Comments on: Weekend Report, 01.26.2008

By: Philip Walker

Philip Walker — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:47:26 +0000

Thank you, I thought they were good questions, too. Politically, my major interest is foreign policy.

Seriously, Evangelicalism has so wedded itself to neoconservative Republican ideology, this is how the thought pattern usually goes. It’s sad.

Oh, absolutely. Most people tend to think that we know best and having the power to impose our idea of “what’s best”, should do so, and even Christians can think that way. That’s wrong on so many levels. I can’t begin to understand most “evangelical” politics, even in my own country.

Paul believes the government of each nation has moral responsibility for that nation alone, as its elected leader.

“Up to a point, Lord Copper.” I can agree that a nation’s government should defend the widow and the fatherless especially of that state, but not only of it. It’s a very tricky balance to get right; but I fear Paul’s stance errs by reacting against the error of neo-conservatism. I would think it very sad if a country of the stature of the US never responded to cries for help even from fellow-governments.

By: Travis Prinzi

Travis Prinzi — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 03:29:20 +0000

Also – even though those are good questions, I don’t honestly think that most pro-life evangelicals have thought those things through. I don’t think they’d give those as reasons for calling Paul an “isolationist.” Over here, it goes like this: Bush is a Christian. Bush started Iraq. Christians support that war. Paul doesn’t support that war.

Seriously, Evangelicalism has so wedded itself to neoconservative Republican ideology, this is how the thought pattern usually goes. It’s sad.

By: Travis Prinzi

Travis Prinzi — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 03:26:35 +0000

Philip, good, challenging questions. I’d certainly like to hear him answer them! I think he’d answer them like this: No, we shouldn’t get involved, because we never just “get involved.” We expect something in return, and it usually results in sharing some stake in that nation’s future, its decision-making, its resources, etc. Paul believes the government of each nation has moral responsibility for that nation alone, as its elected leader.

Although…I suppose it might be a different set of circumstances if we were actually asked by the leaders of other nations to help. Which is much different from usual, where we decide to go ahead and “help,” whether that help is welcome or not.

By: Philip Walker

Philip Walker — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:21:33 +0000

I suspect, from my rather long-distance vantage point, that the problem is that his position seems to be to assert, “We will never get involved overseas unless American lives are directly at risk. We will withdraw from every alliance and international institution.” Lots of people simply don’t buy it: there is somewhere between neo-conservatism and Paul’s position.

Suppose that both sides of the Israel-Palestine problem asked the US to host and mediate talks. Would President Paul refuse to get involved? Should he?

Suppose that the situation in the Sudan were slightly different, and the Sudanese government had acknowledged that its inability to protect the Darfuri refugees, asking for international military assistance in order to do so. Would President Paul refuse to send troops in support? Should he?

A closing thought: if Dr. Paul had been the head of the French state in 1775 and following, would the United States exist today?