Standing up for principles isn’t a conservative position apparently

As a libertarian, I’m obviously a fan of Ron Paul.  I don’t agree with everything he says, but I think he brings up some valid points.  He’s also known for sticking to his principles.  Because of this, the Young Americans for Freedom have “purged” him from their advisory board due to his anti-war stance.

From the group’s press release:

(Washington DC – 2/12/11) The National Board of Young Americans for Freedom (YAF)—America’s oldest conservative-libertarian activist group—has, per curium, voted to purge Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) from YAF’s National Advisory Board.

YAF’s concern with Rep. Paul stems from his delusional and disturbing alliance with the fringe Anti-War movement.

“It is a sad day in American history when a one-time conservative-libertarian stalwart has fallen more out of touch with America’s needs for national security than the current feeble and appeasing administration,” said YAF’s Senior National Director Jordan Marks.

Paul, who had served on the YAF Advisory Board for more than two decades, was awarded with YAF’s highest honor, the Guardian of Freedom award, an honor Rep. Paul has touted on his biography for many years. Only a decade ago, Dr. Paul praised YAF’s work on the House floor. Paul called YAF’s founding document, the Sharon Statement “a great document explicating the philosophy of freedom.”

The Sharon Statement, clearly states: “American foreign policy must be judged by this criterion: does it serve the just interests of the United States?”

So, apparently it’s not possible to believe that a war doesn’t serve the best interest of the United States?  That’s convenient if you’re a hawkish group that’s dead set on justifying war.  For the record, I supported the invasion of Afghanistan due to the Taliban’s involvement in protecting Osama bin Laden.  That was, at least in my mind, a de facto act of support for an attack on our territory that targeted our citizens.  At that point, I’m ready to unleash hell.

Rep. Paul, however, doesn’t agree.  Hey, it’s no skin off my butt.  After all, as long as someone can justify it with an argument that they apply consistently then I can easily respect their opinion.

The YAF, however, seems to not grasp that it is indeed possible to be against war and to believe it to be in the best interests of the United States to not fight them.  Frankly, war is rarely in a nation’s best interests.  There are exceptions, to be sure, but often it creates an economic burden, depletes the workforce and by extension the tax base, and generally makes life difficult for everyone.

Of course, I suspect this has less to do with Paul’s war position and more to do with something else.  From the above linked presser:

“Rep. Paul has strayed to the left of Obama and allied himself with the radical anti-war left by laying the blame on America for the unprovoked attacks of Sept. 11th.”

The theory Paul expressed is called blow back.  The argument is that our presence in Saudi Arabia – even after Saddam Hussien was no longer a threat to that nation – has infuriated radical Islamic groups and instigated terrorist actions.  However, Paul expressed this during the GOP presidential primary debates two years ago but it’s just now a topic for concern?

Let’s also keep in mind that believing in blow back isn’t tantamount to saying it’s the United States’ fault we were attacked on 9/11.  Terrorists still did horrible things that can not be justified no matter how you slice it.  I’ve never heard Rep. Paul say otherwise either.

So it looks to me like this is just a cop out by YAF.  There’s something more, and this is just a convenient excuse.


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.