Any Conservatives After Santorum? – Chairman’s Reply

Continued from the initial letter Any Conservatives After Santorum?

The Chairman’s reply:

Dear Mr. Foster:

Thanks so much for your thoughtful email. It's very rare to get a reasoned, respectful email from a Ron Paul supporter. It is appreciated.

CP-USA has always acknowledged that Ron Paul has a sound fiscal and monetary platform.  We actually adopt some of his ideas like auditing the Federal Reserve and budget cutting goals.  However, we sharply depart from Paul on his drug, immigration and foreign policies. Allowing the Iranians to acquire nukes, for example, is a recipe for disaster. As a whole, Ron Paul is a good man, a good family man and a great American. But he's also a Libertarian. CP-USA wants limited government as outlined in the Constitution, not zero government as outlined by Ron.  

Thanks again for your communication.  I hope Ron Paul influences the GOP during the Convention and the election.  But there is a BIG question I have for you and other Paul supporters: will you work and vote for Romney in the general election if he's the GOP nomination?

Best Regards,

Harold Hervey

National Chairman

Conservative Party of America

My counter-response:

Mr. Chairman,

Thank you for your speedy reply, and I'm glad to know you've adopted some of Dr. Paul's ideas.

Regarding Iran and their nuclear program, I never expected that to become America's battle; in all honesty, mighty Israel has a much better track record of putting thug regimes in their place, at least in the middle east.  I have full confidence in Prime Minister Netanyahu to liberate himself from the ditherers in our own government and simply take necessary action against the threat.  Israel did just that against Iraq in 1981, and though the Congress moved to condemn Israel for "attacking Iraq," Dr. Paul stood against them and defended Israel's right as a sovereign country to defend herself.  If Israel were to handle Iran, Dr. Paul would support them again.

There are also misconceptions of his drug policy.  What he plans to do is repeal the Federal War on Drugs, not legalize drugs altogether.  This is because this neo-Prohibition hasn't worked, much like alcohol prohibition didn't work in the 1920s, but instead gave rise to organized crime when the alcohol market was driven underground into the black market, where alcohol was more scarce and risky, thus more expensive but more highly profitable for moonshine kingpins, and also more worthy of defending with violence against police and other alcohol runners.  Once Prohibition was repealed, crime levels plummeted below 50% of what they formerly were. Simply put: being able to go to the pub or the liquor store for alcohol made it no longer necessary to buy it from the local bootlegger gang.  Author Tom Woods of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History (a selection of the Conservative Book Club) and Nullification makes this sharp statement on the war on drugs:

Under Dr. Paul's plan, rather than use the federal government to impose itself on states, it allows the states to make their own laws either for or against various drugs.  Furthermore, greater empowerment of the states to pursue their own enforcement policy.  With more empowerment to the states, I see them better able to empower families, churches, hospitals, and local police departments (i.e. the community) to lessen drug use rather than Federal over-reach and a one-size-fits-all approach.  This also frees federal law enforcement and military to be stationed on the Southern border, helping to keep our country safe from invasion.  I also see more empowerment for states to use their police forces better, much the way Sheriff Joe Arpaio is doing in Arizona, ignoring federal ineptitude and turning the situation into a local issue with a local remedy.  Paul is by no means for no government, but rather, less federal government in exchange for more localized government.  This is Constitutionally sound, since the 10th Amendment states that powers not specifically given to the U.S. government are given to the States and the people.

In regards to whether I'll throw my support behind Romney, the tentative answer is 'not now.'  First and foremost, my candidate is in it to win it, he's not in debt, and he just got a nice sweep of delegates over the weekend.  I guarantee you that I'll work for him to be the nominee til the bitter end.  And then if he drops, I may support Romney ONLY if he radically changes his moderate Diet Coke policies.  But the way he is right now is something neither one of us finds acceptable.  Moreover, why settle for Diet Coke instead of Coke when we can choose the Constitution candidate?

Right now Romney is the lesser of two evils, but the lesser of two evils is still evil.  At least the greater of two evils gives us a clear-cut example of what we don't want, and gives us all a starting point to rally against him.  The lesser of evils, however, is the one that waters down our message until it doesn't mean anything anymore.  The lesser of evils drains the morale from the grass roots and tells us what we must settle for instead of We the People telling him what he must do.  Romney is the lesser of two evils, whereas for Santorum conservatives Ron Paul is the lesser of two goods but still good, and much closer to conservatism than Romney or Obama.

All in all, the simple fact that you and I are having this deep discussion in a respectful manner makes me incredibly hopeful and optimistic for the political process.  I'll pray for you tonight as you consider these things, brother.

In liberty,

Zach Foster

P.S.  Remember that the only cure for 1984 is 1776.