Printer Friendly

The Ron Paul Revolution Hits the RNC

David A. Harris — July 11, 2012 – 10:52 am | Election 2012 | Israel | Republicans | Ron Paul Comments (1) Add a comment

Originally Published in The Huffington Post

Over the last few months, anti-Israel Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) has been making a serious impact within the Republican Party. During the debate season, he was the crowd favorite and used his televised platform to spout his radical positions—including his anti-Israel views. As the race dragged into the spring and the also-rans started dropping out, Paul stayed in while continuing to increase his stock among GOP activists. And now, after winning multiple state party conventions outright and amassing enough delegates to be a force within the GOP when it convenes in Tampa, one of his former spokesmen has been named to a senior position within the Republican National Committee.

Quite simply, national Republicans—including Jewish and other pro-Israel GOPers—have collectively and utterly failed to stop Paul and his radical views from entering the GOP’s mainstream. Republicans have made little more than symbolic gestures and empty threats against him—like keeping him out of conferences that he likely would never attend in the first place—and tried to minimize the significance of his victories at state party conventions.

As The Huffington Post noted recently, Paul now holds enough delegates to throw the vice presidential nominating process into chaos. He also can use that leverage to influence the Republican Party’s platform on any issue, including the GOP’s orientation towards Israel, Iran, and foreign aid. Indeed, the Los Angeles Times noted that Paul’s supporters would like to exert their influence over the Republican Party’s platform. Over what issues? That’s yet to be determined. But is that unknown factor a risk that the Republican Party can afford to take—not to mention when the bipartisan consensus of the U.S.-Israel relationship is at stake?

We think not.

If a Democratic candidate ever attempted to empathize with Iran’s nuclear weapons program, bashed Israel on Iranian television, pushed to end U.S. diplomatic support for Israel, or put forth an amendment to cut American aid to Israel—among other serious anti-Israel actions—we and the mainstream of our Party would stand up and forcefully oppose that candidate. NJDC has stood up consistently to fringe candidates—and twice so far this cycle against candidates who, as it turns out, had no real chance of winning or growing a grassroots movement in our Party.

But for some unfathomable reason, Republicans from the top down are silent. Worse, Mitt Romney—the Party’s standard bearer—formed a “strategic alliance” with Paul during the primary season because he apparently recognized that Paul’s supporters would be crucial to unifying the Party. What kind of message does it send to Israel when the Party that consistently and wrongfully uses Israel as a partisan wedge issue actively courts and kowtows to one of Israel’s biggest opponents on Capitol Hill?

The GOP is going to pay a price for their failure—whether it’s a nationally televised Paul-related embarrassment at the convention or yet another blowout in the race for Jewish votes. And before Republicans and their allies continue inventing reasons to attack pro-Israel Democrats on Israel, they should turn their energy—and money—inward on the guy who holds the cards to their vice presidential nominating process and whose former spokesman is now in charge of the Party’s messaging. It is fully within the Republican Party’s power to put a stop to Paul’s ever-expanding influence—whether or not they do is entirely up to them.

David A. Harris is the President and CEO of the National Jewish Democratic Council

Comments

dan | July 12, 2012 – 4:50 pm

I think this article fails to mention that Ron Paul respects other nations’ sovereignty. Israel is on a leash to the US because of all the aid. Without it, Israel can do what Israel thinks is best for itself instead of what the US thinks is best. Who do you think would actually care more about Israel and understand Israel’s problems more - Americans or Israelites? If Israel feels Iran is a threat via nuclear weapons, Israel should have the right to suppress that threat - not ask us for permission. Likewise, they should take responsibility for their actions. The world would be much safer, more respectable, more peaceful, etc. if everyone (not just Israel, but everyone!) was held accountable for what they did and could not make others pay the price for them. People don’t have a problem risking others’ lives or spending others’ money, but when it’s their own, they’ll think twice and try to determine the best course of action.

This article also fails to mention that we give a whole lot more financial aid to Israel’s enemies than we do to Israel (don’t remember the actual numbers, but I do remember that countries in conflict receive a whole lot more…). All that aid would be cut. It’s really a win-win for Israel. They can make their own decisions, and they are financially less behind in the hostile environment.

Everyone outside the Paul camp always says he’s incredibly anti-Israel, but he’s the only one that seems to respect their (and everyone else’s) sovereignty. I fail to see how this can be so misconstrued to be anti-Israel, when it seems to be a lot more pro-Israel to me. The Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has appealed to the US to do exactly what Paul says. Check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BaMLlnb_KI
It’s his entire 45 minute speech to Congress - key point, about 3:45 in. Then he goes on to talk about having liberty, restricting powers of authorities and courts, the right to protest, etc. and how it needs to spread through the middle east. He has to appeal to the US about a nuclear Iran. Why must they grovel to us with many fear tactics to do stuff about it? Why is it the US has to be the one who must send a strong clear message? Why can’t Israel? He said they’re certainly capable and don’t need our help early on, but then turns around and is forced to ask for it later. Is this right? Why should they need our blessings and actions when they are perfectly capable? This does not sound like a friendship, but a master-slave relationship where the master is at least amiable to the slave. The slave, despite knowing he is perfectly capable, must rely on and beg the master to do anything for him. I think this is not right.

Finally, Paul’s influence has done enough. He may be the champion of the ideas, but they caught root with many normal people. He started it, but even while not “actively campaigning,” his message is spreading predominantly by grassroots efforts. Too many people care about what the future holds, and realize staying on the present course of the Obama/Romney mentality is a disaster. If the politicians want to stop the influence and movement, they’d have to take away everyone’s right to free speech - which actually has been eroding away if you pay any attention to what Congress has been up to. That is the one thing democrats and republicans both seem to be able to agree on when it comes time to vote, despite all the empty bickering you hear otherwise. The other side did it, so it’s bad. But… It’ll be OK if I come in and do the same thing.

Name:
E-mail:
Comment:
Captcha:

Note:	This form does not support AOL's browser. If you are currently using AOL's browser, please use a major browser, such as Firefox, Safari, Chrome, or Internet Explorer.