Type to search


Ron Paul: The only peace candidate


Sydney Walker, 4, prepares for a rally featuring Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul among a noon-time crowd of about 300 at the Nampa Civic Center in Nampa, Idaho, on March 6. With Santorum out of the race this week, Paul may gain more delegates. Photo courtesy of MCT

There are many good reasons why one should vote for Ron Paul. He’s a Christian that believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, but, unlike Rick Santorum, he doesn’t believe that the government should have any say in marriage or other social issues. He was one of Ronald Reagan’s early supporters for the presidency, but has no qualms pointing out that the Reagan administration continued the trend of growing the federal government. He might be serving as a congressman, but his life career has been as a physician. He’s actually worked in the medical industry and has seen firsthand the damage that the federal government has done in intervening there. Unlike Mitt Romney, the father of “Romneycare” and subsequent grandfather of “Obamacare,” Paul has consistently been against socialist medicine. Unlike Newt Gingrich, he’s been faithful to his wife for over forty years.

In addition to his great ideas on domestic policy, Ron Paul’s greatest distinguishing characteristic is in his foreign policy ideas. He alone among the presidential candidates, including incumbent Obama, has a foreign policy of true peace.

Newt Gingrich has repeatedly called President Obama’s foreign policy weak and consisting of talking too much. This is despite the fact that President Obama has thus far authorized military intervention in Libya, Uganda, and expanded them in Pakistan. The war in Afghanistan is still ongoing. The war on drugs, although nominally not a ‘real’ war, has consisted in real casualties in Mexico, Colombia, and elsewhere in Latin America between U.S. backed local governments and drug cartels. President Obama is a war-hawk, but what’s terrifying is that Gingrich considers him too soft. If Gingrich were president, where else would he insist we need to intervene in? Given the candidate’s love for moon colonization, we might very well expect a Gingrich administration to lead us to war against space aliens.

Rick Santorum’s proposed foreign policy leaves little to like. He is a strong believer in American’s need to more proactively “lead” the world. In a sense, Rick Santorum’s foreign policy is the least conservative of the republican candidates. When President Richard Nixon opened negotiations with the People’s Republic of China he made it clear that the United States’ role abroad was not of a policeman’s. Even President George W. Bush was explicit during his early presidential campaign that he was not a believer in nation building. It is odd then that Santorum has taken a stance contrary to that of his republican predecessors.

There is of course Mitt Romney, whose foreign policy differs little from incumbent President Obama’s. The only substantial difference is his calls for possible military intervention in Iran, but this is hardly anything original. Ever the follower, Romney’s views on Iran mirror that of the Washington establishment; Romney has made no proposals for ending any of our current wars.

Ron Paul, in a deep contrast to his fellow candidates, has advocated a return to a non-interventionist foreign policy. Many have mislabeled him as an isolationist because of this, but in reality he has no intention of building an iron curtain around the United States or prohibiting communication with the outside world. To the contrary, he wishes to lower trade restrictions in order to allow us to more easily communicate, buy, and sell with foreigners.

Who is the isolationist? The man who wants to bomb his neighbors? Or the man who wants to sell him apples?

Not only would Ron Paul seek a policy of non-intervention abroad, but he would begin to reduce the number of U.S. military installations abroad. He would, for example, seek to reduce U.S. military presence in Europe. The Nazi regime has long been removed, and Europe is a wealthy region that can defend itself. Japan is one of the richest nations in the world and does not need the U.S. to protect it. Contrary to what the sensational media and war-hungry politicians would like you to think, we’re living in a fairly peaceful time.

There is no axis of evil plotting to attack the United States. The People’s Republic of China does not have the naval capacity to move its troops around beyond its immediate vicinity. Even if they did, it’s doubtful that they would seek to attack the United States when we’re one of its largest trading partners. North Korea’s nuclear arsenal is a moot point; they don’t have the capacity to send it to U.S. territory. The real danger North Korea poses is to South Korea using conventional artillery. It’s doubtful that North Korea will ever attack its southern neighbor, since they would be guaranteed a swift reprisal. The Iranian establishment does not intend to attack us, nor could it ever hope to with Israel watching it. The Soviets are gone, and Putin’s grip on Russia is weakening.

There will always be dangers in the world, and there is a place for military defense, but there is no need to occupy any other nation. The United States is living in a time of peace, so let’s enjoy it.

If you want peace, vote for Ron Paul this upcoming primary election. The man is not a messiah and his policies may not be perfect. He is, however, the only genuine peace candidate in either of the two major parties.

–Michelangelo Landgrave is a junior majoring in economics. He is currently the president pro tempore of the CSUN Libertarian Club and a member of the Conservative Club. He is a Mexican immigrant to the United States.


  1. Alexandra Riggle Apr 13, 2012

    You forgot to mention that Ron Paul would send more than half the nation’s population- women, that is- back into the Dark Ages if elected president. From his own website:

    “And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:

    * Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade
    and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on
    life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through
    legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

    * Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”

    Paul’s stance on this issue ALONE strips him of any legitimacy for president as far as I’m concerned.

    Revoking a woman’s right to choose and handle her own very personal decisions is in no way “peaceful.”

    1. Sean Bell Apr 17, 2012

      If a woman kills her infant in private does it become a personal choice and privacy issue?  The egg and the sperm are just funky toenails with some special abilities.  Once they meet it is just a couple of cells and few but the Catholics would scream too hard if you did some bodily trimming.  Ten months later a fully human baby pops out of her cabbage patch that will net you life if you drown it in the tub.  Unless your the heartless lawyer sort who doesn’t believe a baby deserves any rights until it sees the light of day, then you have to agree that it went from “fetus” to baby at some point during the pregnancy.  Because of the Supreme Court twisting itself into contortions to allow something it wanted to say yes to, we get the travesty that is Roe v Wade.

      If science tells us beyond a shadow of a doubt that no human baby is “alive” before a certain point in the pregnancy, then after adding a safety buffer, she can do her personal “toenail” trimming in private.  Until that time, getting my moral compass from judges, lawyers and politicians on what constitutes the difference between a fetus and a baby gives me nothing but the creeps.

      That our country is fairly evenly split on the subject should be an indicator that neither side is talking about the same thing when talking at each other.  Considering the subject and the consequences I wish that we could get past the rhetoric and actually discuss what we are doing.

      1. WL May 9, 2012

        The problem with setting some kind of time limit as to when a fetus becomes a baby is it’s total lack of intelligent representation!  What I mean is, once conception has occured, you can argue all you want that it isn’t ‘life’ yet, but truth of the matter once conception has occured, without intervention, you will have life!  A living human has begun at that moment and will become a human life unless it is stopped!  Therefore life begins at conception!

    2. WL May 9, 2012

      What you alude to is that it is a personal right to use abortion as a form of birth control!  This is problematic enough!  But Ron Paul wants to take that power away from the federal government and allow individual states to decide for themselves how they want to deal with abortion!  Just like the war on drugs, Ron Paul thinks these issues are better dealt with by state and local jurisdiction!  Not some omnipotent federal government that dictates over all the states and forces all to bend to its will!  We are not a majority rule government and should not be allowed to run roughshod over the minority!

  2. Juan Reynoso Apr 12, 2012

    Wake up America, Ron Paul is our only
    hope to restore honesty in Washington. We are in this economic mess
    because Washington culture of corruption; we elected them to office
    to represent us the people, but they betray us and passed legislation
    that destroy our manufacturing our small farming, small retail stores
    and small business; they destroy our economic base and millions of
    jobs, they promoted the invasion of illegal aliens and call them
    immigrants that are in our country to contribute to our economic, but
    we know the truth they are here to take our jobs and decrease our
    wages and on top of all this they made laws that force us to pay for
    the economic and welfare of the illegal aliens. fellow Americans
    Washington represent big business, the multinational corporations and
    wall street. The GOP establishment and the Democrats are the same
    they don’t want Ron Paul because he will not sell out and will
    restore honesty in our government, this corrupt government do not
    want any change in Washington they trashed our Constitution because
    they claim that is old and outdated, our US Supreme court is had
    become a political institution that use their power to support their
    ideology not our constitution, they are too responsible for the
    demise of what it use to be our America. Fellow Americans we must
    shake up Washington, on November we must vote for Rom Paul and not
    any one else if Dr. Paul it is not nominate by the GOP we must vote
    for a third party. If Obama is elected again it will be because the
    GOP fail to stand for America. Ron Paul is our last hope to restore
    America, because Americans will only be united by an honest leader.

    God bless America. I pray to our lord
    to give us the wisdom to work in harmony to restore our constitution
    and our country.

    Posted by Juan Reynoso-


  3. BurgerLess Apr 11, 2012

    Mr. Landgrave: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
    Mr. Singh: America is a global powerhouse. Trade is our lifeblood, not war.
    Mr. liberterian: I wish you had a regular column somewhere.

    1. Mr. libertarian: I wish you had a regular column somewhere.

      Thanks, Big Mac.  About a year ago the Sundial editor, to his credit, asked me to be a contributor.  I declined because I would need to publicly identify myself and I believe that doing so would negatively impact my professional relationship with students, faculty and staff.  Sad, but I believe true.

      Not surprisingly, however, there are plenty of staff (not faculty) whom I’ve spoken to privately who largely agree with me; they just don’t speak out at CSUN except for maybe on the Sundial comment boards.

    2. Michelangelo_L Apr 11, 2012

      No, I agree. The liberties we enjoy has a price, and there’s a definite place for the military. I’m in full support of gun rights, for example. There’s a difference between having a strong national defense though, and the string of interventionism that we’ve had. (I’m Mr. Landgrave by the way.)

  4. One of the problems not faced by Paul and his supporters is that by removing the U.S. as the “policeman of the world” is that another country, perhaps China, will step up and do it.  I’m not certain that Libertarians would like that either.

    1. Michelangelo_L Apr 11, 2012

      The article is fairly short and concerns Paul’s take on foreign policy so I wasn’t able to address that issue in more depth. However personally I do think there is certainly a place for the US Navy and Airforce. My concern lays mostly in the army, whose tactics and organization seem outdated. As for China, I feel we antagonize them too much. I personally think they’re more reliable allies than certain European countries. 

      You really should take up the offer to be a contributor. Can’t you write with an a pen name?

    2. Sean Bell Apr 18, 2012

      China is already beginning to stretch its global legs.  They are just being much less militaristic about it than we have been.  As the single largest holder of our national debt, the largest foreign reserves of any nation, and Washington’s attempts to inflate their way out of this bubble, we have much more to be worried about with them becoming the world’s reserve currency.  As soon as that happens the dollar will implode.

  5. ron Apr 11, 2012

    The Ron Paul Map = ronpaulitic.com

  6. AllRiteDoors Apr 10, 2012

    Peace is important, so is trade.  I really like Paul but not sure he is the right guy for the job right now.  Great ideas though and love how he mixes it up with the rest.  Jen, http://www.all-ritedoors.com

  7. Laurie Seekins-Shuck Apr 10, 2012

    President Paul!

  8. Sanjay Singh Apr 10, 2012

    “he wishes to lower trade restrictions in order to allow us to more easily communicate, buy, and sell with foreigners”

    Landgrave, you idiot!  What is preventing you to communicate, buy and sell with foreigners.

    Are you not satisfied with massive cheap Asian and mexican products which have flooded America and destroyed our jobs and livelihood.

    Free Trade extremism where American wages are driven down to the level of a Mexican may bring happiness to you, but not to America.

    You might be filled with joy at how Americans are suffering with Free trade, I should have known better,

    1. Sean Bell Apr 18, 2012

      Sanjay– First, free trade agreements are almost never what the politicians say they are.  Free trade is good, because otherwise either the government is costing us the consumer something in tariffs or forcing us to buy something local that costs more.  Free trade agreements usually start with the big boys getting what they want in the foreign country in exchange for opening the floodgates.

      Most of the real troubles with the free trade agreements were because at the same time Congress passed lots of rules and tax changes that enticed the companies through incentives to offshore.  Add in the increases to corporate taxes that put us as the highest in the world, and the rest was a forgone conclusion.  The corporations wanted to leave and Congress obliged by making the changes needed.  That both were incredibly short-sighted is hardly worth arguing over.

      My wife was a writer for a hosiery association here in NC.  They lobbied the corporations and the politicians for years to stop pushing the business overseas. It was a lost cause, they all left, along with the furniture manufacturers.  The town and the entire county are full of rotting gutted factories and more houses than there are people.

Skip to content