Moody Center
Paul's Foreign Policy Ignores Reality
RECEIVED Fri., Jan. 6, 2012
Dear Editor,
If my neighbor's house is broken into, who cares, as long as the criminals don't break into mine? If the woman down the street is attacked in broad daylight and I can prevent it, why budge? It's not my affair.
If I'm a doctor and witness a child choking, why provide CPR when it might cost me bazillions of dollars if it gets messy? I am only one entity among many and have no leadership role or moral obligation to help.
Some determine to see the world à la John Lennon – as it could be – and thus win admiration through rhetorical device. Ron Paul refuses to look at the world at all. Who cares? Why concern ourselves with tyrants seeking nuclear weapons? If a nuclear bomb goes off, we'll know it! Only then can we respond, only afterward have we recourse to moral defense.
Great leaders, however, see the world as it is – but only so they might wrench the present a little closer to its highest future potential. Ignoring reality leads neither to peace nor greater understanding, while succumbing to nihilism abdicates humankind's responsibility to strive for its highest potential.
On Chamberlain's historic decision to appease Germany, Churchill prophetically remarked, "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war."
Ron Paul's foreign policy is morally bankrupt. A little less bravado would be welcomed, but flatly denying all relational obligations is selfish, dangerous and dishonorable. Isolationism’s total self-centeredness is disgraceful, and no matter Paul's other admirable qualities, the moral ambivalence of his foreign policy disqualifies him to lead the greatest force for good the world has ever known.
Sticking one's head in the sand will definitely prevent sunburn, but how pretty will fair skin look on a suffocated corpse?
If my neighbor's house is broken into, who cares, as long as the criminals don't break into mine? If the woman down the street is attacked in broad daylight and I can prevent it, why budge? It's not my affair.
If I'm a doctor and witness a child choking, why provide CPR when it might cost me bazillions of dollars if it gets messy? I am only one entity among many and have no leadership role or moral obligation to help.
Some determine to see the world à la John Lennon – as it could be – and thus win admiration through rhetorical device. Ron Paul refuses to look at the world at all. Who cares? Why concern ourselves with tyrants seeking nuclear weapons? If a nuclear bomb goes off, we'll know it! Only then can we respond, only afterward have we recourse to moral defense.
Great leaders, however, see the world as it is – but only so they might wrench the present a little closer to its highest future potential. Ignoring reality leads neither to peace nor greater understanding, while succumbing to nihilism abdicates humankind's responsibility to strive for its highest potential.
On Chamberlain's historic decision to appease Germany, Churchill prophetically remarked, "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war."
Ron Paul's foreign policy is morally bankrupt. A little less bravado would be welcomed, but flatly denying all relational obligations is selfish, dangerous and dishonorable. Isolationism’s total self-centeredness is disgraceful, and no matter Paul's other admirable qualities, the moral ambivalence of his foreign policy disqualifies him to lead the greatest force for good the world has ever known.
Sticking one's head in the sand will definitely prevent sunburn, but how pretty will fair skin look on a suffocated corpse?
Jef Cook