PAUL FOR PRESIDENT?

The Maverick Libertarian Republican Talks On War, Immigration, And
Presidential Ambition

Excitement spread like wildfire last week across the libertarian web:
Ron Paul has entered the presidential race! Even the mainstream press
took notice. As we'll see in the interview with Rep. Paul (R-Texas)
below, the excitement may have been premature.

The reason for the excitement is understandable: Ron Paul has been
the most consistent successful politician advocating the
limited-government principles that he sees embedded in the
Constitution. Part of his appeal, to a voting base that we can safely
presume isn't as libertarian as Paul is himself, is that of the very
rare politician following his own conscience and mind with steadfast
integrity. Indeed, Paul is not afraid of aggravating even parts of
his libertarian constituency when he thinks it's the right thing to
do, as on immigration (where he's against amnesty and birthright
citizenship, and for increased border control) and his vote this
month in favor of prescription drug negotiation.

I first wrote at length about Paul in a 1999 American Spectator
profile. Its discussion of Paul's nature and appeal is worth
revisiting, even with some old details. Just remember, he's continued
to win his reelection since 1999. In 2004, the Democrats didn't even
bother running anyone against him. And in 2006 he won with 60 percent
of the vote.

Though his name rarely appears in the national press, his face almost
never on Sunday morning news shows, in 1996 he was third only to
Gingrich and Bob Dornan in individual contributions to Republican
House members. Though he hasn't managed to get any of his own bills
out of committee since re-entering the House in January 1997, he's
considered a vital asset by a large national constituency of
libertarians, goldbugs, and constitutionalists. He's defied one of
the holy shibboleths of electoral politics--Thou Must Bring Home the
Bacon--by being a consistent opponent of agricultural subsidies in a
largely agricultural district.....

Ron Paul has been defying standard political rules since he first won
an off-term House election in 1976--a post-Watergate year when new
Republicans weren't widely embraced. He lost the regular election in
'76, but came back to win in '78, '80, and '82, then left the House
for an ill-fated go at the Senate seat won by Phil Gramm.

..He ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1988. He
was a hero to a national constituency of hard-core skeptics about the
State--the one successful politician who was always steadfast even on
the less-popular aspects of the live-free-or-die libertarian
philosophy. He'd talk about ending the federal drug war when speaking
to high school students. In 1985, he spent his own money to fly and
testify on behalf of one of the first draft-registration defiers to
go to trial, not blanching when confronted with the hot-blooded
youngster's use of the phrase "Smash the State." He might not use
that verb, the sober obstetrician, Air Force veteran, and family man
said, but from his first-hand experience with how the U.S. government
disrespects its citizens' natural liberties, he could understand the
sentiments.

I talked to Paul Thursday afternoon by phone about presidential and
congressional politics. Here is an edited transcript of our talk.

Reason: Does launching an official exploratory committee necessarily
mean you will end up launching an official campaign?

Ron Paul: Last week it leaked that we were getting ready to organize
an exploratory committee--I haven't even officially announced that
yet. If I find with the exploratory committee that there is some
support out there, that we can raise the money you need, then [I'd]
declare that [I'm] running.

Reason: Now that it has leaked, what have you thought of the response so far?

Paul: I think it's been impressive. I've been pleased and surprised.

Reason: Who are some of the staff and supporters behind the committee?

Paul: I'm not going into any of that now--we haven't even officially
made the announcement! It was leaked info and I'm still in the
process of organizing a team. [In an AP story, Kent Snyder is
identified as chairman for the exploratory committee.]

Reason: What would you anticipate the major issues you'd emphasize in
a presidential run, if it comes to that?

Paul: Everything I've talked about for 20 years! I think the biggest
thing for Republican primary voters is that most Republicans are
turned off right now. They've had a beating and are reassessing their
values. They have to decide what they believe in. The Republican
Party has become about big government conservatism, and Republicans
need to hear the message they used to hear: that conservatives are
supposed to be for small government.

Reason: You appeared at a bipartisan press conference today on a
resolution regarding possible war in Iran....

Paul: Walter Jones (D-N.C.) has a resolution he's introducing,
sponsored by both Democrats and Republicans, saying that the
president can't go into Iran and spread this war without permission
of Congress. I don't know the total number of supporters, but we had
a real nice bipartisan group, seven or eight members of Congress,
split between Republicans and Democrats. I thought it went well. [The
resolution has 12 co-sponsors.]

I think the feeling [on the Hill] is getting more against the war
every day. Republicans have generally benefited from being on the
other side of war issues, and lately we've been pressured into
supporting pre-emptive war, and it has hurt us politically. The Old
Right position was [antiwar] and through the 20th century
conservatives in the Republican Party have generally been trying to
keep us out of war, and we've generally benefited by this. Eisenhower
was elected to end the Korean War. Nixon was supposed to end the
Vietnam War and in 2000 Bush ran on a policy of "no nation building"
and not being the policeman of the world. He criticized Clinton on
Somalia. It's a strong tradition for Republicans to be on the side of
avoiding military conflicts. Democrats have generally been the
international instigators.

Reason: One of the Internet rumors is linking you with Rep. Tom
Tancredo (R-Col.) in a possible joint run...

Paul: Tancredo? No. We've never talked about anything like that.

Reason: And another rumor is that the GOP run could be a lead-in to
some sort of third party run...

Paul: A third party run? No.

Reason: Have you noticed any differences about being in the minority
party in Congress again? Will that affect you?

Paul: Well, the Republican Party leaders are acting in a very
defensive manner--which they've earned! It probably doesn't change
what I do very much. I'm just as likely to get Democratic support in
things I want to do as from Republicans. Republicans were too
determined to support the president rather than thinking things
through and standing up to his requests to expand government
internationally or to expand entitlement program at home. They've
just gone along here.

Reason: Do you think the losing Congress will liberate more
Republicans to revolt against the administration?

Paul: That's the other Republican politicians' dilemma: They don't
want to annoy some Republican voters, but at the same time realize
that it's not very popular to have to defend the war. When you see
someone like Brownback [R-Kan.] scurrying away from the
war....there's a big change in attitude [in the GOP] and Republicans
are starting to remember where they came from and that they don't
have to be supporters of war. I think a year from now there will be a
lot more Republican antiwar people around.

Reason: Do you expect the Democrats to do anything substantive to stop the war?

Paul: I think we'll see more rhetoric than a real desire to do
[something specific]. We'll see hiding behind just saying that "we
don't like this, Bush made a mess, but we can't cut the money because
then we won't be supporting the troops." I think that's a cop out.
There's plenty of money to take care of the troops, billions of
dollars in piles.

Reason: What did you think of Rep. Joe Biden's declaration that
there's really nothing Congress can do to stop the war?

Paul: I think Biden is absolutely wrong. The Constitution gives more
responsibility to Congress in dealing with foreign policy than to the
executive. The only thing the president can do is be commander in
chief after being given directions to pursue. If we had followed the
rules he wouldn't have been able to do a thing, with no declaration
of war. How can the commander in chief fight a war that hasn't been
declared? If Congress had not been so complacent in its
responsibilities....The war in Vietnam finally ended by definancing,
but tragically after 60,000 Americans died. Congress has lots of
responsibility, for defining policy, raising an army, buying
equipment, the whole works. For Biden to say that-that's avoiding the
responsibility of doing what we can do.

Reason: Have you had much interaction with the larger active antiwar
movement from the left?

Paul: Not really. I have a lot of people who correspond with me who
come from the left, but I don't go to their events since there's so
often more on their plate than just the war. They have an agenda I
don't endorse. I'm interested in reviving that spirit that says
conservatives and limited-government constitutionalists can support
the antiwar position, can be comfortable without aggressive foreign policy.

Reason: What do you have to say to libertarians who disagree with
your immigration position, such as on amnesty, birthright
citizenship, and a concentration of federal money on border security?

Paul: If they don't agree, they'd have to be anarchists, and I'm not.
I believe in national borders and national security. My position is,
take away incentives--why are states compelled to give free education
and medical care? I don't endorse easy automatic citizenship for
people who break the law. They shouldn't be able to come reap the
benefits of welfare state. I don't think libertarians can endorse
that. I think removing the incentives is very important, but I don't
think you can solve the immigration problem until you deal with the
welfare state and the need for labor created by a government that
interferes with the market economy. We're short of labor at the same
time lots of people are paid not to work. Take away [illegal
immigrants'] incentives. I do believe in a responsibility to protect
our borders, rather than worrying about the border between North and
South Korea or Iraq and Syria, and I think that's a reasonable position.

Reason: Some of your libertarian fans were also upset about your vote
on government price negotiations for Medicare drugs....

Paul: The government is already involved in giving out prescription
drugs, in a program that the drug companies love and spend hundreds
of millions lobbying for, this interventionist program. The drug
corporations love it. Should government say something about
controlling prices since it's a government program? I want to cut
down spending, so why not say that government has a responsibility to
get a better bargain? Both choices were horrible, but the person who
complained on the Internet did not understand the vote. I don't vote
for price controls, obviously, but if government has to buy
something--even if they shouldn't be buying it!--they have a
responsibility to get the best price. But most importantly, we
shouldn't be in that business [of buying drugs].

Reason: When can we expect an official announcement about your
presidential plans?

Paul: It's going to be several weeks. We want to get our ducks lined
up, be better prepared to line up committees and all the things we
didn't get together before the information about [the exploratory
committee] was leaked. I was impressed with how quick it leaked, and
the reaction, O man!

Reason: Any reaction from your congressional colleagues or Republican
Party types?

Paul: Not a whole lot. I didn't expect them to say too much. I mean,
they mention it--it's not like they refuse to talk about it--but it's
not the hottest subject around. It's much hotter on the Internet.

It will have to be a grassroots campaign and rely on the internet. If
we don't learn how to use that to its maximum benefit, we won't have
a very viable campaign. We'll be able to raise significant amounts,
but obviously we're not getting money from corporate giants and we're
not apt to raise $100 million. Money is pretty important, but it's
not the final issue. There are other ways of running, more so today
than ever before, new ways of reaching people in an economical
manner. Obvious you have to get a certain [minimum amount] of money,
but right now I have no idea of the number.