Ron Paul Trounces Santorum on Foreign Policy in CNN Debate

Congressman Ron Paul roundly defeated Rick Santorum in a debate on free trade, entangling alliances and unconstitutional foreign policy.
by Jake Morphonios

On Thursday night, the four remaining GOP presidential candidates squared off in Jacksonville in the second of two Florida debates, hosted by CNN and moderated by Wolf Blitzer.  While much of the debate time was again wasted on callow rhetoric between neo-con candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, Congressman Ron Paul indoctrinated the audience with principled lessons on liberty and the proper role of government.


Paul showcased his brand of non-interventionist foreign policy in a series of exchanges with former senator Rick Santorum.  These exchanges provided crystal clear contrasts in opposing political philosophies from which voters much choose. Each time that Paul and Santorum sparred over foreign policy, the Texas congressman pummeled the feeble foundations of Santorum's unprincipled ideologies and tutored his opponents on the basics of the US Constitution (that pesky, outdated thing they would have to swear to uphold if elected president).
Wolf Blitzer addressed the following question to Congressman Paul:

“What would you do as president to more deeply engage in Latin America and, more importantly, to support the governments and political parties that support democracy and free markets?”

To which Paul responded:

“I think free trade is the answer.  Free trade is the answer to a lot of conflicts around the world. And you might add Cuba too.  I think we’d be a lot better off trading with Cuba. But as far as us having a military or financial obligation to go down and dictate what government they should have?  I don’t like that idea.  I would support the people by encouraging free trade and trying to set a standard that countries in Central and South America – or anywhere in the world – would want to emulate.”
“Unfortunately, sometimes we slip up on our standards and we go around the world and we try to force ourselves on others.  I don’t think the nations in Central and South America necessarily want us to come down there and dictate which government they should have.  I believe that with friendship and with trade you can have a strong influence.”

Congressman Paul’s answer reflected both his moral character as well as his deep understanding of constitutional foreign policy as intended by the Founding Fathers.  Thomas Paine, the author of Common Sense, is often credited as the original patriot to strongly inject into American politics the notion of non-interventionism.  He argued in Common Sense of the need for the new nation to avoid the formation of alliances with other nations.
Later, groundwork for official non-interventionist foreign policies was laid by President George Washington.  In his farewell address, President Washington said:

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”

The primary author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, promoted non-interventionism during his tenure as the third president of the United States.  In his 1801 inaugural address, he advocated “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”
Still later, President James Monroe proclaimed the “Monroe Doctrine” – a non-interventionist policy.  He said, “In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense."
Congressman Paul’s recommendation that the United States engage in free trade with all nations, avoid entangling alliances and refrain from meddling in the internal affairs of other countries conforms to the foreign policy traditions of those wise men who founded our great nation.
Rick Santorum couldn’t stand in greater opposition to the Founders if he tried.  Wolf Blizter asked, “Senator Santorum, are you with Congressman Paul?”

“Uh, no – I’m not with Congressman Paul and I’m not with Barack Obama on this issue.”

Santorum then began a tirade about the politics of Honduras.  He expressed outrage that the United States wasn’t “standing behind the [Honduran] people in the parliament and in their supreme court who tried to enforce the constitution of Honduras.”
Wait.  Did Rick Santorum just suggest that the government of the United States should be trying to involve itself in the enforcement of the Honduran constitution?  Yes he did.  He also railed against the United States for “not standing up for our friends in Colombia… not standing up for our friends who engage and support America who want to be great trading partners – who want to be able to form that kind of bond that is so essential in our own hemisphere.”
Santorum’s foreign policy position is completely at odds with that of the Founders.  He advocates selective trade only with those nations that are allied with America, which is why he opposes free trade with countries like Cuba.  He also advocates the kinds of “entangling alliances” of which Jefferson warned. 
If Ron Paul’s derives his foreign policy positions from the wisdom of the Founding Fathers – from whence does Rick Santorum find support for his own ideas?  Santorum provided that answer in his debate dialogue. Santorum looks to Europe – the distant political sphere in which President George Washington warned America against becoming involved. Specifically, Santorum pointed to the European Union – that great bastion of stability – as the example his foreign policy would try to emulate. Santorum said:

“The European Union understood how important it was for diverse people to be able to come together in an economic unit. We not only have to come together as an economic unit [with Central and South America], but the threat of terrorism – the threat of Iran in Venezuela and other places and in Cuba and in Nicaragua – the threat of radical Islam growing in that region… it is absolutely important for us to have a president who understands that threat and understands that solution.”

After Santorum finished by saying that, as president, he would frequently visit Central and South America to solidify alliances with select countries, Wolf Blitzer invited Congressman Paul to respond.  Paul said,

“The senator mentions ‘standing up’ for some of these nations, but he doesn’t define that.  Standing up for nations like this usually means that we impose ourselves, go and pick the dictators, undermine certain governments and also by sending them a lot of money.  It doesn’t work.  Most of the time, this backfires and they resent us.  We can achieve what he wants in a much different way than us using the bully attitude that ‘you will do it our way’. Besides, where are you going to get the troops and the money?  Because you are talking about force – and I know of a much better way than force to get along with people.”

Santorum responded,

“I don’t know what answer Congressman Paul was listening to.  He obviously wasn’t listening to my answer. What I talked about was building strong economic and national security relationships. Nobody’s talking about force! Colombia is out there on the front lines against the narco-terrorists and standing up to Chavez in South America! And what did we do? For political purposes the President of the United States… left Colombia hanging out to dry for three years.  We cannot do that to our friends in South America.”

One wonders how a President Santorum would join Colombia “on the front lines” against violent Colombian drug cartels without the use of force.  It should be noted that physical violence is not the only kind of force.  Harsh economic sanctions or trade embargos are also considered geo-political acts of force that can lead to all out war.  And this most certainly is what Santorum is recommending.
Later in the debate, Santorum was asked specifically about his attitude toward trade and communication with Cuba.  He said, “I would oppose it.”  He elaborated:

“The United States should stand on the side of the Cuban people against these despots and their continuing reign of terror against the people.  The idea that a president of the United States would take a cancer that is the heart of Central and South America and begin to reward behavior that has spread this cancer – because of our dilly-dallying, our inattentiveness to the problems in Central and South America – now we are going to reward the secret police that are present in Venezuela as they are in Cuba?”
“We are going to reward this type of thuggery, this type of Marxism in our region?  We are going to reward a country that is now working with these other countries to harbor and bring in Iran and the jihadists who want to bring in and set up missile sites and to set up training camps?  And we are going to reward this behavior by opening up?  This is the exact wrong message and the exact wrong time.”

Blitzer then asked Congressman Paul what he would do if Raul Castro called to speak to him as president.  Paul said:

“Well, I’d ask him what he called about.  I would ask him ‘what can we do to improve relations?’ Because I wouldn’t see them as likely to attack us.  When I was drafted in October 1962, it was a different world. There were nuclear weapons in Cuba. But today – to not talk to [Raul Castro] and see what you can work out only helps Castro and hurts the people. (Gesturing to Santorum) So as well-intentioned as these sanctions are, they almost inevitably backfire and they help the dictators and hurt the people. So it’s time to change.”
“The Cold War is over.  They are not going to invade us.  I’ve noticed the people changing their opinions in the last four or five years.  They’re not nearly as frightened.  They don’t see a jihadist under the bed every night.  I don’t worry about that.  I worry about over-reaction and over-concern and a lack of ability to talk to these people when they call you.”

Though Paul’s foreign policy ideas are often laughed at by Republicans in GOP debates, his answers on the need to engage other nations with friendship and open dialogue drew the loudest applause of the evening.  As CNN cameras panned the audience during Paul’s foreign policy responses, audience members could be seen nodding in agreement.  Ron Paul’s message is taking root.  Wherever there is thoughtful consideration of ideas, citizens find that their deepest beliefs are in alignment with Paul’s philosophies.  What’s more encouraging is that these secretly held convictions are in perfect alignment with the political principles of the Founding Fathers.  The spark of liberty has not been completely extinguished from the heart of America.
And that faint flame is why Paul will never give up hope.  With his band of loyal revolutionaries, Ron Paul intends to fan the spark of liberty back into the majestic fire of freedom that gave birth to the greatest nation on earth.