Foreign Policy magazine reporter Mike Boyer incorrectly charges that Ron Paul's understanding of the intentions of the founding fathers is "profoundly flawed." It turns out that Mr. Boyer's own understand of both the founding fathers and Ron Paul is what's really flawed. by Walt Thiessen
(libertarian)
Friday, November 2, 2007
Foreign Policy magazine reporter Mike Boyer has jumped on the Stop Paul bandwagon in a big way. Saying that Paul's 15 minutes of fame are up, he then wrote in his blog today:
Paul is what you might call a Constitutional originalist. He divines his governing philosophy from the Constitution and America's Founders. But his understanding of their vision is profoundly flawed. Paul appears to believe the founders vested absolute authority for foreign-policy making in Congress, not the executive. "Policy is policy," Paul wrote in 2006, "and it must be made by the legislature and not the executive." But there's almost no evidence the founders saw it in such simplistic, absolute terms.
There are two problems with this statement. First, Paul did not say that foreign policy authority rests absolutely [my emphasis] in the legislature. Only Boyer uses the word "absolutely." It doesn't appear anywhere in Paul's article, and to the best of my knowledge Paul has never used the word "absolutely" in this context. Second, Boyer is wrong when he says that there's no evidence to support the idea that the founding fathers favored the supremacy of the legislature in all forms of policy.
Wikipedia's article on separation of powers in the United States has it right. They wrote:
"James Madison wrote in Federalist 51, regarding the ability of each branch to defend itself from actions by the others, that 'it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.'"
This is what Congressman Paul was confirming, although Boyer tries to pretend otherwise. Boyer sees Paul's claim as being an extreme claim, but it is in fact Boyer who engages in extremist thinking in order to frame Paul's argument in this manner. He compounds this error in his next point. Writes Boyer:
"'Noninterventionism.' This is the word Paul uses to describe his foreign policy, and he insists the term also encapsulates the vision of the Founders. While Paul claims 'noninterventionism' is not isolationism, it sure sounds like it is."
Actually, what Paul has said is that it is the current government, led by President Bush and promoted by Bush's fellow hawks in Congress, which has engaged in isolationism. In an article published at antiwar.com on October 25, 2007, Paul wrote:
"A few months back, I wrote back-to-back weekly messages regarding globalism and isolationism. In writing those columns, I focused on the fact that our nation's interventionist foreign policy was precisely what was isolating us from other countries.
"Turkey's recall of their U.S. ambassador in the wake of last week's resolution, passed in the House Foreign Affairs Committee in condemnation of Turkey, is a perfect example of what I wrote in those columns, as well as what I have been saying for years.
"The House has passed similar resolutions for years, praising some foreign countries or political groups while chastising others....
"Last week's events make clear that Congress, and our foreign policy establishment, must reconsider the entire policy of interventionism if we are to avoid further isolation of our nation."
In one fell swoop, what Paul wrote a week ago obliterates the false claims that Boyer made in his blog entry today. Paul characterized Bush as the one whose policy is isolationist and demonstrated that the legislature does indeed have the historical mandate to take the lead in foreign policy (although as Paul pointed out it has been doing so badly).
Boyer's ignorance doesn't stop there. He next wrote:
"Let's assume Paul is right that foreign-policymaking powers are vested in the Congress. Why, then, does he keep promising that as president he will 'immediately' pull U.S. troops out of Iraq?"
It's interesting that Boyer equates troop deployment with foreign policy. Too often our modern presidents, including the present one, have indeed equated troop deployment with foreign policy, to the detriment of American interests. Actually, they are two separate functions, but Boyer doesn't seem to appreciate the difference. Troop deployment is only one possible tool among many possible tools for executing a foreign policy. Foreign policy is how our country deals with foreign countries and persons. When troop deployment becomes foreign policy, we have a clear case of presidential ineptitude (and belligerence), because it means he has adopted the motto that the only way to deal with foreign countries and persons is via military force.
It turns out that Boyer's actual quibble was with the word "immediately," which he called a "cheap political trick." What Paul has actually said is that he would pull the troops home "as quickly and safely as possible." Paul is trying to emphasize the urgency of taking action sooner rather than later, in contrast to the Bush position which is to leave the troops in Iraq indefinitely, meaning for years and years. Ron Paul has never specified a time-frame for withdrawal. A smart commander in chief would ask the military for an appropriate plan for withdrawal with dispatch, and Paul knows this. So does Boyer, but he wants to pretend that Paul doesn't know it.
Boyer makes other points that are more defensible, so I won't say that his entire article is wrong. It's not. But clearly much of what he claims about Paul's views is distortion of the truth at best and deliberate ignorance at worst.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 233
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Walt Thiessen only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Walt Thiessen is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I also found Boyer's writing to be full of problems. Exapmple: "While Paul claims "noninterventionism" is not isolationism, it sure sounds like it is." The fact is that interfering with others nations affairs is quite different than ignoring and isolating. Boyer's ignorance to this difference does not change the fact. Example: "Presumably he intends to govern as he says the Founders intended. But there's a deep contradiction here. If as president he will have no authority to execute foreign policy except as Congress dictates, how can he promise on the campaign trail to get American troops out of Iraq? I don't get it." There is no contradiction. The Commander in Chief is the President and as such it is his duty to direct the troops. This is in exact accordance with the Constitution. Boyer's belief that Iran intends to create a nuclear in no way make Ron Paul statement false. The truth is that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon. Even if they finally build build 1 in 5 or 10 years, why is that automatically a problem for the USA to solve? Isn't it much more of a natioanl security problem for Israel?
The Foreign policy article was a total hit piece. They are published by "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace" Sounds like a CFR related group to me.
Remember, this is the publication that told President Putin he had to remove 40% of his foreign policy paper or they won't print it. Â He withdrew the paper and published in the foreign press. Â So much for free speech in neo-America.
Well written, but I think you missed 2 major points here:
"Let's assume Paul is right that foreign-policymaking powers are vested in the Congress. Why, then, does he keep promising that as president he will 'immediately' pull U.S. troops out of Iraq?"
Number 1. Congress did not declare war, so did not set Foreign Policy, that was the President.
Number 2. As President, he is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, so as long as Congress has not declared War, he could, and would have the constitutional authority, to move the troops out 'immediately'.
The president is actually the commander in chief of the military so, the president can direct withdrawal of troops at any given time. I read Mike Boyer's article and all I could do was sigh at his ignorance.
Terrific article. Thank you for pointing out and correcting yet another attempt to give false meaning to Dr. Ron Paul's message. It scares me that this false information must work, even though some would even seem to violate common sense, why would they do it if there were not people out there that eat it up, without personal examination or validation, as fact.
Ron Paul's support must really be putting the scare in the neocons or they wouldn't be taking shots at him at every chance they get. Ron Paul speaks the truth and the people get it.
Posted By: Michael McDonnough
Date: 2007-11-02 18:45:26
Walt,
Nicely stated. You were right on every point and certainly covered the flaws in Boyer's argument, and the outright propaganda disguised as well researched conclusions when they certainly were based on purposefully false assumptions.Â
Excellent points and excellent rebuttal, it certainly is refreshing to hear analysts and pundits discussing the merits of Ron Paul's platform instead of picking apart "intentions" from sound bites and rumor. As a supporter I enjoy the in depth coverage of the details I would not otherwise have the time or energy to pursue myself.
I do find it interesting that even among Ron's detractors they must crack open a constitution and look to history before beginning a tirade. Even though I may disagree I am glad to see more articles which oppose Ron at least discussing the issues instead of trite attacks on his supporters or parroting superficial labels. I hope more men and women like Ron step forth as a result and sometime in the not too distant future we as a majority are vetting whether a candidate is constitutional instead of merely entertaining. Style over substance makes for a horrible government.
"International network ofpolic analysts and advocates that seeks to make the US a more responsible global leader and global partner."
Would you expect anything different? After all, they're too busy "managing the world" to trifle with the likes of Congress and a non-interventionist such as Ron Paul. Except, they might have trouble with the "responsible" part of their descriptor
Posted By: David J. Nitshe
Date: 2007-11-03 04:24:14
When Ron Paul becomes President in January 2009, there are going to be a lot of wolves out there with no teeth, emaciated, and selling apples on street corners (We'll be "compassionate conservatives" and not tax them on their income).
Power is an illusion. Let's take it back with fine articles like this one!
RON PAUL!
The various parties who's power is threatented , continue to misrepresent Ron Paul's statements of fact and truth.It is good to see an article that clearly shows another example of what can only be called dirty politics.Ron Paul supporters need to continue to be vigilant of these tactics and expose these corrupt people that are destoying our country for their gain.The majority of WE THE PEOPLE cannot allow the status quo to continue.Ron Paul is our best hope for bringing back sensible government to our nation.
When I saw that FP article I was suprised. I viewed it as pure anti-paul propaganda, and here is why:
You cannot equate "troop deployment" in an invasive action against another soverign nation with " withdraw them imediately"
One action equates to war, the other does not. There is a fundamental difference in the two.
To claim that because Paul has stated that only congress can declare war equates to a double standard because he also has said they should come home now deliberately confuses Paul's basic point, which is that it was a mistake to go, is a mistake to continue and we should reverse course now before we do more harm.
The bottom line for me is that all of Paul's statements have been consistent and framed within constitutional authority and FP editors clearly know this.
Instead of making irrational arguments perhaps they should tell us what their real problem with Paul is. It is likely more than just over the word mentioned in this article.
Pretty much any website that writes articles, but doesn't allow comments seems to contain lots of dis-information and purposely doesn't allow them to be corrected. It seems the foreign policy blog is no exception.
I hope people don't put much into blogs that don't allow comments.
Neo-conservative proponents seem to have such a hard time with the definitions of isolationism versus non-interventionalism. It doesn’t seem to matter how many times it’s patiently explained to them, or how many dictionaries are presented.
Ron Paul is the USA's last hope. Its time to find a new country. We pay socialist level taxes in the USA now, we may as well move to a real socialist country.
Isn't "Foreign Poicy" that magazine written by the extraordinarily biased and globalist group called the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) that major players of both the Republican and Democractic parties belong? If so, then one would have to conclude that Mike Boyer is distortiing the truth deliberately.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-11-05 06:56:32
I believe that Foreign Policy magazine is owned by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Whether they have ties to the Council on Foreign Relations, I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if they at least have some common membership between the two organizations, but that's just speculation on my part.
Somehow there is a leap of logic here...If you withdraw your gunboats you are automatically an Isolationist. But if you drop a 4000lb pound on a city you are not.
If you want to engage in commerce with another country you are an isolationist. But you wont be if you have war planes ready to strike.
