On education, I think you’re ignoring the fact that issues of “creationism, prayer in schools, and abstinence” (education, I presume) would still waste time and create controversy in exactly the same way they do now. Those issues are currently fought over by local school boards and states, not within the DOE.

On civil rights, I’m not sure how a weak federal government that has granted almost all sovereignty to the states could ever hope to enforce any law, never mind a law that wasn’t favored by a majority of the people in a state.

Your argument about the DEA also seems confused. Yes, too many people serving time for drugs are minorities, but that’s because they’re more likely to be picked up and prosecuted by local authorities, not the DEA. Most of the minorities serving time were picked up by city cops and prosecuted there, the DEA never touched them. I’m not acquainted with the argument that HUD fosters segregation, so I’ll forgo responding to that.

Europe doesn’t have a singular education policy, or a single continental medical program - yet the left praises the social progress they have achieved in a system of independent states connected by free trade. The U.S. Department of Education is less than 30 years old, but are our students more globally competitive than they were or is our educational policy stuck in a quagmire debate over economically irrelevant issues like creationism, prayer in school, and abstinence?

Comparing nations, I cannot make the logical stretch that Europe would be better off if each state sent 30% of its GDP to Brussels in hopes that some of that tax money would make it back to the people in the form of social programs. They keep the money local and they show us a great example of government efficiency.

As far as civil rights, I would love to see a federal government who is fundamentally limited to and focused on protecting the constitutional rights of non-discrimination based on race and gender. Although the growth of federal government is often justified in terms of enforcing legal equality, that does not address the fact that the DEA’s War on Drugs results in an inherently racist distribution of arrests, or that HUD serves the purpose of racial segregation (intentionally or not, it does help create segregated communities that are perpetuated with federal funding.)

Of course, my favorite part of the Ron Paul campaign is that it opens up topics for political discussion that have been largely marginalized for a long time.

And I would hardly call devolving powers to the states a compromise position. The United States is, well, supposed to be united. If it were instead a loose conflagration of states, all the economic and social benefits of that unity would begin to erode. If California legalized drugs, stem cell research and abortions while other states across the country are making alcohol, stem cell research and abortion illegal, the country would have less and less coherent logic for its existence. The same would be true if Texas were to, say, determine its own immigration policy that were rather more open to illegals than people in Kentucky want. Compromise and national issues built this country and increasing state’s rights would be a big step backward. I shudder to think what a federal government run by a libertarian would have done on civil rights in the 1960s. My troubling suspicion is that it would have done nothing, which is, at best, an uncomfortable possibility.

On isolationism, I think you make a fair point. I was referring principally to military non-interventionism. I’m not really sure where he stands on trade.

Take almost any controversy in social issues, and one might conclude that allowing states to define their own policy is something that liberals and conservatives can agree on. Not only is Washington D.C. limiting the liberal agenda in California by sending DEA agents to arrest sick patients, but it also forces all states and all sub-cultures contained within to conform to a single definition of educational truth and a single (shrinking) definition of citizen’s rights. At the same time, the metro D.C. area has become the richest part of the country in terms of wealth per capita. What’s going to happen to our economy in the long run if NY Banking or California technology is second-place behind a government desk job?

I would also suggest that “isolationist” has been thrown about incorrectly. Isolationism specifically refers to BOTH non-military intervention AND anti-trade policies. On trading issues, you could call Bush an isolationist because he raised steel tariffs or because he continues to refuse trade with Iran or Cuba. Ron Paul is incredibly pro-trade, he just believes in bilateral trade (which also makes a lot of sense to me.) Rejecting Wilsonian military interventionism isn’t exactly the same as shutting ourselves off from the world. In fact, we might find some new friends or even repair relationships with old allies.

But, I like this article! You’ve nailed some of Ron Paul’s greatest strengths and weaknesses in this campaign. I just happen to disagree with the conclusion and I think he would make a great president!

The second, and perhaps more important, point is that you seem to share many of Mr. Paul’s views about state’s rights and policies. If you share his views and like the man, I’m very glad that you support him. But I think many of Paul’s fans and contributors probably aren’t nearly as knowledgeable about his stances on policy as you are. They seem to, as I say, like him for what he’s not more than for what he is.

Here’s what you said:

1. He doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state

Ron Paul does believe in this, this is why he believe marriage should not be sanctioned by the government since it’s religious institution, not government one

2. He’s not for federally funded public education (federally subsidized college loans)

Before DoE was established we were #1 in education, we are now #36 due to DoE regulation. Ron Paul wants to get rid of federal taxes and let local government decide how to run their school system, so you could just raise state taxes to make up for it and you’d actually have more money available from lower administration costs. Ron Paul is saying you should have power over how your money is spent.

3. He not for national health care

Ron Paul is for free market health care. Right now prices are high cause we give pharmaceutical companies monopolies and don’t let people explore alternatives. Ron Paul would allow people to buy medicine across border, and buy insurance across state lines which would increase competition which would drive prices down and quality up.

4. He would abolish consumer protections

He would get rid of Federal Consumer Departments. He encourages self-regulation which is more efficient and effective, take a look at The US porn industry and the Better Business Bureau as examples of Self-Regulation. It’s up to consumers to shape the country through action. Having organizations like FDA is the incentive for Lobbyist to corrupt the government since it gives the government the power grant them monopolies and prevent competitors from entering the market.

5. He would abolish the EPA and other environmental safeguards

Again, Lobbyist make the government stimulate growth in the wrong area like we’ve done with Corn Ethanol even though we know Hemp Ethanol and Sugarcane are better alternatives. If you leave it to the market and get rid of all subsidies (ethanol and oil are subsidized) the market will generate affordable and sustainable alternative due to consumer demand. He’s pro tax incentives for researching alternative fuel sources.

6. He would overturn Roe vs. Wade

No where in the constitution does it give the federal government power to ban or to protect abortion. Unless an amendment is passed this is an unconstitutional decision. It’s a state issue cause it’s complex and Ron Paul is the first admit it.