There are a lot of misconceptions when it comes to the foreign policy proposals of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Ron Paul's Myth-Busters attempts to clear the air.
Be sure to visit http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com for more libertarian commentary.
There are a lot of misconceptions when it comes to the foreign policy proposals of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Ron Paul's Myth-Busters attempts to clear the air.
Be sure to visit http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com for more libertarian commentary.
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning into the Liberty Report.
Today is the day we do MythBusters, and co-host is Chris Rossini.
Chris, welcome to our program today.
Great to be with you, Dr. Paul.
Thank you.
Good.
We want to talk today a little bit about foreign policy.
You know, foreign policy hasn't been the top issue in the presidential campaign, but lately there's been more talk about it because there are a lot of hotspots around the world.
So let's talk a little bit about what's going on and see if we can figure out where the two major candidates stand.
Yes, let's start with Russia because they are the major nuclear power that we deal with.
And Donald Trump has thus far presented himself as less hawkish than Hillary Clinton.
He says he wants to get along with Russia.
Meanwhile, Hillary has likened Putin to Hitler.
So what are your thoughts on this, Dr. Paul?
Well, I'm hoping that the position that Donald holds on the Russian issue is based in a non-aggression principle and a non-interventionist principle.
But that, of course, is not the case because he's not a non-interventionist.
But, you know, it is certainly better than the position that Hillary holds.
But when you look at Hillary's record, she's been very much involved.
We know what her record's all about in Libya and how much she's been involved.
And her close associations with what went on in Ukraine and with the State Department and the people supporting the West against the East and against the Russian Victoria Newland and Robert Kagan.
These are notorious neocons, and she's really, really very close with them.
They literally despise Russia and would do anything they could to precipitate a conflict with Russia.
And also, they have in the past worked very hard to bring about a coup in Ukraine and prop up a new leader in that country.
So I think it's really very clear the policy you would get from Hillary.
Now Trump's on the surface, he gets criticized for being too friendly with Russia.
But if you look closely at his policies, you don't know exactly where he's coming from because the idea of commercial interests in being involved with Russia is not a far stretch.
I mean, they have been in, their governments have been very much involved, like our governments have been, very much involved with big business interests.
And certainly with the downfall of the Berlin Wall and the downfall of the Soviet system, there's been a lot of those things going on.
So we don't know all the details of what might be going on and where this sympathy comes from, but it certainly is a better position than the one that Hillary holds on that.
But if you want to look at Trump's associations where he might get advice on this, you know, it does tell us a little bit.
I mean, he has Rudy Giuliani as his advisor.
And I think most people in this audience would realize that he wasn't exactly a non-interventionist.
He's very, very aggressive on foreign policy.
John Bolton as an advisor.
So just like some other positions that Trump holds, when he says some good things, you say, well, I hope he really believes in this.
And then the next day he says something else.
Certainly that is the case frequently on foreign policy about what he wants to do with NATO and what his real position is.
So I'm skeptical, but like you mentioned in the introduction, I don't think if you took both of them at their word and with their record, you'd have to say that problems would be more likely promoted if you had a Hillary dealing with Russia rather than with Trump.
But this has to be remained to be seen on just what happens.
Yes, next, let's move to the part of the world that is bleeding our country dry.
That is the Middle East.
And unfortunately, both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton want to ramp up the military action there.
Hillary is surrounded by people that want to go into Syria.
And Donald Trump, while he says he doesn't want a nation-built, he definitely wants to be active in the Middle East.
So it doesn't look too good, does it, Dr. Paul?
No, and I think the way I see this is Hillary is very, very hawkish, and as is Trump on the Middle East.
But I would think that Trump's rhetoric gives us this impression of what he would do because he is adamant.
I will do whatever is necessary, Obama, or whatever.
Now, Hillary would be more secretive and sneaky about it and be in denial, like this whole mess that she was involved in in Libya, where weapons actually ended up in Syria.
So she would be the kind that would work behind the scenes, but that would be very, very dangerous, too.
But Trump is very forward on it, and they are both very, very militant and hawkish on ISIS.
But neither one of them will ask the question, well, how does ISIS come about?
Is it a reflection of our policy in some way?
Is there such a thing as blowback?
Is there ever a chance that we should move out of that region and have less troops there?
And there's no signs that either one of them will do this.
Though Trump is not for nation building, he is very adamant.
We will not desert our friends, our neighbors, and we will defend the region.
And it will cost money, but of course, we'll get paid for it because we'll take their oil.
And the way I understand his position, he literally would endorse the principle of if it's necessary, we'll just go into a country and get their oil if necessary.
So I would say that the Middle East is going to be still very, very dangerous with either one of them.
Hillary probably is much more in bed, you know, openly so with NATO.
But what that means is that with our control of NATO, we can pretend that NATO is with us, whether it's with us, whether it's on Ukraine or whether it's Afghanistan and these other areas.
Trump has taken a position which he knows is a popular position, and that is, you know, NATO, we shouldn't be messing around with NATO and even hints with getting rid of it.
But at other times, he is very much wanting to say, well, we'll get NATO to do this.
We'll work with NATO and accomplish some of these foreign policy position, and we'll make those NATO countries pay us.
We will be the mercenaries, and we will do it.
We'll work with NATO.
And as long as they pay us the bill, we will work with it.
So they're so far removed from a policy of non-interventionism and one design that is there to protect our national security because I see, and so many other libertarians see, that what we're doing there is not in our best interest.
Financially, it's a menace for our military safety and for the potential harm from radical Islam.
All our presence there has made it worse because when you think about what the Middle East was like before 9-11, we were there and that helped precipitate 9-11.
But since then, it's gotten much worse because we've occupied so many countries, we're in so many wars, and that is continuing.
I want to know which one is most likely to bring the troops home and get out of the business of running the remaking of the Middle East.
And right now, I would say neither one.
Next, let's go to the major producers in the world, and that is over in Asia and China.
And Donald Trump has long railed against the Chinese and is threatening tariffs and sanctions.
And oftentimes, throughout history, when goods don't cross borders, militaries do.
On the other side, Hillary Clinton has been tough on China over the South China Sea, a bunch of rocks out there.
So what do you think about this, Dr. Paul?
Well, if you go by rhetoric, Trump is the most dangerous and combine that with protectionism and blaming China for all our problems and our economic problems.
It's all China's fault.
They're rigging their currency, and he wants to put on tariffs.
He poses probably a greater danger.
But like you mentioned, she's been really tough.
I mean, she's part of that group that says, send our Navy over there, show them who's boss.
And, you know, these islands that they're dredging up and developing.
Well, you know, that's significant.
We can't be ignored.
But who's it affecting the most?
Well, the Philippines, South Vietnam, they're participating in that.
The neighborhood there should deal with it.
Japan probably has an interest in it.
But it's, you know, that's on the other side of the world.
Why do we have to make that decision?
I do not see that in the near future or even whether that's the plan for China to disrupt the international flow of traffic, you know, commerce in that region.
It's not going to happen unless we stir up trouble and somebody sinks a ship and there's a false flag incident or something like that.
But China depends tremendously on trade through that area as we do.
That's why I was so happy with the change of policy with China way back in Nixon's time to open up the door with trade.
As bad as they were and as communistic as they still remain, it's still nothing like it was when I was very much aware of this, getting to be a draftable age back when I was in high school when the Korean War was going on.
So things are so much better there.
So that's why I don't like this idea of protectionism.
I don't think I don't like the idea of, well, just send our battleships over there, send our aircraft carriers over there, show them that we won't put up with anything.
And they better be careful on dredging another one-mile-long island.
And we are the deciders of all these things.
I think both policies are very bad.
And once again, I would suggest that the American people study and understand why a policy of non-intervention does not diminish our national defense.
And a policy of intervention and telling everybody else what to do is a threat to our national security and is a threat to our financial security because we cannot continue to do this.
And both of the candidates are very much in favor of rebuilding the military.
We spend more than almost everybody else put together.
And they're claiming, well, we need to rebuild the military and we need to upgrade our nuclear arsenal.
You know, it just goes on and on.
And people in this country just say, yeah, but if you drain our economy and make us so weak that we can't even feed ourselves and we don't have jobs and we have to depend on a government program and a government printing press, which is limited, it's not going to work.
So, yes, they're both very, very much for spending a lot more money in the military-industrial complex, whether it's the Middle East or Asia or Europe wherever.
It's like, don't ever say anything about cutting a nickel out of the military budget.
And I didn't say defense budget.
It has nothing to do with national defense.
As a matter of fact, my point is it's a distraction from national defense.
It's a militaristic government that really controls things in Washington, tremendous power.
One of the most powerful lobbying groups in Washington.
And Republicans or Democrats, you want to see some universal agreements.
And if you want people to have bipartisanship in Washington, you should be very happy.
Just look at the military budget.
And if anybody criticizes it, you're un-American.
You don't care about the troops and you want to undermine our national defense.
And that to me is a very important issue.
And unfortunately, I don't see any solution from either of these candidates.
Finally, Dr. Paul will talk about the ideas that drive both of them.
We obviously advocate non-intervention in peace.
Hillary Clinton wears the blinders of American exceptionalism.
I have a quick quote here where she says, the United States is an exceptional nation.
I believe we are still Lincoln's last best hope on earth.
We're still Reagan's shining city on a hill.
Donald Trump doesn't really have those blinders on.
He's more of a broad statement that he says America first.
So what are your thoughts about this, Dr. Paul?
I think both of them believe we're an exceptional nation.
I think almost all Americans would believe we're exceptional in some ways, especially in our history.
We've had exceptional success in emphasizing the principles of free enterprise and free markets and at one time sound money.
But this idea of exceptionalism is a ploy to put a guilt trip on anybody who would disagree with what they're doing.
Because Hillary, we claim, well, we're spreading Americans' greatness, Americans' greatness, and we have this responsibility.
We are the moral nation.
American Exceptionalism Misused00:04:01
And that just isn't true because we're using force and violence and guns and intimidation to have our way and have our will.
I see those who try to capitalize on this idea of exceptionalism as Jacobins.
The Jacobins, the American Jacobins, or the neo-Jacobins, the real Jacobins, were the ones who, during the French Revolution, which followed our Revolution, they wanted to have their exceptional nation too, of democracy, but they developed this intimidation and aggression to be used on their people and saying, well, if you're not for us, if you're not for us, then you're against us.
And we heard that used frequently against the American people.
And then they became violent.
And of course, the French Revolution doesn't have a good history.
And it was all done in the name of exceptionalism.
If you're going to do the right thing, and if not, we're going to use violence on you.
And I think It's so deceptive and dishonest to say that if you're not for American exceptionalism and going abroad, you know, spreading our goodness, then you're un-American.
And Trump doesn't use those terms at all because he's not an internationalist.
She's an internationalist that wants to make it very well known that we participate and we do this, but we are the declared leaders of the world and therefore we're going to do all these good things.
But if you're a very, very strong, adamant nationalist, you do it because American is the greatest.
But he's not bashful.
He's not bashful in any way about using force.
I mean, when that incident occurred in France, where it was a terrorist attack, he was ready to go to war.
I mean, his immediate reaction was, let's go bomb them.
Well, that's a little bit over the top for me.
And he would consider that instead of calling that American exceptionalist, he'd call it American toughness because he wants a tough America and that we'll take care of ourselves and we will not let anybody push us around and we will, you know, put the tariffs on them and we will not be bashful in the use of force.
So I would think that the ideas are different between the two, but I think this notion of American exceptionalism is used way too much.
What I want America to be is an exceptional nation because the people believe and understand and want their government to give us a nation designed for the one very special purpose, protection of individual liberty.
And that would mean that we would be an exceptional nation.
We would be the freest and the most prosperous nation and we would be friends with any nation that wanted to be friends.
We would trade with people who wanted to trade and we would have entangling alliances with none.
And by the way, I stole that quote and paraphrased that from Jefferson.
Yes, that would be an exceptional nation.
Tragically, I don't think we're on the verge of becoming that exceptional nation.
I get discouraged except when I talk to supporters and people who are interested in this because the numbers are growing.
And if there's any one sincere wish that I have, and something I work for, they talk so much about the millennials, is for the millennials to adapt and understand why it's in their best interest for us to have a better economic condition and a more chance for peace and prosperity if we have a nation that is working toward an American exceptionalism completely different than that being proposed to us today in this current campaign.
Thank You, Dr. Paul00:00:07
Chris, I want to thank you very much for being with us today on our program, MythBusters.