Ron Paul Launches Foreign Policy Institute

Courtesy of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and ProsperityCourtesy of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and ProsperityToday, the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity (a project of Paul's Foundation for Rational Economics and Education) was launched at an event in Washington D.C. The institute will be run by Paul’s former congressional foreign policy aide Daniel McAdams, who was among the speakers. Other speakers at the event included Ron Paul as well as Rep. Walter Jones, Jr. (R-N.C.), Rep. John Duncan, Jr. (R-Tenn.), and former Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who are all members of the institute’s board of advisors. Lew Rockwell, Andrew Napolitano, and former Ambassador Faith Whittlesey did not speak at the event but are on the institute's board of advisors. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who is not on the board of advisors of the institute, also spoke at the event.  

At today’s event McAdams framed the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity as a continuation of Ron Paul’s non-interventionism and civil libertarianism. The institute will focus on educating people of the principles of a non-interventionist foreign policy and the importance of civil liberties by offering a number of programs such as a summer school and a series of seminars and featuring a blog that will host timely commentary on foreign policy and civil liberties. The website will also feature a “Peace and Prosperity Index” that will grade members of Congress based on votes casts on bills that affect foreign policy and civil liberties.

Rep. Jones spoke early on at the event and mentioned how much he regrets that he voted for the war in Iraq and lamented that war is accepted but not debated in Congress. Former Congressman Kucinich said, “…this institute has so much importance because it will provide a place for people to gather from across the political spectrum so that we can as Americans address our commons concerns about freedom, about peace, about prosperity and in doing so help to rescue our country from a trajectory that it’s own right now that can only lead to our destruction.” Rep. Duncan told of how he was called to the White House before the most recent war in Iraq to meet with Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, and John McLaughlin who tried to convince Duncan of how dangerous Saddam Hussein was despite not having any evidence of an imminent threat. Rep. Massie described the first time he voted against the party (something Ron Paul did plenty of times) and how a staffer of the leadership told him, “We are not whipping this bill today so you can vote how you want.”

During the Q&A McAdams said that the institute will not be a traditional think tank, saying that “the era of long detailed policy papers is over” and that he hopes that the Peace and Prosperity Summer School will be launched in the summer of 2014.

Given the current state of affairs around the world the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity should not be left wanting for material to discuss. The situations in Afghanistan, Syria, Mali, Myanmar, and Somalia as well as America’s relationships with Iran, Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela are all timely and relevant foreign policy topics that libertarians interested in foreign policy should be discussing.

Check out the institute's website here

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Great, now we'll get scolding and pre-determined conclusions...faster/more than before?

  • Underzog||

    Ron Paul 1488
    The Final Solution for America
    The two eights of the number 1488 stand for the eigth letter of the alphabet: H. And the two of them together form H H or Heil Hitler.

    The fourteen part of the number 1488 stands for those fourteen words that every white supremacist knows: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children." (hat tip Bill Levinson)

    "There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"

  • Calidissident||

    Because obviously anyone who doesn't support foreign aid to Israel is a Nazi.

  • Calidissident||

    Underzog is a hardline Zionist, not a liberal

  • Tonio||

    And more importantly, a troll. Don't feed it, people.

  • sam the man||

    Where the fuck are you getting 1488 from?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    This site looks like a complete piece of crap so far. Example article from the inaugural:

    After an unexpectedly tight vote in Venezuela over the weekend, heir to Hugo Chavez’s legacy Nicolas Maduro squeaked by with 50.7 percent of the result. His opponent, US-favored Henrique Capriles Radonski lost by some 1.7 percent of the vote and, although he has not provided any evidence of fraud, has refused to recognize the result and called his supporters to the street.

    Not surprisingly, considering the history of very active US intervention in the internal politics of Venezuela, the US has joined the battle on Capriles side, refusing to recognize the newly-elected government and demanding a recount.

    The intervention calls to mind the US orchestrated “color revolutions” of recent memory, as the Moon of Alabama blog points out:

    Doubting election results without evidence of fraud, demanding recounts, riots in the street are all signs of a typical "color revolution" like attempt to overthrow a legal government. As the U.S. has in the past actively supported a coup against Chavez and, even after that failed, worked hard to create an anti-Chavismo "civil society" with the aim to overthrow Chavez, we can assume that similar schemes are behind the current disturbances.

    Fuck that shit.

  • Calidissident||

    Why is it that some "libertarians" totally lose their skepticism and critical eye of government once we're no longer talking about the US government (even the government in question is far worse)?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    While I can't really speak for libertarians, the author of this piece uses innuendo and wild, baseless speculation (as well as a willfully dishonest appraisal of US involvement in the 2002 Venezuelan coup) to insinuate that the democratic opposition to a socialist banana republic is a puppet of US interests. That's a bunch of goddamned bullshit, and is exactly what the people fighting for liberty in Latin America don't need.

    Why do some libertarians assume that government is omnipresent and relentlessly good at achieving its goals, when there no reason to think that a socialist government owned lock, stock and barrel by a bunch of corrupt thugs would be above cheating to win an election?

  • Calidissident||

    "While I can't really speak for libertarians"

    To be clear, I'm not talking about libertarians in general, just certain members of the LRC crowd

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Ah, gotcha. In that case I completely agree...

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    Ah, yes. A "libertarian" like yourself and Lew Rockwell know whats right....to support a socialist dynasty.

    Non Interventionism is not inherently Libertarianism, paultard.

  • Calidissident||

    WTF are you talking about?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I think he read you as agreeing with what I excerpted above.

  • Calidissident||

    How? I thought it was pretty clear that I was questioning how a supposedly libertarian person like the writer (and other LRC-types) could totally lose his skepticism of government once we're talking about the Venezuelan government instead of the US government

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    You know like how LibertyMike will ask you why you trust the government media whenever you roll your eyes at the Truthers? Your question could have been read that way.

    That's how I interpreted it until I read what you put in parenthesis.

    Bad reading comprehension, man. Gets me every time.

  • Calidissident||

    It's fine. I just realized I left out the word "if" in the parentheses. And I have made statements in the past about why some people (mostly conservatives) lose their skepticism of government when it comes to foreign policy, but that doesn't mean I'm also not going to call out idiots like this guy who think anyone the US government dislikes is automatically a decent, honest fellow, just because he is disliked by the USG.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Why is it that you keep dishonestly labelling scepticism of bullshit artists for non-scepticism of government? You say this same fucking shit everytime you can't actually make a counter-point. Tiresome.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Your initial comment was confusing I read further.

  • Calidissident||

    I guess I'll try to be more clear next time, but I thought the fact that I said "once we're no longer talking about the US government" would seem to indicate that I wasn't talking about the US government, although I know I accidentally left out the "if" in the parentheses, which probably made it a little more unclear

  • Cytotoxic||

    This derp is my derp.

  • Irish||

    Dude, it's fucking Rockwell. Anything coming out of that organization is going to be opposed to America, no matter how crazy this ends up making their opinions.

  • Calidissident||

    Yeah, I feel like the kind of people who make these arguments use the logic (if you can call it that) of "US govt = bad, therefore anyone or anything the US government dislikes = good (or at least better than the USG." Which is idiotic. I don't think it needs to be said that I'm not a fan of the US government, but that doesn't mean that anyone who opposes the US government is necessarily better.

  • David Emami||

    Dude, it's fucking Rockwell. Anything coming out of that organization is going to be opposed to America, no matter how crazy this ends up making their opinions.

    I prefer this Rockwell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YvAYIJSSZY

    Much less crazy than Lew.

  • David Emami||

    The intervention calls to mind the US orchestrated “color revolutions” of recent memory,

    And here we have a perfect illustration of the loathsomeness of the Rothbots and their "we want a non-interventionist foreign policy, so anyone the US so much as speaks approvingly of must be bad" reasoning.

    How *dare* the people in Georgia, the Ukraine, Lebanon , and Iran push back against native or neighboring dictators?! Don't they know that by not wanting to be crushed under the heel of mullahs, Baathists, or ex-chekists, they're *agreeing* with the US, and that's the most horrible thing anyone could ever do?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I don't have a problem with philosophical non-interventionists or pacifists, but I completely agree on your assessment of Rothbardites. Being pacific doesn't mean abandoning common sense or denigrating freedom movements abroad.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    You misunderstand Lew's position. At the top of his site, where it says "Anti-State", it doesn't mean he's an anarchist. It means he's anti-United States, as in anyone who opposes the United States for any reason is okay by him.

    I imagine it's some infection acquired by sticking your penis in Cindy Sheehan, then gargling the results.

  • Cytotoxic||

    BARF

  • David Emami||

    "You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once." -- Robert Heinlein

  • Cytotoxic||

    Another brilliant Heinlein quote. Libertarians better learn to love war, because they will ALWAYS be fighting against those that hate us for our freedoms.

  • Calidissident||

    War is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, enabler of big government and enemies of freedom to ever exist. I'm not a pacifist, and do not oppose defensive wars or going after people who have actually attacked us, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna fall for 3rd grade propaganda to justify whatever war politicians think is necessary at the moment to save us and protect our freedom (which of course always involves giving up substantial amounts of freedom).

  • Cytotoxic||

    War is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, enabler of big government and enemies of freedom to ever exist.

    I keep hearing this and evidence is pretty flimsy. War is bad for freedom, but America had the Mexican-American war and the war on Indians (which looks a lot like the war on Jihad) with no ill long--term effects on freedom. The Civil War was very good for American freedom. The New Deal retreated a great deal after WW2. The historical record is far more mixed than 'anti-war' types like to admit.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    War is a random element. Purely in terms of consequentialist outcomes, the Mexican American war is quite possibly one of the greatest blows for freedom ever struck, and ended the tyranny of the Mexican Empire in the American Southwest in favor of the relatively benign US jurisprudence. It was also a great success in other terms.

    Yet US participation in other wars -- WWI comes to mind -- germinated anti-freedom institutions, ideas, and laws both in the US and all over the world that we are still burdened with.

  • Calidissident||

    "America had the Mexican-American war and the war on Indians (which looks a lot like the war on Jihad) with no ill long--term effects on freedom."

    Unless you were a Native American that is.

    And the Indian Wars are in no way similar to WOT. Quit drinking Lyle's Kool Aid.

    "The Civil War was very good for American freedom."

    The end result of freeing the slaves was good (although it was not one of North's big reasons for fighting the war), but there was a great deal of anti-liberty expansion of government on both sides during the war, some of which had lasting effects.

    "The New Deal retreated a great deal after WW2."

    It was beginning to retreat before too. Overall, internment of Japanese-Americans, the draft, extensive government controls over the economy, etc. isn't exactly a great record of freedom. And nowadays, every idiot left and right either uses WWII to show how "government stimulus solved the Depression!" or "We must go to war because NEXT HITLER!"

    "The historical record is far more mixed than 'anti-war' types like to admit."

    What makes you think I'm referring strictly to US history?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Unless you were a Native American that is.

    Did the rule of law of the greatest nation ever not come to them? There was some badness but in the long run they should be grateful, like all those liberated by America.

    And the Indian Wars are in no way similar to WOT.

    Why not? Sure looks similar.

    The Civil War had short-term bad stuff happen to freedom but long term it was much better.

  • Calidissident||

    "Did the rule of law of the greatest nation ever not come to them?"

    To their descendants? Sure (although there are still a ton of problems in the Native American community). To the ones who actually died or had their land taken? I don't think they much appreciated it. Seriously, Cyto, come on. I realize I wouldn't be here and the country of America wouldn't exist if Europeans didn't conquer the continent, but it doesn't make it morally justified. The ultimate ends don't justify the means. Was trans-Atlantic slavery justified because African-Americans today have a much higher standard of living than Africans do?

    "Why not? Sure looks similar."

    How? Other than the fact that they're both long-term conflicts, they have nothing in common. One was an example of conquest and colonization of an area of land. Something that has happened countless times in history. The other is a loosely-defined, open-ended fight against a subset of a general population that is over a billion people and spread all across the globe. There is no comparison.

  • Lyle||

    Ah... Indian Removal and the War on Terror (really the war on violent Islamism) are comparable. It's not a perfect comparison, but there are a bunch of similarities.

    1. It's a clash of civilizations
    2. It's seemingly perpetual
    3. It's a conflict in defense of American interests, i.e. liberty
    4. The way it is being fought, i.e. counter-insurgency is similar (think going after Geronimo and the Sioux)

    I also find it a bit odd that a libertarian would put morals ahead of defending and spreading liberty.

  • Calidissident||

    1. "It's a clash of civilizations"

    This is meaningless from a tactical/strategic standpoint. A clash of civilizations could take place in many forms.

    2. "It's seemingly perpetual"

    For entirely different reasons

    3. "It's a conflict in defense of American interests, i.e. liberty"

    Which is, again, meaningless from a strategic/tactical standpoint. And I'm not seeing how a conflict that has resulted in mass looting of taxpayers, the Patriot Act, NDAA and other shreddings of our civil liberties is defending liberty.

    4. "The way it is being fought, i.e. counter-insurgency is similar (think going after Geronimo and the Sioux)"

    There's a huge difference between conquering an area, colonizing it, and fighting remaining insurgents (and the NA population was dwarfed by the white settlers) and going into another country with the goal of replacing their government. Nor does replacing their government end terrorism. Nor does occupation in general. Terrorism simply takes one person with a desire, willingness, and means to kill. You can't eliminate that through warfare like you can conquer a continent. Ending terrorism is no less difficult than ending murder in general (which is impossible).

  • Calidissident||

    "I also find it a bit odd that a libertarian would put morals ahead of defending and spreading liberty."

    My philosophy is all about the morality of liberty. The WOT is not about defending liberty (nor were the Indian Wars) or spreading it. I'm against spreading liberty by stealing from taxpayers to finance military ventures that do not enhance our national security and result in widespread death and devastation

  • Lyle||

    You have no clue what you're talking about Calidissident. You just make up stupid shit.

    By the way... we didn't conquer Geronimo, we actually captured his person. What does that fucking remind you of stupid?

  • Calidissident||

    "You have no clue what you're talking about Calidissident. You just make up stupid shit."

    Says the guy who thinks the War on Terror is exactly like the Indian Wars. I haven't made up anything.

    "By the way... we didn't conquer Geronimo, we actually captured his person. What does that fucking remind you of stupid?"

    Was capturing Geronimo necessary to winning the Indian Wars? Geronimo and his allies were giving a desperate last stand after the war was lost. You're missing the central point, which is that the two conflicts have/had totally different goals. Defeating tribal warriors in battle, attacking villages, and relocating tribes is not analogous to trying to weed out terrorists from a population of over a billion people spread all around the world, especially when it takes only one person to commit an action (terrorism) that the conflict is supposed to put an end to.

  • Alex||

    Am I the only one who sees boobs?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Llew Rockwell and Dennis Kucinich are figure prominently in the article, so no.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    I'll say it now. The crap that comes from Ron Paul's "institute" is going to tank Rand in an election. It's the newsletters all over again, and the media will visit the sins of the father upon the children.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    It is really bad. The writing style from the executive director is juvenile, and the actual content that they've made available so far doesn't inspire confidence.

    Hopefully Rand will have the good sense to distance himself from the institute if it continues in its current course.

    Also:

    During the Q&A McAdams said that the institute will not be a traditional think tank, saying that “the era of long detailed policy papers is over”

    Really?

  • Calidissident||

    If Rand Paul is going to get hammered over stuff that his dad (or those affiliated with his dad) did, I think the media is already going to do it regardless of the institute. There's plenty of stuff out there (not that I think there's any good reason to judge Rand for it)

  • WomSom||

    Sometimes man you jsut gotta smack it good!

    www.AnonHit.tk

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    This thing is a time bomb. I thought it would be lousy, but good grief. An anti-Venezuelan freedom article on the first day -- and from the executive director of the institute, no less? How long until something really bad comes out -- say, some idiot writes up an anti-WWII article defending the Germans or the always-fun "the South shall rise again" lunacy? I'm not really much of a libertarian, if I am one at all, but libertarianism is far better than this and these sort of things drag the movement down in the same way that the Akins of the world are liabilities for the pro-life movement.

  • ||

    That logo is fugly.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Boobies?

  • Cytotoxic||

    We should recall that in 2002 the Bush Administration helped organize a coup against the democratically elected government of Venezuela.

    JESUS FUCKING CHRIST. This is disgraceful. Way to do all you can to vindicate the WSJ and other neocons who hate you Dr. Paul. And take a shit on your son.

  • sam the man||

    This is the reason the truthers loved Ron Paul. And one of the major reasons they hate Rand. Ron is anti-US govt, Rand is anti-big govt.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    I would not go that far but with Rockwell involved it will certainly look that way.

  • Gladstone||

    I always found it amusing that libertarians always rant about democracy and how bad US politicians are and how they use nationalism for bad things but when it comes to foreign politicians the US hates the Rockwellians are supportive of Democracy and how they reflect the National Will and how that is a Good Thing.

    I remember a while ago I posted a Rothbard piece of the Falklands War. He pretty much summed his foreign policy views as the US and the UK are always on the wrong side of everything. With that attitude it is easy to see why his followers fellate Dictators. Not to mention that line of reasoning is not in of itself non-interventionist or even libertarian.

  • RyanXXX||

    Jesus Christ, did all the warboners come out at once today?

    "What, Ron Paul thinks we should leave other countries alone!! How un-libertarian of him!! Let's all talk about how crazy Lew Rockwell is! The more Rand Paul sells out to neocons the better!"

  • SaltySeaCaptain(LAOL)||

    ^^^The PaulTard Shreek

  • Cytotoxic||

    That basically sums up him and Sparky to a T.

  • Cytotoxic||

    STRAWMAN DOWN WE HAVE FULL CONTACT WITH STRAWMAN ACTUAL POINT UNENGAGED HER DERP OVER

  • RyanXXXX||

    We "anti-war" "libertarians" need our strawmen and tu quoque arguments because otherwise we would actually how to make a intelligent non-interventionist argument rather than kneejerk anti-Americanism.

  • RyanXXXX||

    Yes because the proper libertarian position is to either gush over foreign politicians or go to war against them. There are no alternatives.

  • RyanXXX||

    Dude, it's fine and dandy to call me names and insult me but this is the second thread where I've seen you rip off my name. That's against etiquette, isn't it? I thought this is what registration was supposed to sop

  • Calidissident||

    Ryan, did you even read what people were criticizing? Most people weren't even attacking Paul directly. I voted for Paul and am a noninterventionist. Normally, I'm having debates with Cytotoxic on foreign policy threads. But the article that The Immaculate Trouser posted is simply disgusting fellating of the Venezuelan regime. I do not think the US should intervene in Venezuela or overthrow their government or anything. Nor do most people here, with a couple possible exceptions. That doesn't mean the excuse-making and whitewashing of the Chavez and now Maduro regime by McAdams, Rockwell, etc. is acceptable.

    To sum up: Just because someone is despised by the US government (as bad as the USG is) doesn't mean that person (or regime) is good or even just better than the US government. Just because the US government opposes an action by a foreign government doesn't mean that foreign government is not in the wrong. And criticizing people like McAdams and Rockwell when they do this does not mean one is a supporter of the US government or that they support intervention in whatever country we're talking about.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement