Ron Paul

The fourth candidate to be reviewed is Ron Paul. Congressman Paul has had a long career in both medicine and government, becoming famous for his policy of never compromising on his interpretations of the Constitution. While his extreme libertarian views have gained him a cult following over the years, this is the first election cycle where he has garnered more general support. He has been speaking and writing a ton (side note: he is the only candidate who has written a book that I have read) on the main issues, so let's cut to the chase.

#1: The Economy: This is perhaps his most famous issue, and it has many facets. First, he wants to audit and end the Federal Reserve, returning the power of the purse to Congress. Good so far. Then he wants to return the dollar to the gold standard. While this is the ideal state of any currency, the political feasibility of this action near nil. To be clear, his value is in the right place, but like so many of his views it has little support in Congress. In addition, it will be hard to convince an economically illiterate nation that we need a stronger dollar until they see effects like 1920's Germany. Truth is tough.

His tax policies are good, but have little chance of actually being put into place. I'm sure none of us would mind eliminating the income, death and capital gains tax. But the federal behemoth is not going to change overnight. The government is not going to take a 50% income reduction lying down, and we have to question the effects of a much smaller budget. When the sacred cows are lead to the slaughter house, will our aging, government-dependent population support defense spending or entitlement programs?

Finally, he refuses to allow Congress to pass an unbalanced budget. Given the mood Congress is currently in, playing chicken with their own policies, a super-majority would become a real threat. An irritable Executive combined with a pugnacious, stubborn Congress will not mix well. However noble the cause, compromise is almost universally necessary. A balanced budget is good, but not paying serviceman because of an impasse is immoral.

#2: Immigration: Here is where he will probably gain the most support. His tough no amnesty policy would deprive illegals of a way out while enforcing our laws. However, his plan to end birthright citizenship is odd, and wide open to corruption. Who will make the final decision on a child's citizenship? What criteria will be used? If two legal immigrants are in the country, does their child become a US citizen? It's pretty scary to think about the implications, when the government arbitrarily controls citizenship.

#3: National Security: Congressman Paul is often accused of having an isolationist defense policy. But the truth is that he has an isolationist defense policy. While approving a clear mission and definition of victory are key in any military campaign, so also is sending a clear message that America will not tolerate regimes that harbor our enemies. In addition, a policy of using force only when we have been attacked may be un-Constitutional. In Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, it says, "[Congress has the duty] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; "Therefore the United States has the duty to enforce international law, but don't depend on Paul to agree to that. As to the rest of his policies in this area, little argument can be made against them.


#4: The Constitution: Unlike most presidential candidates, Ron Paul has read the Constitution. He can quote it at will, typically within the correct context. However, when someone knows the most about an issue than anyone else in the room, it can be tempting to say that their opinion is final. So while it may appear that he supports the founders ideals, let us not forget a certain sentence in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." The pro-life community has taken this as grounds to repeal Roe v. Wade. Ron Paul has stated that abortion is an issue that states should decide, neglecting to make governmental protection of its citizens a national issue. An inconsistent position at best, a cowardly one at worst.


In conclusion, it can be safely said that Ron Paul is as opposite to Newt Gingrich as one can get in this race. While Newt will probably pass every program he wants, at the high cost of compromise, Paul will doubtlessly pass few of his aspirations, at the high cost of no compromise. Paul knows how the game is played, but prefers to read the rule book.

Newt Gingrich

Continuing with our series on Republican presidential candidates, it is Gingrich's turn to come under the microscope. If anyone is more qualified for the job of actually running the country, he has not been found yet. Holding a doctorate in European History from Tulane, he has been inside the beltway since 1978. Most famously, he authored the "Contract with America" in 1994, which put in place the first Republican majority in Congress since the Eisenhower administration. But how does he deal with our top issues?

#1: The Economy: Gingrich, who has spent most of his professional life in Washington, to great success, would seem an obvious candidate for providing real, tangible ideas for fixing the U.S. economy. However, when given the opportunity, he resorts to high-sounding vagaries that remind us of the Obama campaign in '08. He does provide us with a good view of his tax policy, though. He wants to eliminate both the capital gains and death taxes, while lowering the corporate income tax to 12.5%, while allowing 100% expensing of new equipment. In addition, he would like to "move towards" a flat tax.

While his tax policy makes good, conservative, sense, the other areas of his economic plans beg for specifics. For example, he wants to:

"Balance the budget by growing the economy, controlling spending, implementing money saving reforms, and replacing destructive policies and regulatory agencies with new approaches." 

Gee whiz, Newt, no one has ever thought of that. Bold leadership at its finest.

#2: Immigration: Gingrich has much to say on this issue, even going so far as to provide us with a ten step solution to solving our immigration problems. Most of these ideas are very good, and should prove beneficial, however, there is a level of arbitrariness given to some of these steps. For example, his sixth step states that the Department of Justice will start a 'citizen's review' to determine which illegals we should allow to stay and which should be deported. There are two problems with this: (1) He provides no system or policy that would determine who the illegals are. Does he recommend using his citizen's review on all 300 million residents of the US? (2) He provides no specific criteria to determine which illegals should stay. These issues, coupled with his ideal of solving the immigration problem at the personal level makes for a system that is ripe for corruption.

#3: National Security: His policies in this area promote a more unified approach to the War on Terror than has been put into action since 9/11. Most importantly, he has the guts to stand against the tide of political correctness that has impeded our security efforts. Just as Reagan realized that we must deal with Communism head on, Gingrich adopts this approach to radical Islam. For that we can praise him. However, America has many enemies, not the least of which is a large country between Russia and India. He basically ignores China's growing military capabilities, and therefore provides no solutions to confront them. If he truly believes that we should "know who we are as a country", perhaps he should spend more time explaining who we are as a country.

#4: The Constitution: While he supports many of the ideas of limited government, he has little to say about the actual founding document of our country. Like so many politicians of this day and age, he seems to purport the view that the Constitution is a tool to achieve his ideals, not something to think deeply about. Those who attach little significance to the ideas behind our country's founding are unlikely to employ those same ideas.

In conclusion, Newt Gingrich is defined by success. He is a Washington insider who knows how the game is played, and plays it well. There is no doubt that he will achieve many things if elected President. The problem conservative voters face is that of maintaining the principles behind his actions. While his bills may be passed, at what pragmatic cost will they come?