Emily Ekins writes: For those tuning into the myriad Republican presidential debates over the past few months, they may have been surprised to learn that many GOP candidates believe a military intervention in Iran could be likely.
Yet despite the cheers the candidates received for taking hawkish foreign policy stances with Iran, a recent Rasmussen poll finds that only 35 percent of Americans favor using military force if sanctions fail to prevent Iran from developing their nuclear capabilities.
This finding is especially interesting given that 81 percent of Americans think it is either somewhat or very likely that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon in the near future, and that 63 percent of Americans do not believe it is very or at all likely that stiff economic sanctions will effectively force Iran to disband its nuclear program.
Although 76 percent of Americans believe that Iran is a serious national security threat to the United States, only 35 percent are ready to favor military intervention. This means that even though most Americans believe it’s quite likely Iran will develop a nuclear weapon and that economic sanctions will fail to work, they aren’t willing for Americans to engage in another military intervention. This suggests that Americans may recognize there are other means to promote peace, prosperity, and American defense,
besides intervening militarily.
Paul,
You disavowed your namesake Ron Paul. I would like to know why. What do we have left as US voters to change the way things are and what do we stand to lose for supporting such a person?
It’s not that I fail to see why Ron Paul appeals to many Americans. The fact that Thoreau’s words: “That government is best which governs least,” so often get attributed to Thomas Jefferson, indicate what a core American value they express. And Paul taps right into that tradition. The problem is, when this small-government ethos first developed there was no such thing as corporate power. Paul’s small-government approach would simply solidify the rule of the corporate-state. He’s agnostic about climate change, favors getting rid of school loans, wants abortion outlawed, opposes foreign aid. His opposition to the wars of the last decade does not nullify the fact that in so many other ways he is an expression of the narrow-minded prejudices that color the attitudes prevalent across much of small-town white America.
The best Paul can do, I believe, would be to throw the presidential campaign into such disarray that a third party candidate could emerge and galvanize enough support to break the two-party system. In 2008, for the first time, I had the naive belief that I was performing an important civic act by voting (for Obama needless to say). This time around I’ve yet to decide whether I’ll even vote.
You make good points Paul, yet it seems as though the followers are either blind to Dr. Paul’s past, or just like him for what he says, without giving any thought to what the consequences might be if he were elected and implemented or tried to implement those changes. We shall see how well his momentum carries, will he go the distance, or flame out as the others have done? One positive outcome if he gets the nod, he will put up a lively discourse, one that we haven’t seen in a long while, IMHO.
Well, as I’ve said before, I think Paul’s candidacy has had a positive effect — but that’s not the same as saying I’d vote for him.