Mark Steyn Calls Ron Paul's Worldview 'Sheer stupid, half-witted parochialism'

During Mark Steyn's regular appearance on Hugh Hewitt's radio show he explained why the "truther-ism" aspects of Paul's and his supporters beliefs wouldn't hold up.


From The Daily Caller:

“This by the way is not an irrelevant thing because it gets to the heart of the most disfiguring aspect of Ron Paul’s campaign — leaving aside his unpleasantness to Michele Bachmann the other night and all the rest of it — which is this stunted parochialism.” Steyn said. “Let’s say for a moment 9/11 was an inside job. Does that also mean the Bali night club bombing was an inside job? That the Madrid train bombing was an inside job? That the Beslan school shooting was an inside job? That the London tube bombings were an inside job? In that case, that’s one hell of a sum to be hiding somewhere within the darkest recesses of Dick Cheney’s specific line items.”

And that, says Steyn, along with his isolationist view on foreign policy, is where Paul “meets the left.”

“So we’re getting here into what is the problem with Ron Paul, which is the sheer stupid half-witted parochialism of his view of what’s going on out on the planet,” he said. “And that’s why this is — this is a kind of utopian isolationism that fantasists on the right have embraced and at its darkest side, it meets the left coming around the other way in 9/11 truther conspiracy theories.”

Mark Steyn is spot on.


I have found further confirmation and explanation via Proof at Say Anything Blog that Ron Paul is much more of an isolationist than I had previously thought. In Proof's post Ron Paul On Foreign Policy: "Most Assuredly An Isolationist", Eric Dondero, a former senior aide for Ron Paul, reveals Ron Paul's radically rigid isolationist foreign policy views. 


From Eric Dondero: 

It’s his foreign policy that’s the problem; not so much some stupid and whacky things on race and gays he may have said or written in the past.

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously.

But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.

There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:

Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11. He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.

Ron was “under the spell” of left-anarchist and Lew Rockwell associate Joe Becker at the time, who was our legislative director. Norm Singleton, another Lew Rockwell fanatic agreed with Joe. All other staffers were against Ron, Joe and Norm on this, including Lizardo. At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted “Yay” (sic)…

I think this reveals a hard-core isolationism which is disturbing. How could Paul not see the legitimacy of the U.S. having entered WWII in order to stop Hitler from murdering countless Jews as well as other innocents?  This is where Paul's rugged individualism -every man for himself - conflicts with justice and promoting the common good.  We must protect those most vulnerable in our society. I guess this is another instance of his belief that states or a state has the right to do wrong, even if it is morally abhorrent.  That is an unjustifiably morally unacceptable position.  It would have been morally unacceptable for nations to allow the extermination of the Jews to continue.  Paul's foreign policy views are too dangerous not only for me but for all Americans, America, and for him to be commander-in-chief.  I cannot wrap my head around how any sane individual could hold these types of foreign policy beliefs.