Posted under CoffeeTime & Ron Paul
I’ve read some of the excerpts on Ron Paul’s profile in May issue of Esquire. I found this line to very interesting:
“If we had stuck to what Congressman Paul views as our founding principles, we would have undoubtedly been a smaller and poorer and less consequential country, but also purer and freer and more peaceful. It’s a trade he is willing to make.
Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/ron-paul-profile-0511-2#ixzz1NuKYlS9l
Now I don’t believe this nor should you. The U.S. avoided most foreign entanglements until 1898 and was quite prosperous. It grew as a nation both in population and in wealth without the welfare state, personal income tax or a central bank for much of its history. It survived a bloody internal struggle to boot without needing bases overseas. To suggest that by giving up the trappings of empire we’ll wind up like Zimbabwe is ridiculous and a false choice.
Now there are those who believe the U.S. just has to be No. 1 in everything but Chilton Williamson Jr. in the latest edition of Chronicles says it’s not necessary and the country would be better off and richer remaining true to itself and its values rather than being true the great game power politics and economic imperialism.
Here are some other articles for your consideration:
SARTRE at BATR: “The Neo-Con Hell on Earth”
J.J. Jackson at Liberty Reborn: “To Tyranny and Beyond!”
Another from SARTRE: “AIPAC’s Zionists are the Arch-Enemy of America”
Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com: “The Reinvention of Historical Memory
Jeff Taylor at Front Porch Republic: “Agrarian Politics”
Could European social unrest hit America? asks Eric Margolis at Lew Rockwell.com
Kirt Higdon on 31 May 2011 at 11:03 pm #
I’m not sure I necessarily believe in the trade-off implied in the quoted paragraph, but during the 19th Century, the US was a smaller, poorer and less consequential country, both compared to what it is now and compared at least to some other countries of the time. To suggest that giving up the trappings of empire means we’ll end up like Zimbabwe is indeed a ridiculous and false choice, but who is suggesting that? Chilton Williamson, Jr. is right in saying the United States does not have to be number one in everything, but that everything includes both collective and personal wealth. China’s GDP will probably surpass that of the US in another 5 to 10 years and many Americans regard that prospect with dread. Why? Speaking just for myself, my standard of living far surpasses that of my 19th Century ancestors and even my own in the 1950s. It has declined a bit in the last 10 years, but without causing me any real pain and certainly without threatening me with Zimbabwe-like poverty. As long as Americans collectively spend their wealth on aircraft carriers and robot bombers and individually on electronic gadgets and recreational drugs, they could benefit from less wealth.