The Revolution, A Manifesto (Review, Part 1 of 2)

Manifesto, def. "A public declaration of principles, policies, or intentions, especially of a political nature."

I pre-ordered my copy of the book on Amazon and eagerly awaited it's April 30 release date. Apparently I was not alone, because Ron Paul's The Revolution, A Manifesto is at No. 5 in it's 4th week on the New York Times bestseller list after holding the top spot two weeks ago (as of June 1). Although already familiar with Dr. Paul's philosophy from following his presidential campaign and reading his articles and speeches at the Ron Paul Library, I still read the book with interest. Paul outlines the principles that ignited the "Revolution" among many folks like myself who are sick and tired of politics as usual.

Paul begins with the "false choices of American politics." He argues that there is little disagreement between the two political parties (or the R and D factions of the Government Party as I call them) on fundamental issues. The two parties may disagree on who to bomb, but neither party questions the American prerogative to wage preemptive war or play the role of world policeman. The issues that are discussed are mainly a distraction.

Dr. Paul explains the basis for his own political views; the beliefs (specifically the foreign policy) of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. Paul expounds on his foreign policy of non-intervention. He is not an isolationist; to the contrary, Paul's foreign policy is that of Washington and Jefferson, and is summed up by this quote from Jefferson's first inaugural address, "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Because of Paul's foreign policy views, his political adversaries have attempted (with success) to tie him to the 'blame America first' crowd. Paul, while believing that the 9/11 terrorists were solely responsible for their actions and that the sponsors of terrorism should be found and punished, does make the case that America's interventionist policies are bound to cause resentment. Resentment may then lead to the desire for revenge; and as Paul writes, "That revenge, in its various form, is what our CIA calls blowback - the unintended consequences of military intervention." We do not operate in a vacuum, and should not be surprised when our actions have repercussions.

Unfortunately, the government's policy of intervention around the world is accepted by both major political parties (again with the "false choices"). It not only makes us less secure, but also bears a huge cost; both in blood and dollars. The cost in terms of lives lost and shattered is enormous. 4,000+ dead American servicemen, tens of thousands more wounded, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead, and 4 million Iraqi refugees. Estimates for the cost of the Iraq War are now between $2-3 trillion. This at a time when the dollar is in a downward spiral. The Iraq War vindicates Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy.

Dr. Paul takes his oath of office seriously. When he swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic," he meant it. During his time in Congress, Paul's vow to "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution" has earned him the nickname Dr. No. Paul illustrates the assault on our Constitution; not by some foreign terrorist, but the government. All three branches of the government have been contemptuous of the Constitution over the last several years.

Paul describes how the power of the executive branch since 9/11 has expanded beyond anything intended by the Founders or authorized by the Constitution. And how Congressional silence on executive orders and signing statements has granted implicit approval to the President's abuse of power. The singing statement is especially egregious. A signing statement is a written pronouncement issued when the President signs a bill into law. The signing statement has been used extensively by President Bush to express how, or if, he intends to enforce the provisions of the law. Paul quotes Jonathon Turley, "By using signing statements to this extent, the president become a government unto himself."

Paul goes on to make the case that the Constitution is not a "living document." If the American feel the need to change the Constitution, then there is the amendment process - as opposed to the courts interpreting the Constitution to the further a social agenda, or politicians just ignoring the document. Paul believes in original intent; that we should always consider the original intentions of the men who wrote and signed the Constitution.

Case in point. The Constitution gives the authority to declare war solely to Congress. Both parties have regularly ignored this clause of the Constitution and accepted the President's authority to commit the country to war since the Korean War began in 1950. Paul believes that the American people, through their elected representatives, should have some input on whether the US goes to war. After all, the American Revolution was fought to rid ourselves of a king. Dr. Paul quotes Robert Taft, Paul's 1950's kindred spirit, "If the President has unlimited power to involve us in war, war is more likely. History shows that...arbitrary rules are more inlined to favor war than are the people, at any time."

A President more likely to commit the country to war needs cannon fodder. A historic source of young bodies to fill the ranks is a military draft. Paul expresses his great disdain for the draft and presents his case in opposition on both moral and constitutional grounds. According to Paul, "The draft is a totalitarian institution that is based on the idea that the government owns you and can dispose of your life as wishes." The draft is antithetic to the American ideals of freedom and liberty.

Part 2 coming soon. Covering abortion, economics and civil liberties.