…or Hillary or even John McCain, all any of them have to do is ask a couple of questions like this:
[I]t would be a great step forward if we could even debate the foreign policy we have now, a policy that (with a few minor differences) is shared by the establishment of both major parties. One writer correctly labels it “the debate we never have.” Although many American oppose the continued expansion of of Big Government abroad, noninterventionism is never presented to them as an option, The so-called debates between pundits they see on television or read in the newspapers carefully limit the range of debate to points of insignificance. The debate is always framed in terms of which kind of interventionist strategy our government should pursue. The possibility that we should avoid bleeding ourselves dry in endless foreign meddling is not raised. For heaven’s sake, what kind of debate it in which all sides agree that the America needs troops in 130 countries?
That may be the kind of debate the old Pravda once allowed, but where is the robust exchange of ideas we should expect in a free society?*
But they won’t, so they can all kiss my bitter backside.
*Ron Paul, The Revolution: A Manifesto, pp. 37-38
