Perspectives

Ron Paul is the Constitution

Ron Paul is the Constitution

By Ben Chapman and Max Landow
From the February 2008 Print Edition

The second coming is now … of William McKinley that is. Yes, we all miss the days when we could run to the bank, fearing that they may not have any money left. But is Ron Paul right when he says that the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional?

Well, the Constitution says in Article I, Section 8, “The Congress shall have the power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and a foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures” and Alexander Hamilton, along with his Federalist compatriots, believed that a national bank was clearly mandated and this was accepted by such Supreme Court decisions as “McCulloch v. Maryland.”

Yet Paul disdains the Federal Reserve, calling it unconstitutional. It almost sounds like Paul believes that the 16th Amendment, which allows the federal government to issue an income tax, is unconstitutional.

Paul proposes a kind of return to the gold standard, essentially a fixed, anti-inflationary monetary exchange rate. The problems with this are myriad. The U.S. Treasury Department would again become more concerned with its gold reserves than the overall state of the economy. It would mean a fixed money supply, meaning that during an economic downturn more money could not be pumped into the economy like the Federal Reserve is currently able to do through lowering interest rates. It would mean recessions would be more like the panics of the 19th century and the Great Depression. In fact, Milton Friedman theorized that a cause of the Great Depression was that the gold standard constrained the money supply too much, preventing enough money from circulating through the economy.

Paul claims that abolishing the Fed and returning to a fixed money supply are true conservative values because they limit the scope of government. Yet the right to regulate a money supply is specifically written into the Constitution; it is a legitimate role for government to play. Conservative presidents from Dwight Eisenhower to Ronald Reagan never meddled with the Fed. Letting the Fed adjust the money supply to accommodate market needs is conservative because it depoliticizes the money supply, preventing a problem the country faced when the Bank of the United States was abolished in the 1830s.

However, Paul’s economic policies only scratch the surface of his outdated ideas and beliefs. His constant and fervent denouncement of continued American military presence in Iraq is what most noticeably sets him apart from the rest of the modern conservative fold. He describes the war as unconstitutional, as it was not sanctioned by a two-thirds majority in the Senate. He constantly quotes George Washington’s farewell address, warning against “entangling alliances” as “proof” that the founding fathers would never approve of modern trade or treaty agreements such as NAFTA, WTO, or NATO. He believes that conservative values have always called for non-interventionist, isolationist foreign policy. Paul’s protectionism, which is contrary to free trade, is not conservative, but — for reasons other than the Constitution — it’s “constitutional.”

While some of his evidence is correct, his assessment that conservatism even today is non-interventionist is wrong and outdated. After World War II, there was no doubt in the ideologies of both parties that America had to become an international power, and preventing communism at home and abroad developed into a major issue. The scope of both parties had changed, especially the Republican Party, which moved away from the 1920s isolationist attitude and toward a more foreign policy–focused agenda after demonic characters such as Adolf Hitler entered the world scene.

The most hilariously disturbing part behind Paul is that, unlike most serious presidential candidates, Paul is not supported by “greedy corporations.” Instead, Paul prefers the company of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, 9/11 truthers, hippies, and impressionable college students. Truly, he is a uniter. Not to suggest that Paul is a racist or a conspiracy theorist, but he and his supporters on the Berkeley campus certainly are in good company. After all, shouldn’t it give someone pause when openly racist organizations like Stormfront.org and its founder Don Black give millions to Paul’s campaign? No, you shouldn’t wonder why that is. Just know that Paul will return us to “constitutional values.”

Paul is frequently perceived by many of these groups as outside of the corporate, neo-conservative, and Jewish interests. Conspiracy theorists who support Paul believe that the neocons in Washington are out to concoct a “New World Order.” One such claim is that all trade agreements are put in place to dissolve boundaries and turn all of North America into one country. Another claim is that Jews control the government and use Israel as a hub for a Zionist conspiracy to dominate the world.

These groups demonstrate Paul’s appeal: to the apathetic, extreme, and eccentric. His popularity comes with an idea that is very antiquated, but which seems new to this generation. It is unfair to say that Paul is a dangerous candidate, though. He is proof that a sizable minority of Americans have lost complete faith in government, resorting to outlandish claims that certain groups have subverted the system. That’s the constitutional way!

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot