Vietnam, earmarks, and government. by Van Bryant, II
(libertarian)
Monday, January 9, 2012
This article will be in response to two particularly bad smears against Ron Paul within the past two days: first, that Ron was distorting truth in smearing Newt Gingrich on his Vietnam deferment while claiming he was drafted into the Air Force. Second, that Paul was dishonest in attacking Santorum on his "big government conservatism" while also supporting earmarks.
This first smear arose from Saturday's ABC debate, where Paul criticized Gingrich as a "chickenhawk" for not serving during the Vietnam conflict. Here[1] is a rehashing of their exchange by the Daily Caller, and here is a glaring example of the aforementioned smear.[2]It is true that the Air Force has never directly drafted any service member. However, Paul's civilian skills as a surgeon afforded him the opportunity to commission as an officer in a branch of his choosing when he was drafted.
To be fair to the article, the author did take back his initial accusation, though he insinuates that Paul's Air Force opt-out amounts to a form of deferment in his book. Your mileage may vary: personally, I would argue that Paul was placed in considerably more danger than Gingrich during this period of time.
I will agree with the sentiment that Paul could have utilized a better choice of wording during this exchange. That said, anyone who has had an argument as heated as this example will agree that perfect, well-prepared oration tends to fail as emotions boil over. It is very clear to me from watching this discussion[3] that the matter was a very personal, sore spot for the two men. I have to commend the ex-Speaker for maintaining at least a semblance of decorum. In the end, those who understand the definition of "chickenhawk" will agree that Ron's rhetoric absolutely trounced Gingrich.
Also arising from the debate, in particular the altercation between Paul and Santorum, is the reminder by detractors that Ron Paul is hypocritical in attacking the ex-senator over his "big government conservatism" while utilizing earmarks to allocate funds for his district. This article from the Washington Post offers some of what it presents as Paul's more egregious examples of earmarking.[4]
Paul's actions are an example of political pragmatism winning over dogma. The Congressman is quick to recognize that the government is offering his district slop that was accumulated through theft of the citizenry, and has spoken and written words to this effect numerous times in his career. It is indeed wrong to accept these circuitous bribes. However, the reality is that not accepting this money would have in effect punished the citizenry while offering none of the benefits from the theft. Perhaps it could be argued that such action would have awakened Paul's constituency to the rotten nature of government, but rarely does cold turkey approaches rehabilitate addictions to the state.
I argue that not accepting earkmarks would have been political suicide: I don't imagine Ron Paul and his platform could have accomplished what it has done today had he not been actively involved in the Washington machine.
In a political environment steeped in platitudes and empty slogans, it may be hard for some to consider the long-term strategy or deeper reasoning for Paul's actions, stances, and statements. One may hold black-and-white ethics or morality, but rarely if ever is human interaction so. Until such a point as the state is removed from interaction, we must make do with the cards we are dealt, and continue to work towards a return to sane economics and society.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 25
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Van Bryant, II only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Van Bryant, II 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.
