Reading the transcript of Ron Paul's long-awaited showdown with Tim Russert is worth doing whether you're impressed, outraged, or ambivalent about the phenomenon that is Paul's candidacy. The candidate's answers include a tremendous amount of the clear-eyed disgust with imperialism that has powered much of his campaign and thrilled so many progressives. They also showcase his exasperation with the tired boundaries the media lays down to distinguish legitimate opinion from extremist sentiment. Watching him trample all over questions Russert is is certain he'll back down from is good, clean fun.But it's also useful to read the transcript in its entirety in order to better grasp the coherence within Paul's thought. His Constitutionalism does not limit itself to anti-imperialism: He's also against the Civil Rights Act, and federal education, and maintaining Social Security, and funding government expenditures. Paul is, to be sure, probably not a cruel man, and he does not come off as such here. He admits the need to retain Social Security in the short-term, but says, "I think we need to get--give--offer the kids the chance to get out." That is to say, he wants to destroy the program. In 1998, his platform included the abolition of public schools. Now, it's softened, and he just wants to devolve the authority to the states, which is, in most forms, a way of destroying public schools at a slightly lower rate. He does not oppose the Civil Rights Act on grounds of racism, but because "it's a property rights issue." But whether these positions are motivated by malice or originalism is somewhat beside the point: They are still wrong, and their outcomes would indeed be cruel.Moreover, they are all of a piece, inseparable from the whole of his ideology. It is what Paul calls "liberty." It is anti-imperialist, anti-PATRIOT Act, anti-wiretapping. But it is also anti-foreign aid, anti-Social Security, anti-Medicare, anti-government. His would be a world in which the United States neither invades Iraq nor uses its tax code to fund a system of pension supports and health care guarantees for the elderly. A world in which we cut our military aid to Israel, and end the minimum wage. A world in which we close down the wiretapping program, and allow states to close down a woman's access to an abortion.This is the world he is selling to his supporters, this is the definition of liberty that his candidacy will seek to propagate. If you look, for instance, at the "Who is Ron Paul?" section of his website, there are 11 definitional positions set down in list format. First is his opposition to taxes. Then comes his opposition to deficit spending. Then to gun control laws. His opposition to the Iraq war comes ninth, right after his opposition to internet regulations and before his opposition to congressional pension plans. What we think is powering his candidacy may not be what most moves the candidate. THE FULL PAUL.
Reading the transcript of Ron Paul's long-awaited showdown with Tim Russert is worth doing whether you're impressed, outraged, or ambivalent about the phenomenon that is Paul's candidacy. The candidate's answers include a tremendous amount of the clear-eyed disgust with imperialism that has powered much of his campaign and thrilled so many progressives. They also showcase his exasperation with the tired boundaries the media lays down to distinguish legitimate opinion from extremist sentiment. Watching him trample all over questions Russert is is certain he'll back down from is good, clean fun.But it's also useful to read the transcript in its entirety in order to better grasp the coherence within Paul's thought. His Constitutionalism does not limit itself to anti-imperialism: He's also against the Civil Rights Act, and federal education, and maintaining Social Security, and funding government expenditures. Paul is, to be sure, probably not a cruel man, and he does not come off as such here. He admits the need to retain Social Security in the short-term, but says, "I think we need to get--give--offer the kids the chance to get out." That is to say, he wants to destroy the program. In 1998, his platform included the abolition of public schools. Now, it's softened, and he just wants to devolve the authority to the states, which is, in most forms, a way of destroying public schools at a slightly lower rate. He does not oppose the Civil Rights Act on grounds of racism, but because "it's a property rights issue." But whether these positions are motivated by malice or originalism is somewhat beside the point: They are still wrong, and their outcomes would indeed be cruel.Moreover, they are all of a piece, inseparable from the whole of his ideology. It is what Paul calls "liberty." It is anti-imperialist, anti-PATRIOT Act, anti-wiretapping. But it is also anti-foreign aid, anti-Social Security, anti-Medicare, anti-government. His would be a world in which the United States neither invades Iraq nor uses its tax code to fund a system of pension supports and health care guarantees for the elderly. A world in which we cut our military aid to Israel, and end the minimum wage. A world in which we close down the wiretapping program, and allow states to close down a woman's access to an abortion.This is the world he is selling to his supporters, this is the definition of liberty that his candidacy will seek to propagate. If you look, for instance, at the "Who is Ron Paul?" section of his website, there are 11 definitional positions set down in list format. First is his opposition to taxes. Then comes his opposition to deficit spending. Then to gun control laws. His opposition to the Iraq war comes ninth, right after his opposition to internet regulations and before his opposition to congressional pension plans. What we think is powering his candidacy may not be what most moves the candidate. 
