This essay was posted on Oct. 6, 2011.

Ron Paul: What Kind of President?

Mary Meehan

Some media folks claim that Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) cannot be elected president, or even win the Republican nomination. In an August editorial, the Wall Street Journal said that "Ron Paul, who has no chance to win the nomination, finished a close second" in the Iowa straw poll. If he "has no chance," how did he come so close to winning a major event in the most important caucus state? In September columnist Dana Milbank of the Washington Post acknowledged that Paul "has brought the Republicans to him" on key issues and that "his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination are stealing his ideas." Yet he also said flatly that Paul "won't be the president, or even the party nominee." How can Mr. Milbank possibly know that?

Paul has a large base of dedicated volunteers and a proven ability to raise lots of money through small donations. These advantages give him staying power for the primaries. Another key factor: Several polls have suggested that Paul would be competitive with President Obama in the general election. He may become more so as antiwar voters realize that he's the only candidate they have--and as fiscal conservatives see how serious he is about reducing government spending and debt.

What if slow and steady really does win the race this time, so that voters elect Rep. Paul to the presidency? What kind of president will he be? How will he affect the life-or-death issues that are the major focus of this website?

Judging from his record so far, he certainly will be a hard worker. To use the old Washington distinction: "A workhorse, not a showhorse." We might even see the end of the photo-op presidency, in which recent presidents have flown around the country and the world in order to look "engaged" and "presidential." Instead, President Paul will spend much time at his desk, going over policy papers and the U.S. Budget with an eagle eye. He will be deep into policy discussions with cabinet members and members of Congress. He will be minding the store.

Paul's main focus at first will be foreign and economic policy, and we will see major changes in both areas. While carefully observing the Constitution's limits on presidential power, he will be decisive in using the power that a president does have. He will order U.S. troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq--and from those terrible roadside bombs that have killed and wounded so many of their comrades. Troops will also come home from areas where wars ended many decades ago: Germany, Japan, and Korea.

Giving up our overseas bases and wars will mean a huge reduction in government spending for base maintenance, transport, fuel, combat pay, weapons replacement, and other costs. There should be additional benefits from selling overseas real estate that includes many huge bases. All of this, plus the presidential veto power over appropriations, will go a long way toward solving our monster debt problem.

President Paul's foreign policy will be much like that of our first presidents. George Washington advised: "Observe good faith and justice towards all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all." He asked, "Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground?" Thomas Jefferson called for "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

Most Americans will be relieved by the end of current wars and the prospect of a long peace. People of many other nations--especially ones we have bombed repeatedly--will be overjoyed. But U.S. military contractors and establishment foreign-policy analysts will resist strongly the end of the U.S. empire. Paul will take some real body blows on this one, but he is tough enough to absorb them and hold his ground. He has far more courage than most politicians, and that is a priceless asset. He will receive strong support from congressional liberals in this fight, and growing support from conservatives.

There may be huge fights over his efforts to tame the Federal Reserve--reducing its power with an eye toward ending it. (This could be like the battle that President Andrew Jackson waged against the Second Bank of the U.S. Watch out, Mr. Bernanke! Jackson won that fight.) Paul wants to let gold and silver coins compete with paper money, believing the precious metals will win out in the marketplace. He favors a huge reduction in federal regulation of business, both on principle and because he believes it will lead to economic growth and job creation. While liberals in Congress will fight against him on the regulation front, many will support his efforts to end corporate subsidies. Substantial numbers of conservatives may also rally against corporate welfarism, seeing an end to subsidies as a key way to reduce government spending. But Paul may have to propose phasing out some subsidies, especially farm ones, in order to gain enough congressional support to end them.

Most liberals are likely to oppose Paul's effort to end federal funding of population control at home and abroad. They will fight desperately against his call to remove federal courts' jurisdiction over abortion cases. Under the Constitution, Congress--with presidential approval--has the power to do this. Such action, practically speaking, would reverse the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision and return the abortion issue to the states. I believe the majority opinions in Roe and other federal abortion cases have been so arbitrary, factually mistaken, poorly reasoned, and deeply unjust that federal courts deserve to lose jurisdiction of the issue. And I have long believed that liberals who support abortion violate their own principles. Those principles include: respect for science, concern for children, defense of those who can't defend themselves, support for nonviolent solutions for human problems, and more. Possibly a major battle over court jurisdiction will cause some liberals, especially younger ones, to rethink the issue.

Liberals will appreciate President Paul's opposition to the federal death penalty. Some conservatives will also be pleased by it since they, like Paul, have been impressed by the exoneration (through DNA evidence) of people who had spent years on death row. Paul is also concerned about racial and economic bias in application of the penalty. In August he told New Hampshire's Concord Monitor that "the one remnant of racism in our country is in our court system" and that "if you're rich, you usually don't meet the death penalty." If he is elected, we should see a serious effort to abolish the federal death penalty. This could have a positive effect on struggles to abolish the penalty on the state level as well.

There are likely to be fierce battles on many other issues in a Ron Paul administration. But they will be real battles over policy, not the pretend fights we often see in Washington. They may also be more civil than current battles, because Paul stays focused on issues. Since he has genuine respect for the role of Congress under the Constitution, has served in the House for many years, and has worked across the aisle with key Democrats, President Paul might have better relations with Congress than many of his predecessors.

He will be one of the most interesting presidents we have ever seen. He may also be one of the best.