Jonah: Re: that Waugh quote you posted: If the alternative to RonPaulism is something like the French annexation of Algeria and all that followed, here’s another vote for Ron.

I don’t think any conservative doubts the need to fight barbarism. (Liberals probably think that it’s “hurtful” to designate any people as barbarous, or that we should seek the “root causes” of barbarism, or that barbarians are actually superior to us by way of being more “authentic,” or…) That still leaves us a lot of room for discussion of how to fight barbarism. Do we:

(a) Invade and occupy their territories with a view to permanent annexation, Roman style?

or

(b) Occupy strategic parts of their territories for mostly commercial purposes, while paying off local rulers to mind the hinterland, British-imperial style?

or

(c) Conduct monitory raids into their territories, killing their leaders and breaking their stuff, then withdrawing when we think they’ve got the point, British-gunboat style?

or

(d) Occupy their territories, put down their hostile factions, show them how to work the democracy thing, then leave when we think they’ve got the hang of it, George W. Bush style?

or

(e) Annihilate them, man, woman, and child, Hun/Zulu style?

or

(f) Manage them with bribes and flattery and the occasional gift of a royal princess, so long as it works, resorting to (c) if necessary, very occasionally (a) if the benefit-to-cost ratio looks irresistible, Chinese-style?

or

(g) Ignore them unless they actually send an army across your borders, relying on bigger and braver powers to deal with all other problems, Swiss style?

For a large, wealthy, and relatively self-contained power like the present-day U.S.A., (f) looks to me like the logical choice, and I suspect Ron Paul would agree. I wouldn’t rule out that he’s a (g) man, and this position certainly has a broad appeal to the American psyche … but I believe Paul’s smarter than that.