Friday, March 26th, 2010...10:48 pm

The Empire Has No Clothes

Jump to Comments

The following essay was intended to be an open letter to Christian Homeshoolers on behalf of Ron Paul. I wrote most of this either in late 2007 or early 2008.  I never published it, but I found it today, and figured I would post it on my blog.  The subject matter isn’t entirely current, but I think much of it is still relevant today.  Here goes:

I had my “the Emperor has no clothes” moment regarding public education during my junior year of college.

I was a product of the government schools, and I was studying to be a public school music teacher when I took my first class with the education department at the university. The professor would present educational issues with a false dichotomy: Should educational issues be solved by status quo traditional government means or by ultra-progressive Marxist government means? The question of whether this was the government’s domain at all never came up until I posed it halfway through the semester.

At the same time, I was getting to know a local homeschooling family who aided me immensely in becoming a more consistently biblical Christian. I had read the Bible cover to cover for the first time the summer following my freshman year, but still had an admittedly idolatrous view of what the government’s role in society should be which was left over from my compulsory indoctrination days. By witnessing their lives and approach to education compared to the approach and results of the educrats, I became ideologically “converted” from a government paradigm of education to a family paradigm of education. I’m sure many of you, my fellow homeschoolers, have had similar experiences when you realized that the system you grew up with (and possibly supported) was a fraudulent and unbiblical sham.

I address this letter to Christian homeschoolers with the knowledge that homeschoolers (as a general demographic) have a greater desire to live their lives in a manner consistent with the whole counsel of God than do evangelicals at large. Christian homeschoolers generally have better critical thinking skills and have already developed a healthy suspicion of government. This is why I can write this letter in hope that you will prayerfully consider my arguments for why Congressman Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate whose values are consistent with homeschooling, (and specifically why the views of Mike Huckabee, whom HSLDA has endorsed, aren’t).

Homeschoolers have never had a more faithful and consistent friend in Washington than Ron Paul. While other representatives need to be called and prodded to remember the rights of homeschoolers when legislation affecting education comes up, Ron Paul already knows the right answer without needing to be reminded. He shares our views and principles on educational liberty genuinely rather than seeing us as yet another special interest group he needs to placate (as the overwhelming majority other “homeschooling friendly” congressmen do). He opposed the disastrous “No (Public Schooled) Child Left Behind (meaning ‘left without a huge federal subsidy’) Act” (which Governor Huckabee enthusiastically supported). He wishes to abolish the federal Department of Education (while Huckabee is eager to expand it). A Ron Paul presidency would be the first step in the direction of educational liberty unknown since before the Fillmore administration that would hopefully end with HSLDA no longer needing to exist. If educational liberty is your primary issue as a voter, you need read no further.

Ron Paul’s stellar credentials for Christian homeschoolers do not end at educational liberty. Ron Paul (being the Champion of the Constitution and all) has repeatedly introduced legislation that would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of federal courts and overturn Roe v. Wade with a simple majority in both houses and a signature from the president. This legislation wasn’t supported even by other Republicans. Why is that? Forgive me for being cynical, but I believe that the majority of Washington Republicans want abortion to remain a Washington issue forever in order to win votes by fear-mongering and political posturing without ever delivering. While they have done this over 40 million unborn children have been slaughtered. Ron Paul’s solution to this problem would immediately make abortion illegal in a majority of states without needing to stack the deck in the Supreme Court. This, however, is not politically desirable for those whose principles are subservient to their desire for political power. Abortion, like other forms of murder, should be punishable under state law rather than federal law. Ron Paul would like to see abortion be illegal in each of the 50 states, but he believes that it is a state issue because he has studied history. He knows that using the central government to usurp states’ powers for your own ends has backfired before and will continue to backfire in the future. The central government is a fickle mistress and a fearful master. When the political pendulum swings back in the other direction, the precedent set by the federal government to assume power that the 9th and 10th amendments of the constitution forbid it will have catastrophic consequences.

On every other domestic issue, I encourage you to do your own research and compare the positions of Ron Paul to those of the other Republican candidates. You’re homeschoolers, so I trust that you can do your own research and come to the correct conclusion on your own. When you do this research, you will find that Mike Huckabee, the favored candidate of HSLDA and many within the evangelical movement is not a conservative at all. Mike Huckabee is a right-wing progressive. This is “compassionate conservatism” taken to its reductio ad absurdum. Gov. Huckabee believes that the government should use the forces of coercion and compulsion to solve every problem and issue under the sun: from space exploration to education to energy to world hunger and AIDS. You’re not capable of making decisions for yourself. Let the State save you and make these decisions for you! But you as homeschoolers will know better. You will be able to realize that the emperor has no clothes on.

This brings me to the last issue, which for many homeschoolers has been the deal breaker: foreign policy.  We homeschoolers believe that government social engineering is dangerous and immoral.  Affirmative Action, the Great Society, prohibition, government schools, and the myriad of other “progressive” social engineering movements of the last century have not only failed to achieve their stated consequences but have been disasters that only made the problems they were designed to solve worse. If social engineering is evil and doesn’t work here in America, what makes you think it will be morally acceptable and work halfway across the world?  We laugh at the Darwinists when they use that type of reasoning.  Does it improve the situation if the armed forces are acting as the social engineers?  Back when Clinton was president, Rush Limbaugh would emphasize that the purpose of an army is to kill people and break things. If social engineering was a bad idea in Somalia and Bosnia under Clinton, how is it a good idea in Iraq under Bush?  If the United States Government is not to be trusted on the above domestic issues, how does it suddenly become trustworthy when it engages in international affairs?  If we deny that the purpose of the military is to act as international police we have to admit that the Bush/Huckabee/McCain/Giuliani/Limbaugh/Hannity definition of “victory” is impossible using military means. Only converting these nations to Christ will conquer Islamic fundamentalism and neutralize the threat of terrorism.  It’s time for the military to move out and the missionaries to move in.

The military should not only withdraw its troops from Iraq, but also from all of the other 130 countries it currently occupies with military forces.  You heard me correctly, I said ONE HUNDRED THIRTY COUNTRIES, as in 65% of all the countries in the world.  In case you were wondering, the other countries do not hate us because of our liberty or wealth-they hate us because they are quartering our soldiers.  How would you feel if China or Russia or Iran decided they were going to build a military base in your country? Exactly.

When you look at interventionist U.S. foreign policy as just another government program, hopefully you will come to agree with me that the Empire has no clothes and join me in support of Ron Paul in the Republican primary.

there so we don’t have to fight them over here,” wouldn’t you think that the
smartest (and most dangerous) terrorists would simply come to where all the
undefended American civilians are?</p>

<h3>Point Out That the Nation Building Campaign in Iraq is Nothing More Than
Social Engineering</h3>
<p>Most Republicans will not have a problem seeing that social engineering does
not work.  You only need to direct them to the failed public schools to see
that.  You can talk with them about how Affirmative Action, the Great Society,
Prohibition,  and the myriad of other “progressive” social engineering movements
have not only failed to achieve their stated consequences but have been
disasters that only made the problems they were designed to solve worse.  At
this point most Republicans will be agreeing with you and perhaps adding
personal anecdotes about their opposition to social engineering.  This is where
you use a little jujitsu to cause the nation building argument to collapse under
its own weight.  If social engineering doesn’t work here in America, what makes
you think it will work halfway across the world, especially if the armed forces
are acting as the social engineers?  Back when Clinton was president, Rush
Limbaugh would emphasize that the purpose of an army is to kill people and break
things.  If social engineering was a bad idea in Somalia and Bosnia under
Clinton, why is it a good idea in Iraq under Bush?  This internal critique
doesn’t merely take a nick out of the hawkish warmonger; it finishes him off.
Either he has to accept that the purpose of the military is to act as
international police and change his party affiliation to the one with the
jackass mascot, or he has to admit that his definition of “victory” is
impossible using military means.</p>

<h3>Then What Should the U.S. Military Do?</h3>
<p>The military should not only withdraw its troops from Iraq, but also from all
of the other 130 countries it currently occupies with military forces.  You
heard me correctly, I said <b>ONE HUNDRED THIRTY COUNTRIES</b>, as in 65% of all
the countries in the world.  In case you were wondering, the other countries do
not hate us because of our liberty or wealth–they hate us because <i>they are
quartering our soldiers</i>.  How would you feel if China or Russia or Iran
decided they were going to build a military base in your country?  Exactly.</p>

<h3>But That Would Be Surrender, Wouldn’t It?</h3>
<p>You can only surrender when you are in a declared war.  We are not currently
at war.  We are in an unconstitutional arrangement in which our troops are being
used to enforce a United Nations resolution (or 16 of them or whatever).  The
point is that the United States Congress did not declare war.  They passed a
resolution authorizing the use of force to enforce resolutions of the U.N.
Security Council.  Of course, the U.N. Security Council did not authorize a
regime change, but who’s counting?  The Republican hypocrisy in its use of the
United Nations is astounding.  When the U.N. serves their purposes, they clamor
at the opportunity to champion its cause.  When they disagree with the U.N. then
the U.N. doesn’t matter.  You can’t have it both ways, and The Constitution only
allows for one option.  Representative Paul would never go to war as the result
of a resolution that came from an unelected, foreign body, like the U.N.
Moreover, Ron Paul would avoid tangling the United States in foreign alliances
that would drag the country into war (like our entangling alliance with Great
Britain is about to do in Iran).</p>

<h3>But Doesn’t That Make Ron Paul an Isolationist?</h3>
<p>No.  Pat Buchanan is an isolationist.  Ron Paul believes in free trade with
other nations (not managed trade like NAFTA, mind you).  The current U.S.
foreign and domestic policies have us on a one way trip to One World Government.
</p>

1 Comment

  • Reminds me of a Q&A I heard with a conference with Wilson and Wilkins. Someone asked “What would be different if the South had won the war?” There was a pause and then Pastor Wilson said, “I’m going to answer this question and just leave Steve in his happy place.”

    A Ron Paul presidency….ahh.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.