all Paul supporters would agree, America really is a force for good in the world, or at least it can and should be. Agree on that. You must make it clear to them that you believe this. The only question is “how” to be a force for good in the world. Don’t say things like “we’re in Iraq for the oil”. Say that you, too, want freedom for all Iraqis. Don’t you? Yes, you just don’t believe that we have to station troops there to do it, or spend a dollar enforcing it.

From there, you’ve got to curve it around. Tell them you’d support the Iraq war if war were declared by Congress with a clearly defined goal. But every undeclared war America has ever fought without a clear goal has been lost. Talk like a person interested in American victory. Korea, Vietnam, now Iraq and Afghanistan have all been lost causes. Neocons understand victory and defeat. They want to win, and they don’t want to lose. So tell them that if we want to win, we have to have Congress declare a war and declare a clearly defined goal. Until then, our troops will continue to die to no end and you can’t stand defeat. So in the meantime, we HAVE to pull them out until Congress can get its act together and stop letting them die for nothing.

And you care about America too much to let them keep dying for nothing.

Tell them you would support any just war that the Congress declares. Tell them you want victory as much as they do. That’s rule number 1.

Don’t use the word “constitution”. It just doesn’t interest them. I know that’s hard to accept, but it’s the truth. It means very little to them in a practical sense, so just talk in the language of victory and defeat.


Lots of good points in here. They make me sad, but I guess it's good to know.

[LibertyEagle]

It started long before that. National Review and Buckley destroyed the Old Right libertarianism (which I guess is euphemistically conservatism, at least in those days).
My understanding is that the Libertarian Party was created by disgruntled Christian conservatives, so I think "libertarianism" is probably a little more then euphemistically conservative.


Fox is merely the continuation of the National Review fascists (sorry Neo-Cons). Wish we could go back to 1948 and stack the deck in favor of Taft (and route Buckley), boy would history be a lot different.

That's a good point. But, neo-conservatives didn't really get a strong foothold until they were welcomed into the Republican Party when Reagan ran for President. I could be wrong on this, but I don't think they were all over the Executive branch until Dubya's presidency.

[row333au]

Ron Paul speaking about Smedley Butler's War is a Racket

quagmire - digging a hole on ourselves (means: colloquially for a situation from which it is difficult to escape or extricate oneself)

perpetual war for perpetual peace is the health of the state - (means: preemptive wars, false flags to create threats, MAD or mutual assured destruction, building war offensive military, etch)


One of Dr Ron Paul's speech in congress December 2009 where he has shown his admiration and have used Smedly Butler's principles:


Ron Paul speaking about Smedley Butler's War

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpt02bMI0EA

Some interesting points
Thread: * Smedley Butler - Hero to the end *
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?333772-*-Smedley-Butler-Hero-to-the-end-*/page4

Thread: Brief Look at the Tea Party
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?322014-Brief-Look-at-the-Tea-Party

[LibertyEagle]

Lots of good points in here. They make me sad, but I guess it's good to know.

It is a start.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

My understanding is that the Libertarian Party was created by disgruntled Christian conservatives, so I think "libertarianism" is probably a little more then euphemistically conservative.



That's a good point. But, neo-conservatives didn't really get a strong foothold until they were welcomed into the Republican Party when Reagan ran for President. I could be wrong on this, but I don't think they were all over the Executive branch until Dubya's presidency.

The Libertarian Party has nothing to do with what I am talking about. The Old Right was libertarian, and they were called conservatives by the masses back then, which is why I said it was interchangeable in those times. Anti-Prohibition, Anti-War, Anti-Tax, Anti-Welfare State, Pro-Civil Liberties, Pro-Natural Law Old Right = libertarian. People like Garet Garett, John T. Flynn, Robert Taft, Howard Buffet, Albert Nock, and pretty much a large swath of the GOP at the time. It was divided between the progressive side with Rockefeller and the old Roosevelt lag abouts, and the other half were Old Right libertarians (or if you prefer conservatives, but if alive today would be called libertarian). There is a reason why Ron Paul is the most conservative member since 1937 (though I think Buffet is tied). National Review and Buckley destroyed the conservative part of the GOP forever, or at least until Ron Paul. Pat Buchanan would be considered not a conservative in the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s GOP.

Neo-Conservatives have been around since 1950s. They're pretty indistinguishable from Rockefeller progressives which have been around even longer. Neo-Conservatives have been a large majority of the base, ideology, and party since early 1960s. There hasn't really been a conservative to run besides Ron Paul in 2008 in the GOP since 1952 with Robert Taft. Yes, Goldwater shared a lot of the domestic positions, but he did not hold a conservative foreign policy. If you say so, then go back and read the foreign policy of the GOP from 1910s to 1940s and our early Anti-Federalist founders. They're pretty much mirror each other -- same with Ron Paul's. Ronald Reagan wasn't dumb. He knew that 'true' conservatism was at the heart libertarianism, because the majority of our Founders were HIGHLY libertarian, even more so than the so-called radical libertarians around today. Let me know how many libertarians openly call for the complete liberties like the Anti-Federalists did. They (libertarians today) don't even compare to the French Radicals or the Manchesterites.

I wish I was born in the 1800s. :/ To talk and converse with Bastiat, Dunoyer, Molinari, Comte, Say, Turgot, and the rest of the French Radicals would have been a dream.

Yes, like Jefferson I much prefer the French when it comes to Liberalism (actual not the progressive distortion of the term in the US), and the Anti-Federalists.

[vechorik]

+1 Great post. I agree -- it's not a matter of differences, it's a matter of understanding Dr. Paul

I phone from home for the survey -- you'd be AMAZED how many answer "I don't like any of them"

Education is the key

[wgadget]

Exactly.

I made a post on a different thread noting how Hannity (and friends) just say "I like Ron Paul but I hate his foreign policy." Period. They never go into any DETAIL, and I think this is done purposely. They've made this their take-with talking point, which explains why you hear so many people mimicking the line.

Every time Rand started talking about the details of Ron's foreign policy, Hannity quickly changed the subject.

[Jani]

People base thier actions on the lens through which they see. We make a huge mistake to assume we all see throught the same lens. We are not the only people who care about liberty in this country. We are just all divided by mis-understanding.

Yeah, I agree.

Convincing somebody about politics or anything else is similar to marketing and sales. Present your product (RP) to the customer (potential voter) through their eyes and point of view.

Henry Ford said it best:

THE SECRET TO SUCCESS IS TO UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF VIEW OF OTHERS.

To victory!

Jani

[No Free Beer]

What is the difference between a Declaration of War and Military Authorization?

In other words, declaring war on Japan and military authorization for war in Iraq?

Hannity went after Rand on his radio show about this...

[wistfulthinker]

MrAustin and Rafi,

Really appreciate both your posts. I think you are both right on the mark here. There's a certain change in tenor of a conversation when we approach folks with an assumption of being on the same side that allows for open-minded discussion. The foreign policy stuff is the sticky point for the folks I'm trying to convert as well.

I think that when folks hear bits like, "just bring the troops home," and "close all the bases," they feel like we'd be tucking tail and running away, like we'd be a country with the big L on its forehead. If we couch Paul's foreign policy stance in terms of a tactic, a strategy, we can counter that feeling. We can talk about how Paul wants to engage our enemies on a different battlefield, using far more potent weapons than missiles. He wants to deploy our ideas, our long history of contending for individual liberty. I'm trying to speak in terms of Paul wanting to bring out the big guns, which are not bombs and combat boots, but ideas -- the force that really moves the world.

Kudos for your approach to changing folks' minds.

[Krugerrand]

You're either with us, or your with the terrorists.

[roversaurus]

Thank you for this post. I think it is true for most people. I think it's why many Sean Hanity conservatives like Rand Paul better than Ron.
Ron has said this kind of stuff all along (I've heard him say it long, long ago) but he's not really a politician and he answers questions in the spirit they were asks and really tries to educate more than to persuade (or in political terms make you think he agrees with you)


I wrote about this on my blog. I'll repost it here.

http://settlersofsamaria.org/guide-to-neocons-iraq/

Until a few months ago I was a neocon, hoping that Mike Huckabee would run for president so I could vote for him. Until I started listening to Ron Paul and a paradigm shift snapped my brain nearly off the stem. To Ron Paul supporters trying to court the neocon vote, here’s what you need to understand about the neocon mentality. Please use this guide to speak with them on their terms in order to convince them to come to our side.

Rule Number 1 in the neocon brain: America is a fundamentally good country and most of the rest of the world is evil.

I understand that this may seem a bit childish to believe, but it is extremely deeply rooted in the neocon mentality. You won’t get through to them if you deny this principle. We are in Iraq and everywhere else because we are good and we sincerely want freedom for all Iraqis. We bombed Lybia to save lives. Iran really is a threat to the world. They really, truly believe this. They’re being sincere. It’s not a game to get oil or power or control of the world. It has nothing to do with “empire” in their heads. Empires bring to mind the Emperor in Star Wars and crazy people like Caligula. Not the United States. They can’t bare to think that America is anything resembling an evil empire. Once you even hint that, they’ll stop listening entirely.

Given that, how do you work around the goop?

Work with them. Agree where you can. Avoid sensitive words and terminology. The truth is, and all Paul supporters would agree, America really is a force for good in the world, or at least it can and should be. Agree on that. You must make it clear to them that you believe this. The only question is “how” to be a force for good in the world. Don’t say things like “we’re in Iraq for the oil”. Say that you, too, want freedom for all Iraqis. Don’t you? Yes, you just don’t believe that we have to station troops there to do it, or spend a dollar enforcing it.

From there, you’ve got to curve it around. Tell them you’d support the Iraq war if war were declared by Congress with a clearly defined goal. But every undeclared war America has ever fought without a clear goal has been lost. Talk like a person interested in American victory. Korea, Vietnam, now Iraq and Afghanistan have all been lost causes. Neocons understand victory and defeat. They want to win, and they don’t want to lose. So tell them that if we want to win, we have to have Congress declare a war and declare a clearly defined goal. Until then, our troops will continue to die to no end and you can’t stand defeat. So in the meantime, we HAVE to pull them out until Congress can get its act together and stop letting them die for nothing.

And you care about America too much to let them keep dying for nothing.

Tell them you would support any just war that the Congress declares. Tell them you want victory as much as they do. That’s rule number 1.

Don’t use the word “constitution”. It just doesn’t interest them. I know that’s hard to accept, but it’s the truth. It means very little to them in a practical sense, so just talk in the language of victory and defeat.

[WilliamC]

What is the difference between a Declaration of War and Military Authorization?

In other words, declaring war on Japan and military authorization for war in Iraq?

Hannity went after Rand on his radio show about this...

"The Congress shall have Power To...

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

...."

The types of actions Congress is specifically empowered to do are 'To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;'

When Congress simply tells the Executive that they have 'Military Authorization' whatever that is, it leaves open the possibility that the Executive might misuse this power to further objectives that are not in the best interest of the Congress and the People of the United States as a whole.

Imagine that.

So it seems to my simple understanding that unless Congress has the fortitude to name names and places, which is done in a Declaration of War against a specific country or countries and under Letters of Marque by naming individuals and non-governmental organizations, then the People of the United States as a whole aren't actually ready to go to War, or to use our troops in foreign lands to do violence.

Congress abdicating authority to the Executive since WWII in matters of War is one of the big problems, they need to get their House in order, if its not too late.

In fact since so-called terrorism is simply piracy writ large Congress has full authority to deal with it under the 'define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;' clause.

[MrAustin]

If he knew so much then he wouldn't parrot the Neo-Con paradigm on foreign policy. I mean just reading the Anti-Federalist papers is a primer on the evils and perils of Standing Armies, loss of liberties to the Kings War authorities, the dangers of Executive and unitary powers especially War, the dangers of far too large a population for a Republic and representation, the paramount sacredness of all political action which is the preservation and protection of our natural liberties, that under no circumstance should one trade a liberty for anything, and that the Constitution is a growth and centralization of Government which will undermine and destroy the liberties they fought for. They wrote hundreds of papers in argument against Police, Standing Armies, Moral busy-bodies legislating, Despotism of all kinds, Representative Government, Democracy, etc.

Now, as far as Ron Pauls position, he does want to close all bases outside the United States. He wants to bring all the troops home. End all the wars. Cut the budget starting off with by 200 billion, and continue to chop it down. He thought the military was too large in 1975, too expansive, and far too dangerous. So, the military would hopefully be smaller than it was in 1975 (and accordingly the taxation). He wants to end all embargos, sanctions, and trade restrictions (WTO, CAFTA, NAFTA, GATT, etc.). Out of the UN, NATO, etc. Pretty sure he would like to end quite a few treaties also, but that is the authority of the Senate.

As far as borders, we would probably see an increase of troop presence until the Drug War / Welfare-State has been ended, and then you would see a relaxation of policy and a more open borders attitude because the problem with the 'borders' is the argument of them getting Welfare & causing violence which is a by-product of the Drug War / Welfare-State. Ron is ultimately for open borders. Do not confuse open borders with the surrender of jurisdiction and sovereignty because it is not. It is FREE-TRADE. Free movement of capital, services, goods, labor, and people. The same shit we have within the US among the 50 States.

Obviously he does think there exist terrorist. Who would deny such? I mean they watch any debates, he should know that is bullshit because he brought up the terrorist Timothy McVeigh.

We are terrorizing much of the rest of the world. Either economically, or militarily. We've killed millions and millions in the past twenty years alone. No the US is not a force for good in the world. The US (Government obviously) is a terrorist organization both domestically and foreign. CIA is one of the worst offenders, probably worst than KGB.

Yes, Ron Paul is for a strong defense, but that means friendship with all, and strong support of the 2nd Amendment (which means repeal of all the gun bans / regulations), and a drastic reduction of military forces, because he understands correctly that Standing Armies are offensive tools, not defensive. He does support Standing Army, just drastically reduced (I presume...don't think I've really ever read his true position on this issue).

Yes, Ron Paul wants Congress to follow the Constitution which means a declaration of War. No he doesn't make a blanket support for any declared war (IE he would vote against any unjust war).

I am sure there are folks out there who misunderstood his positions because of the media, just like some Ron Paul supporters misunderstand his positions also.

Obviously speaking the truth to these folks is probably not the best way to win them over, but...it's the truth. If you get a chance Mr. Austin please hand him the Anti-Federalist Papers and ask him what he thinks of that segment of the Founding generation. I would be intrigued on what he thought.

Austrian Econ Disciple: You actually are helping me to illustrate my point here. Even though we (you and I) probably agree on most issues, (and even though I pretty much agree with everything you said), I am tempted now (based on your response) to defend myself and what I meant to say about Ron Paul's foreign policy in my original post in an effort to protect my pride, my identity, my friend, and my desire to be "right." If I did that, we would likely end up in a heated debate about what we think Ron Paul or the founding fathers would do in different situtations or circumstances (which neither of us really knows for sure - we would be interpreting what they said based on our perspecive and logic). While that would be a vaulable discussion to have normally, in this instance we would both be on the defensive, and we would both be doing more talking/arguing than listening. And I honestly don't think it would be a very productive conversation. We as a grassroots organization would also become slightly less united - we would be more divided. The fact that this could happen between two Ron Paul supporters (who share the same specific goal and obviously many of the same values) is an illustration of how dangerous and divisive a mis-understanding can be.

Instead of doing that though, I think it would be more helpful for me to try to understand where you are coming from, focus on what we have in common, and emphasize the common goal that we are working towards (and this is the point I was trying to make in my original post).

For example: In responding to you, I should realize that I was in fact "generalizing" Ron Paul's views on foreign policy in a way that would be appealing to most republicans - which left the door wide open for my words to be mis-understood. You picked up on that. Maybe you are afriad I don't understand Ron Paul's foreign policy correctly and you are worried that I am going to spread mis-information (I don't really know because I am not you). But that would clearly be a valid concern. If I take that motive and separate it from the conversation, I might realize that I have the same desire to do the exact same thing (combat the spread of mis-information about Ron Paul). So essentially we are doing the same thing for the same reasons - same team.

Then, if we both feel we are not enemies, we will both be more willing to listen to each other and perhaps have a productive and insightful conversation exploring some of the finer points of Ron Paul's foreign policy and the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers.

So now back to my original point: If we apply this same principle as we teach the republican base about Ron Paul, I am convinced we will find that many of them are a lot like us at the core, that they have been mis-informed, and that we (as a grassroots in general - and certainly me specifically) have made many negative assumptions about the republicans motives, intelligence, and values. We have misunderstood them, and they have misunderstood us. We simply mis-understand one another. And we should (and need to be) on the same team.

We will make much greater progress if we focus on what we have in common with them and try to understand them.

[No Free Beer]

"The Congress shall have Power To...

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

...."

The types of actions Congress is specifically empowered to do are 'To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;'

When Congress simply tells the Executive that they have 'Military Authorization' whatever that is, it leaves open the possibility that the Executive might misuse this power to further objectives that are not in the best interest of the Congress and the People of the United States as a whole.

Imagine that.

So it seems to my simple understanding that unless Congress has the fortitude to name names and places, which is done in a Declaration of War against a specific country or countries and under Letters of Marque by naming individuals and non-governmental organizations, then the People of the United States as a whole aren't actually ready to go to War, or to use our troops in foreign lands to do violence.

Congress abdicating authority to the Executive since WWII in matters of War is one of the big problems, they need to get their House in order, if its not too late.

In fact since so-called terrorism is simply piracy writ large Congress has full authority to deal with it under the 'define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;' clause.

I am not saying I disagree with you, but what if, as it did, says "military authorization to invade Afghanistan" or "Iraq"...how is that any different?

[Bern]

You have to "unHannitize" people.

[Brett85]

My mom mostly agrees with Ron's foreign policy views, but she disagrees with him on social issues. She's a hardcore social conservative. I think the social issues actually hurt Ron far more than the foreign policy issues do. The fact that Hannity and Limbaugh still support an interventionist foreign policy doesn't mean that rank and file conservatives do.

[J-Reg]

bump!

[squirekyle]

agreed. We are Ron Paul's own enemy unless we actually explain his real positions on matters. Most people get their info from the main stream media, don't assume they know anything when you're talking to someone

[jmdrake]

Good thread and good blog post. +rep, 5 * rating, subscribed.

[Anti Federalist]

Wonder if it would work on this:


This seems to be similar to atypical houswife's opinion! The most important fact is that voting for Ron Paul means in fact to vote for Obama since there is no way that R. Paul can win the election. By supporting Paul you are wickening the other Republican candiudates taking the votes from them, as Paul did in 2008, and in fact helping Obama to win again. That is what you like to happen?! But you most lakily do not understand this!!! Try to be more analitical if you can?! Do not send to Palestinians at all! You do not understand again a damn! Yes, because the Palestinians are stealing any money and do not use the money wisely anyway. And Israel uses the money right ,- any money, even smaller amount. Besides Israel is paying back the USA all the lended money up to a penni with an interest (!), and lending money to Israel is a good business for the USA,- and this is a known fact! You just undermind the issues! Israel is also saving tons of money for the USA by taking care of many issues USA otherwise would pay a lot of money for. You just are not educated enough in these topics,- trust me! The USA is not giving away any money to Israel,- Israel has no unpaid back sums (see above). Israel ios paying back with an interest. How can you put Israel at the same position as African Nations, where the money is just lost!!
ISRAEL IS DEFINITELY NOT A STEPCHILD,- YOU ARE DEAD WRONG! SEE HOW ISRAEL IS WITHSTENDING OBAMA'S PRESSURE. YOU HAVE TO BE PROUD OF iSRAEL !!! YOU ARE UNFORTUNATELY NOT A JEWISH PATRIOT, SHAME ON YOU!!! The Patriot act helped a lot in fighting terrorists ! There is a complete fog in your head! R. Paul is playing a role of a naive and honest pacifist to draw attention of the oublic. This is not serious at all! He will reveal himself, and as in the past everybody will be loughing at him!
If you support R.Paul. This unfortunately in fact works for Obama, if you can think about it a bit deaper. I however, believe that you cannot!
We have to stop this discussion. It doesn't make any sense to me. It is obvious to me and I hope to many others that You are not capable of any deap analysis!


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?335861-This-is-what-I-had-to-listen-to.-Please-give-your-input.&p=3822874#post3822874

[Anti Federalist]

Marist poll dated 5 Dec.

Ron Paul is the ONLY GOP candidate to poll even with with Obama. (42 to 42 percent)

All others lose in a head to head match up.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?335737-Marist-poll-Ron-Paul-only-GOP-candidate-that-polls-even-with-Obama.-All-others-lose.