normal_rc
01-01-2012, 04:49 AM
I think we need to figure out a short, simple, easy-to-remember, one sentence explanation of Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy. Something that the average American will remember, repeat to their friends, family & co-workers when debating politics, and convince people that Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy is the direction USA needs to head in.
The best I could come up with is..
"Policing the world is unsustainable big government spending"
Why: Ron Paul's political opponents are beating him down in the area of foreign policy. We saw it in the last Iowa debate. And we see it when media and establishment politicians paint Ron Paul as being weak in foreign policy, talking about the Strait of Hormuz, and saying he's ok with with Iran getting nuclear weapons. Fair or not, Ron Paul's foreign policy of non-intervention is being demonized, which is making it much harder to win over mainstream America.
Modern society has a very short attention span. I remember in the Bush vs Kerry debates, they talked about the invasion of Iraq. Kerry gave a long winded explanation about the negatives. Maybe he was right, but I could feel millions of American's eyes glazing over, and not hearing anything. Bush broke it down with one simple phrase: "The world is better off without Saddam Hussein". Right or wrong, the average American can hear that short easy-to-remember phrase, see how that makes sense, and later repeat it in casual conversation with friends, family & co-workers.
Breaking Down the Words: I used the word "unsustainable", because it reminds people that we have $15 trillion in national debt, and trillion dollar budget deficits. And the phrase "big government spending" is a reminder to Republicans - especially Tea Partiers - that military spending is a form of big government spending, which is something they claim to hate.
Usage: So when asked about how Ron Paul would deal with things like the Strait of Hormuz, or whether he would use military force to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the response could be like..
1) Mention that no options are off the table.
2) Mention that if we do decide to go to war, Congress needs to declare war, in accordance to the constitution.
3) Mention that we need to remember that "Policing the world is unsustainable big government spending". Elaborate with how it puts us deeper in debt, how it's not effective (example Iraq), and how it ends up creating more enemies for America.
4) Mention that USA needs to change direction, and adopt a more sustainable policy of non-intervention & neutrality, like Switzerland.
Summary: I'd like to hear your thoughts on coming up with a short, simple, easy-to-remember, one sentence explanation of Ron Paul's anti-interventionist foreign policy. Something that even the most scattered-brained person will remember, repeat to their friends, family & co-workers in casual political debates, and convince people that Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy is the direction USA needs to head in.
The best I could come up with is..
"Policing the world is unsustainable big government spending"
Why: Ron Paul's political opponents are beating him down in the area of foreign policy. We saw it in the last Iowa debate. And we see it when media and establishment politicians paint Ron Paul as being weak in foreign policy, talking about the Strait of Hormuz, and saying he's ok with with Iran getting nuclear weapons. Fair or not, Ron Paul's foreign policy of non-intervention is being demonized, which is making it much harder to win over mainstream America.
Modern society has a very short attention span. I remember in the Bush vs Kerry debates, they talked about the invasion of Iraq. Kerry gave a long winded explanation about the negatives. Maybe he was right, but I could feel millions of American's eyes glazing over, and not hearing anything. Bush broke it down with one simple phrase: "The world is better off without Saddam Hussein". Right or wrong, the average American can hear that short easy-to-remember phrase, see how that makes sense, and later repeat it in casual conversation with friends, family & co-workers.
Breaking Down the Words: I used the word "unsustainable", because it reminds people that we have $15 trillion in national debt, and trillion dollar budget deficits. And the phrase "big government spending" is a reminder to Republicans - especially Tea Partiers - that military spending is a form of big government spending, which is something they claim to hate.
Usage: So when asked about how Ron Paul would deal with things like the Strait of Hormuz, or whether he would use military force to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the response could be like..
1) Mention that no options are off the table.
2) Mention that if we do decide to go to war, Congress needs to declare war, in accordance to the constitution.
3) Mention that we need to remember that "Policing the world is unsustainable big government spending". Elaborate with how it puts us deeper in debt, how it's not effective (example Iraq), and how it ends up creating more enemies for America.
4) Mention that USA needs to change direction, and adopt a more sustainable policy of non-intervention & neutrality, like Switzerland.
Summary: I'd like to hear your thoughts on coming up with a short, simple, easy-to-remember, one sentence explanation of Ron Paul's anti-interventionist foreign policy. Something that even the most scattered-brained person will remember, repeat to their friends, family & co-workers in casual political debates, and convince people that Ron Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy is the direction USA needs to head in.