"Both Pat Buchanan's
views on the necessity of an ethno-cultural core AND Ron Paul's views
of the dependence of liberty on a sovereign nation state are correct.
We would prefer that Ron Paul articulate both views, but he only has
the latter. Nevertheless, even this latter view, especially combined
with his specific policy proposals, would be an enormous step forward
for our people." (LINK)
by Ron Paul
Since my 2008
campaign for the presidency I have often been asked, “How would
a constitutionalist president go about dismantling the welfare-warfare
state and restoring a constitutional republic?” This is a very
important question, because without a clear road map and set of
priorities, such a president runs the risk of having his pro-freedom
agenda stymied by the various vested interests that benefit from
just as the welfare-warfare state was not constructed in 100 days,
it could not be dismantled in the first 100 days of any presidency.
While our goal is to reduce the size of the state as quickly as
possible, we should always make sure our immediate proposals minimize
social disruption and human suffering. Thus, we should not seek
to abolish the social safety net overnight because that would harm
those who have grown dependent on government-provided welfare. Instead,
we would want to give individuals who have come to rely on the state
time to prepare for the day when responsibility for providing aide
is returned to those organizations best able to administer compassionate
and effective help – churches and private charities.
Now, this need
for a transition period does not apply to all types of welfare.
For example, I would have no problem defunding corporate welfare
programs, such as the Export-Import Bank or the TARP bank bailouts,
right away. I find it difficult to muster much sympathy for the
CEO’s of Lockheed Martin and Goldman Sachs.
No matter what
the president wants to do, most major changes in government programs
would require legislation to be passed by Congress. Obviously, the
election of a constitutionalist president would signal that our
ideas had been accepted by a majority of the American public and
would probably lead to the election of several pro-freedom congressmen
and senators [good link]. Furthermore, some senators and representatives would
become “born again” constitutionalists out of a sense
of self-preservation. Yet there would still be a fair number of
politicians who would try to obstruct our freedom agenda. Thus,
even if a president wanted to eliminate every unconstitutional program
in one fell swoop, he would be very unlikely to obtain the necessary
support in Congress.