The Civil War could have been avoided. Slavery could have been stopped another way.
These are my views, as well as the views of one man running for President - Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.). Paul, a 10th-term congressman, has enjoyed a recent explosion in support for his bid to become the next president of the United States. In the last several months, Rep. Paul's campaign has drawn in astonishing amounts of money, mostly through the Internet, including over $4 million on Nov. 5, 2007 and over $19 million by Dec. 31.
However, you probably haven't noticed his name around town. Signs of support are rare. Fliers, bumper stickers and buttons have not been distributed at Tufts football games. However, I guess that's somewhat to be expected - and, hopefully, to be reversed.
In a way, the Civil War was "senseless." However, Paul is not saying that slavery should have continued, or that it wasn't an injustice. All he is saying is that there were better ways to end slavery.
In 1807, the British Empire banned the trading of slaves. Twenty-six years later, the Slavery Abolition Act was passed, freeing every slave in the empire. In addition, this act - which provided provisions for giving compensation to plantation and slave owners - gave a certain amount of money for every slave which was lost.
Personally, I don't believe that this was a good solution. As Rep. Paul stated on "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert on Dec. 23, 2007, "Slavery was phased out in every other country in the world, and what I'm advising is that it should have been done like the British Empire did: You buy the slaves and release them! How much would that cost, compared to losing 600,000 Americans?"
By 1798, Georgia was the last state to ban the African slave trade, which stopped the influx of slaves into the country. So why couldn't the United States have taken after the British Empire? Every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without civil war. Paul's opinions on the American Civil War truly don't sound so insane.
By party label, Paul is a Republican. By belief, he is ... a Republican! When asked about his electability at the South Carolina debate on Jan. 10, Rep. Paul replied, "I'm a strict constitutionalist, so are you suggesting that Republicans should write me off because I'm a strict constitutionalist? I am the most conservative member here. I have voted against more spending and waste in government than anybody else."
Rep. Paul is not an anarchist. Republicans used to advocate a policy of smaller government, less taxation and a non-interventionist foreign policy. That hardly seems to be the case anymore.
Under the Bush Doctrine, the U.S. has more than doubled the size of the national government, increased the bureaucracy with the creation of new cabinet positions - including the Homeland Security Department - and last but not least, entangled ourselves into a war that we had no right or permission to initiate.
In contrast, Paul is the boy trying to lead his lost dog home. It's not surprising that he hasn't been on the radar, even with his double-digit finish in Iowa, his second-place finish in Nevada, and his consistent victories over Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Senator Fred Thompson in most primaries and caucuses to date.
Yet Rep. Paul continues to be excluded from debates, most notably from Fox News' New Hampshire debate on Jan. 5th. At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, Paul seems to be viewed as a threat to the big government, pro-war establishment running the airwaves.
So, why care about this guy? Why educate the students of Tufts of his not-so-radical beliefs?
Because they make sense!
Most of Paul's support has come from college students on the Internet, new voters and those sick of the repetitiveness of the Democratic and Republican parties. Most notably, however, he has garnered support from people searching for a government that will get out of their lives, their wallets and the Middle East.
Next to the Iraq war, the size of the national government and taxes are Paul's biggest issues. He is an advocate of abolishing the IRS, lowering taxes dramatically and in so doing, turning the national debt into a surplus. Unlike other candidates looking to cut the IRS, Paul will replace the income tax with nothing.
In order for these drastic tax cuts to be effective, however, spending must decrease, and we need to get rid of our overseas empire. Currently there are American troops stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, Germany, Japan and 130 other countries. However, the current administration wants to add Iran and Pakistan to that list. Is America ready to engage in war on two more fronts and to continue our failed nation-building policy? I doubt it.
It must be understood that Rep. Paul is not an isolationist, as many incorrectly believe. There is a distinct difference between isolationism and non-interventionism, which is what Paul supports. Part of his platform says, "We must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication and diplomacy with other nations."
To claim that Ron Paul advocates "no government anywhere" is simply ignorance. As a traditional Republican, he has supported the notion of states' rights. This idea of states first goes back to the Founding Fathers and the initial Federalist Party.
The national government has no right to regulate education, energy, water and many other cabinet positions. Many of these departments have led to unnecessary cost increases and efficiency decreases since the federal government took control.
Ron Paul has lost no "liberty-loving credibility." His 20-year fight for freedom in America, and his belief in holding big government accountable for its actions, has shown that he is a truly dedicated American - one deserving of the presidency.
Kevin McDonald is a freshman who has not yet declared a major.
