- Ron Paul wasn’t totally shocked that it happened
- the prize represents not peace, but internationalism, world government and a UN/NATO-type approach to global affairs
- Obama’s tone is better, but he isn’t pro-peace
- Obama totally neutralized the anti-war left, which is very sad
- the same happens when conservatives are elected: they promise less government, but give us more, and there is no resistance from the conservative base
- the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will continue, the front of the war will be Pakistan
- did they believe that giving Obama the peace prize would promote peace? Comparison to Woodrow Wilson… no credibility…
- to promote peace, we have build a coalition of constitutional conservatives, libertarians and the anti-war left
- we have to stand up for what is right and not be so narrow-minded in our partisanship
Congressman Paul, what do you think about President Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?
Ron Paul: I’ve received several questions today on what I thought about President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize. I actually wasn’t totally shocked that it happened, but at least this gives us a chance to talk a little bit about foreign policy. It’s a bit ironic for him to win the Nobel Peace Prize because the application had to be in on February 1st when he had been in office for a total of 12 days. And during that short period of time he had already given orders and supported an extension of the bombing into Pakistan where some civilians were killed.
His policy is not exactly pro-peace. His tone is better and he talks about wanting negotiations, but he’s a much bigger internationalist and I believe that winning this Nobel Prize represents more internationalism and a more UN/NATO type approach to world affairs.
But I think the idea that it’s a real symbol of a great move towards peace is a little shortcoming on that. But the one thing that bothers me the most, though, about this is that presidents very often win with a more pro-peace program, and Obama was obviously more pro-peace than McCain, and people expected a less militant type of foreign policy.
As a matter of fact, President Bush in the year 2000 took the position that we shouldn’t have nation building and we shouldn’t be the policeman of the world, and yet look at what happened. But right now I think what is happening is that Obama has been able to totally neutralize the anti-war coalitions that have existed around the country. The anti-war left doesn’t exist anymore. Code Pink now support Obama’s position in Afghanistan. So this to me is very sad that it’s happening.
It reminds me of what happens when we elect conservative presidents. We elect a president to have less government and a balanced budget and less spending. And yet we get them in office and they do exactly the opposite, and there is no resistance from the conservative base. And now there is no resistance of much value in the liberal base to be opposed to war.
Right now it looks like the war will continue over there. Obama wants more troops into Afghanistan, more bombing in Pakistan. It looks like Pakistan is going to be the front of the war and there has been no significant troop reduction in Iraq. We’ve armed the Sunnis over there, and when the war breaks out once again the Sunnis are going to have the weapons that are going to kill Shiites and maybe Americans.
So, this debate about what we should be doing over there really isn’t a debate. There should be a debate on “should we be there and why are we there and should we win the war?” versus “we shouldn’t be there.” No. The debate is “How many troops do we send? Should the frontlines be in Afghanistan or should the frontlines be in Pakistan? And how many contractors should replace the soldiers that we are removing from Iraq?”
It’s the wrong, wrong debate. This whole idea that you can give the president a Nobel Peace Prize and think it’s going to be a promotion to peace, you know, it’s sort of like giving Woodrow Wilson the Nobel Peace Prize which he did receive. And just think of the harm he has done to the American system and to our government and how much harm he created in the 20th century.
So these prizes have to make one point: they can’t be credible and I think in this case a lot of people already are pointing out the irony of a president who has essentially not done anything, yet nominated 12 days after he was elected. What is the real goal behind this?
Unfortunately I don’t think it’s a good goal. I think it’s internationalism and world government and not peace at all. Someday I’d like to see the pro-peace movement grow. It’s still alive and well but it is quiescent and I think there may be less of a coalition.
It looks to me like if we are going to argue the case for pro-peace and pro-American strength without going to war and pro-trade and pro-travel and all these things, it’s probably going to have to come from constitutional conservatives and libertarians and hopefully we can keep persuading as many people that come from the left to support us from this position rather than them succumbing to temptation for partisan reasons like, say “Whatever Obama says, we’ll do it.” Just like so many conservatives in the previous administration said, “No matter what the president says, we will support him.”
Someday we have to stand up for what is right and not be so narrow minded in our partisanship.