Ron Paul is no compassionate conservative when it comes to Myanmar

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas is proud of what he sees as his truly conservative credentials. He's for smaller government, much smaller. He's for foreign trade but not foreign military involvement. He wants to spend that money wasted on empire-building right back here in these United States of America. He'd also get rid of the Education Department and the Federal Reserve.

His followers, who reverently call him Dr. Paul, like the way he would strictly adhere to the Constitution as he sees it and return more freedoms to the little guy in the face of big government.

Paul fans -- regularly called Paulites, Paultards or Paulunteers -- also see a gentle humility in the weathered but wise hands of the 72-year-old OB/GYN, who reputedly has delivered about 4,000 infants into life in this wondrous world.

But there seems to be another side to Paul. A mean, vicious, cruel and uncaring side. A side that sees millions of humans -- albeit Myanmarese who are not registered to vote in Texas -- afflicted with a historic cyclone, countless thousands of lives lost, devastation everywhere, and that could care less.

This week when a Congressional resolution came up for a vote merely offering "condolences and sympathy" to the people of Myanmar affected by the recent deadly cyclone, Ron Paul, the doting grandfather, the millionaire, was the only member of the entire House of Representatives to vote "No."

The Myanmar resolution, like all those goofy pieces of symbolic legislation, would...

... have done absolutely nothing for the stricken millions. Not even provided one paper towel. It's a cheap publicity trick that elected legislators waste countless hours on each session.

Such worthless resolutions don't even get much publicity anymore. And, to put it in blunt political terms, exactly how strong is the Myanmarese vote around here anyway?

So Paul's symbolic stand against symbolic silliness looks good.

But then along come the sharp-eyed folks over at Radaronline.com, specifically Nick Curran, who finds out Paul's stand against symbolic silliness when it comes to Asians whose huts and hovels were erased by a cyclone is not quite so principled, and that Paul is a whole lot more enthused about dumb statements of sentiment when the silliness is closer to home.

Come to find out that Paul has voted in favor of similar empty resolutions to congratulate the University of Kansas football team for a swell season and winning the 2008 FedEx Orange Bowl, to laud the Louisiana State football team for, golly, winning the 2007 Bowl Championship Series and to celebrate the New York Giants for their come-from-behind victory in Super Bowl XLII.

Seriously, what Texas congressman near Houston wouldn't want to get on the official Congressional record wishing all the best to every one of the good folks up in New York City?

Wait till the Houston Texans find out about that one. Or, worse for Paul, some Dallas fans.

By the way, here's the latest update on the situation in Burma.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Photo: Associated Press

Comments

[Jeff]

MM,
I too am a non practicing Christian, but that does not determine whether or not I am charitable. I can feel for those in Myanmar and I can give on my own accord. My faith has nothing to do with it, niether do my political convictions. That is the very reason our government should stay out of this. We elect our officials to represent us here at home, and to uphold the rule of law in this land, not some other land that has declaired themselves an independent nation. We as private citizens can give all that we want, but as soon as the goverment gives our money or goods to another nation it becomes a political issue and is no longer charity but theft. I do not tell you how to do with that which belongs to you. I expect the same in return, and somehow in the end we as Americans with good hearts and a helping hand can come together and assist in these peoples need. Government can only get in the way and the proof is in every action they make, just read the paper today-- tomorrow--- and next week if you think I'm wrong.

[PA4RP]

My fellow patriots have responded adequately I just felt the need to add a little bit. It is correct that Dr. Paul voted no because of the last part of the resoultion stating that we had the right to tell their government to forego a scheduled vote on a referendum. We have no right to tell another country how to run their government.
Secondly, what if China Saudi Arabia said that we are not doing enough for the Katrina victims and decided to pass a resolution saying we had to conduct our relief efforts according to their standards. And better yet, that we needed to cease all other activity by our government and concentrate on the Katrina victims. Is it a bad thing to help our own people- of course not- but can you imagine if any country tried to force us to do anything.
Lastly, these compansionate reps voted to spend taxpayers money not their own. It is a lot easier to spend other people's money.

[MM]

To have a government that would not help people in need where ever they are would be reprehensible to me. Whether they happen to be over some man-made line we call a border is not the point. I agree 110% that we have some terrible arrangements with other governments but humanitarian aid is a different issue. If people are suffering we need to help whether it be as individuals or as a government.

[Matthew Garrison]

Ron Paul supports helping others through voluntary action as opposed to theft (taxation). The tax dollars that pay for federal government involvement in foreign natural disaster relief are the same ones that create deadly disasters in the form of unconstitutional, unjustifiable wars. If anything, Ron Paul truly believes that there is goodness in humanity and that without government meddling, people will behave humanely and deal with disasters more efficiently without politicizing these events. I agree with Dr. Paul. The only role of the federal government is to protect life, liberty, and property and to remain constrained by the U.S. constitution.

[Tannim]

Looks like the anti-Paul idiots are out in full force, with Malcolm leading the charge.

First of all, he's called DOCTOR Paul because he is a PHYSICIAN. HE HAS EARNED THAT TITLE! He did not have it bestowed on him as some honorary degree. He earned at Duke Medical School, one of the best in the nation. It's not reverence, it's proper respect--something his denigrators seem to lack in spades!

Second, the reason he voted against it has been explained in the posts. Had Andrew did his homework instead of jumping to erroneous conclusion, in other words, been responsible in his journalism, he would have known that. Instead he choose to pick praising sports resolutions that impact no one and don't intrude government on anyone. The difference is obviously lost on Malcolm since he can't seem to tell the difference between congratulating a sports team and interfering with the internal affairs of a sovereign (albeit dictatorial and despotic) government.

Third, "compassionate conservatism" is a joke, since those with the purse strings attached to it decide whom to be compassionate to. Dr. Paul rejects that silliness, as it only leads to more wasteful government (ala OFBCI, for starters!).

Seriously, Andrew, you've gone badly downhill in the past few weeks. You either need a vacation, a journalism refresher, or just retire. You've gone from so-so to disgraceful.

[Thomas]

Besides being silly, the resolution contained a statement directing the military government to put off the vote on the resolution. It was a little too late for that, adding to the silliness, but in addition this kind of presumption to tell other governments what to do is something Paul shuns.

[Tyler]

When a nation has a 650 billion dollar deficit in one year does it really need to be stated that our government doesn't need to send 3,250,000 dollars to a nation......For the love of god read the whole bill before you pass judgment.

[Chris in Thorofare]

Thats a funny post there Joe, especially considering the artificially low interest rates that Allen Greenspan (head of the fed at the time) ran with for so long caused the inflation bubble.

And afterwards, when everything hit the fan, the Fed printed money and bailed out these big companies WITH TAXPAYER MONEY. That means you take the loss with inflation from printed money (already happening) and future taxes for you and your children.

These businesses under a free market system would bankrupt over making bad decisions. Are you telling me in a true free market other businesses woudn't fill the niche of bear sterns?

Do some research on the great depression, you will find the fed doing similiar things then to disastrous effect. Yes, the same Fed you throw your trust in existed during the great depression.

Its funny that the only time a free market did exist in this country (up until 1913) that the country was quite prosperous. There is surely no free market in this country now to judge, as evidenced by the bear sterns bailout. How can you claim it doesnt work then Joe?

[GC]

I usually shake my head and sigh when I see over-enthused Ron Paul supporters insulting you when, in the midst of writing an overall positive article about Paul, you crack a joke or two at his expense.

Now I'm shaking my head and sighing in your direction. Ron Paul doesn't vote for stupid symbolic gestures when he believes that it contains language that is antagonistic towards foreign nations. That piece of legislation was just that. Paul would surely have had no problem voting for it had it been nothing more than an empty sympathy gesture. What is the point, however, to the empty gesture when the words contained in it could be a justification for the slaughter of American aid workers?

I'm disappointed in you. Had you done your research you would have found Ron Paul's sound, reasoned logic on this votes and many others in the past.

[James]

Ron Paul is about letting the people decide how benevolent they want to be, not forcing benevolence on the people of the U.S. . If you want to personally donate that is your prerogative, and that is what the good Dr. is about. Please let us know how much you've given out of your own pocket!!! Also let us know if RP contributed out of his own...which if you did you would never report on anyway. And people wonder why the media is imploding. HACK!!!

[Jeff]

Joe,

I agree that philosophies on their own are just that, philosophies. But, where we differ is in the application of such philosophies. I our government were to abide by the laws it passed in the early stages of its formation we individuals would be in a stronger possition to take care of the needs of our own. I come from a long line of dirt farmers and mill hands, factory workers and general laborers. Hard work on the part of my family and being taught not to fear the hoe or the backache that comes with it is the biggest reason I have what I have and can do what I do. It's not a philosophy nor was it government that brought me to where I am today. But sure as the sun comes up in the morning, government can take what I have and what my family has and destroy 250 plus years of love and labor with sthe stroke of a pen. Dr. Paul does not say that we do not need a government, just a smaller one that has limitations that prevent it from harming the ones it is meant to protect. Government and poor judgment of some of our fellow Americans has led to this Credit-Housing crisis. Government actually help influence quite a lot the poor judgment. We have to live within our own means and borrow at our own risk. Government lives by these same standards with one exception, I don't expect you or anyone else to bail me out of a bad loan or business deal, but our government expects each and every one of us to bail it out of tough times. As far as the market goes, it is what it is, just a market and if we are free to participate in that market we get to choose what is good and what is bad just by controling it with our wallets. Do you remember the new Coke formula? It didn't take long before Coke became "Classic" again. And with gas prices as high as they are, how long will it be before smaller economy cars dominate our highways again. Everything is a cycle, we need to have the liberty to change with those cycles or we become just another once great but now failed nation/power. Sorry to ramble so much, but that my philosophy in a nut shell.

[TJ]

Paultards!!!! What! Come on man. Why don't you take a piece of that monster pay check of yours and send it over to Asia - you clown.

[Tominellay]

It's clear that Andrew Malcolm did NOT intend to discuss the House Resolution and its ramifications.

[Jeff]

MM,
Humanitarian aid can not come from a government, it must come from the people as individuals acting in accord with a cause. Otherwise it is forced and is nothing short of theft. I have no problem with giving and my family and I do. We give food , money and even labor when we see a need and can do so, but we don't force you or our neighbors to do the same, we may ask but thats as far as it should go.

[David]

http://mises.org/story/2985
The U.S. Government Should Not Aid Myanmar

Although any American is certainly welcome to contribute to the relief effort in Myanmar, no one should be forced to do so via his taxes or otherwise. It is a myth that there would not be sufficient aid to Myanmar without the government being involved in some way. Although I don't often agree with President Bush, he was certainly correct when he recently remarked that "the American people are generous people and they're a compassionate people." There is no doubt in my mind that Americans will give liberally to alleviate the suffering of the people of Myanmar. Many have done so already through donations to various relief agencies. But whether Americans give or don't give, it is still the case that it should be the decision of each individual American.

The case of Myanmar is a test of one's commitment to the freedom philosophy. A free society includes the freedom to be unconcerned, insensitive, or stingy. If the forced looting of the taxpayers for foreign-aid payments has always been wrong, then — cyclone or no cyclone — it is just as wrong now.

[Dan]

Interesting... you want to know why he voted against the bill? Read it. Somehow, I doubt you (or the majority of the representatives in Congress) took the time to actually read the bill, and instead just took it at face value.

If you read it, the bill includes a condemnation of the Burmese government/regime. Of course they're bad, but Ron Paul doesn't believe in condemning and threatening countries... he's all about staying out of foreign problems remember? There's a difference between the legislation cited in the blog and this, because those other bills were concerning things that happened in America, where the Congress has jurisdiction. Congress has no jurisdiction over Burma. Paul likely sees it as an act of aggression/war to condemn and threaten in the legislation. Besides, why should you offer sympathy? The bill/condolences are not going to go to the people of Burma. It's going to be sent to the regime there. Why should we offer sympathy to them if they're inhumane to their own people? What's the likelihood that this message even gets heard by the people if they live under an authoritarian dictator/regime? We have a hard enough time getting food and supplies into that country. You think they're going to open the door for our sympathy and criticism of their government?

I don't think you understand how strict Ron Paul's interpretation of the Constitution is.... basically, if it's not listed in it/word for word, he doesn't think it should be done, not without amending the Constitution.... he makes all those votes for philosophical reasons, not because he's racist.

[paul]

Really? You spend your time and influence writing from any angle to TRY and make Dr. Paul seem like a bad guy... You should be embarrassed, you look like a fool... This country doesn't need to hear this argument. They need to look at who would defend the constitution and the American working man. Not this petty garbage. Who cares how he voted on this issue and past like it. Do you think you proved something? I feel sorry for you dude.

[Scott]

Condolences and sympathy do not help people who are dying. Remember... this is the same Ron Paul who voted against using taxpayer dollars to buy on overpriced medal for Rosa Parks... and then went on to offer money out of his own pocket to pay for it while suggesting others in Congress do the same. Ron Paul is the -only- compassionate conservative of the bunch.

As for actually helping Myanmar beyond simple "condolences"... taxpayer dollars that are delivered to Myanmar through the wasteful chain of government and without the consent of the people are hardly the answer. The people want to help Myanmar... and so the people should. A fund should be setup outside of government so that those who are able can help those who are suffering in Myanmar. Period.

[Sid Davis]

Which is more compassionate, freedom or slavery?

I think Ron Paul is the most compassionate politician in the US. He does not advocate the government engineered system of plunder and control that the privileged few now enjoy. He fights against actions of the federal government that exceed those authorized by the Constitution, which is what that bill you endorse would have done. Nobody is stopping the LATimes from making contributions to those suffering disasters around the world? How much did you contribute?

I suggest that the LATimes perhaps is where lack of compassion is since you are fellow travelers in supporting the slave system. In case you don't understand slavery is the opposite of freedom, and both the federal government and the state of California are leaders in destroying expanding laws that have the effect of eroding freedom, imposing slavery.

Look in the mirror boys.

[Cez]

You're a disgrace to journalism.

[Dominique]

Shame on you for such a misleading title. It figures you only print half truths. You print only the part that makes your story stick. If it were me, I would have voted the same as Dr. Paul and for the same reasons. Mr. Malcolm you are just like our dumb politicians in congress. You don't care about America!!!
And as individual citizens, we can send our own money and condolences. Just like the Tsunami of 2004. WHO WAS THE BIGGEST DONORS, The AMERICAN PEOPLE and not the DAMN GOV. I happen to be one of those donors. Our government certainly has their own HUGE DOMESTIC PROBLEMS to be addressing than an empty letter of sympathy to the cyclone victims and the condemnation of the Junta. It's LIP SERVICE at it's best.They are trying to look good and only pick and choose who they really care about based on "what can we get from them" in return. God Bless the people of the world and pray for the governments of this world that do not serve their own people!!!!!

[Patrick]

Andrew,

If TJ's posting of the bill listed below is accurate, it would seem to me that it does more than just offer sympathy to the people of Myanmar. Perhaps your immigrant parents should have spent more time stressing the importance of a limited democracy, Constitutional Republic. But then again, should I really expect more from someone who was Laura Bush's press secretary? Even at your age, you should be ashamed to have that in your bio. Has the easy money been worth it, sir? It wouldn't quiet my conscience. You lack integrity, old man. It's time for you to retire.

[Mike]

Once again Paul has stuck to principle, and a so-called journalist, who doesn't investigate the entirety of this bill, gathers his opinion too hastily, and is his story turns into being a laughing stock.

Adhering to principle can sometimes come across as being callous, it's true. But the underlying concept of the principle itself is always just. One cannot make exceptions to the rule whenever it seems fit, no matter how strong the temptation. For when that precedent is set, it's a slippery slope. That type of weak thought process is what has gotten this country into the problems it's in.

I can only wish more Congressmen and women had the political courage and integrity of Paul.

[CT]

My only hope here is that you wrote this article KNOWING that Ron Paul supporters would explain WHY he voted against it. Ive read your past articles, I have been pleasantly surprised by your open minded approach to Dr Paul's stance on issues... but this? You either had a brain fart or have completely lost it! Is it really so hard to do your research before posting a peice of dirt like this? You have taken a vote in which Ron Paul carefully weighed in terms of constitutionality and YOU have made it sound heartless and cruel. SHAME ON YOU! I find it sad and dissapointing that a journalist that I have had a poitive edge toward has fallen into the doldrums of the same old tired "propeganda".
I hope this was just a slip up on your part.

[Lisa]

I haven't seen one person on here addressing the fact that WE HAVE NO MONEY to send them. Where the hell do you think it will come from people. It's easy to sit back and say we should help, well then guess what, watch out here comes more taxes. The money has to come from somewhere, and that is the taxpayer. If you want to save the world that's fine, do it as individuals, we know how to handle money way better than the government.