This afternoon, I watched Ron Paul on the December 23 Meet the Press. Dr. Paul often makes me ask, "Are there other ways than the status quo to get positive results?"
On some level, his overall libertarianism makes me ask this. Liberals act as if government spending is the only way to ameliorate poverty, to educate children, to clean up the environment, and to help people pay for health care. Whenever Republicans try to cut spending or (at the very least) restrain its growth, liberals are ready to sound the alarm. "People will starve in the streets!" they warn. But perhaps there are other ways than federal spending to deal with poverty and other problems. And maybe government intervention makes matters worse.
As for that episode of Meet the Press, Dr. Paul discussed three specific issues that made me ask this question: foreign policy, the Civil War, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
First, as with his view on domestic policy, Ron Paul believes that a foreign policy of government intervention only makes matters worse. Not only is it costly, he argues, but it also antagonizes other nations. And (contra Rush Limbaugh) he doesn't just mean the Iraq War, for he includes America's involvement in the Middle East as early as the 1950's, when the U.S. helped overthrow the government of Iran. "How would we feel if they were over here?" he asks. To support his view that non-interventionism will encourage peace, Dr. Paul points out that the number of suicide bombers declined after Reagan withdrew American troops from Lebanon. Moreover, he contends that American intervention hinders genuine peace. For him, the American government has interfered in attempts to make peace in the Middle East, since it has disrupted peaceful overtures by the Arab League towards Israel. As far as Dr. Paul is concerned, trade among the nations is the best way to foster international cooperation.
Ron Paul's argument is tempting. Is war the only way to solve our problems with other nations? There is a sense in which attacking someone else can fuel resentment. Is this why there are Islamic nations that hate us? Trade can hopefully make nations more interdependent, which may encourage them to treat one another better. I don't know much about the Arab League's overtures towards Israel, but can the nations arrive at a peaceful solution without our interference? Is the U.S. government making matters worse abroad, as it often does at home?
Second, Tim Russert was grilling Ron Paul on the Civil War. He quoted an article that said, "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery." Ron Paul stood his ground, saying that slavery in America could have ended without loss of life or a massive expansion in government power. According to Dr. Paul, slavery was ending throughout the world, and the Northerners could have bought the slaves if they were truly interested in their freedom. Tim Russert acted as if Lincoln's way was the only solution, and that anyone who disagrees supports slavery. But could slavery have ended through other means?
Third, regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Russert quoted Paul as saying, "Contrary to the claims of...supporters of the Civil Rights Act of '64, the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of '64 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." Surprisingly, Dr. Paul stood by this statement. Unfortunately, he did not address how he would stop discrimination without civil rights laws. His main argument was that the Civil Rights Act infringed on property rights and forced people to interact with those they did not like, which (according to him) was not the federal government's responsibility.
Did the federal government make matters worse by forcing the South to integrate, since force can often breed resentment? Was there another way to promote racial equality, without further straining race relations? African-American conservative and economist Thomas Sowell states the following about the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
"Liberals looking back on the 1960s take special pride in their role on racial issues, for civil rights laws and the advancement of blacks out of poverty...But what do the facts show? [A]s for black economic advances, the most dramatic reduction in poverty among blacks occurred between 1940 and 1960, when the black poverty rate was cut almost in half, without any major government programs of the Great Society kind that began in the 1960s. Liberals love to point to the rise of blacks out of poverty since 1960 as proof of the benefits of liberal programs, as if the continuation of a trend that began decades earlier was proof of how liberals saved blacks" (see RealClearPolitics - Articles - Preserving the Liberal Vision).
Was the 1964 Civil Rights Act the only way to improve the lives of African-Americans?
I'm not saying that I oppose the Iraq War, Lincoln, or the 1964 Civil Rights Act. You will find me defending Bush on this blog, and, during Black History Month, I will reflect a lot more on the Civil Rights movement. But I question the notion that massive government intervention is the only way to do things, since it can often inhibit us from thinking outside of the box.