I’ve been doing some thinking about Ron Paul lately. I agree with many of the principles that he stands for, but there are several trouble spots that prevent me from getting fully behind his candidacy.

My Problems With Ron Paul’s Platform:

1. Racist comments made in newsletters published under his name in the 80’s and 90’s. (related post)
2. Objection to free trade agreements: here. Note: Paul is not opposed to free trade, but he impractically believes that we don’t need international agreements to make it happen.
3. Inflexibility on providing a path to citizenship to the illegal aliens that keep our economy running
4. His pro-life stance. Paul has argued that abortion, like all social issues, should be decided at the state level. Perhaps that’s consistent with the Constitution, but there are certain rights that need to be enforced at the federal level when states are backward. Another example: gay marriage should be protected at the federal level….delegating this issue to the states simply won’t work because states need to recognize the laws of other states.

I am also struggling with libertarianism. I am aligned with most of the principles, but I find myself wanting someone more practical and ‘presidential’ (whatever that means) than Ron Paul. Remaining true to every principle of libertarianism would require a massive shift in government policies. I’m not sure I have the stomach for all of that change. If I did, would Ron Paul be the most effective agent to enact that change?

If the CT primary were held today, I’d still vote for him, but I’m starting too examine the other candidates.

To help clear my confusion, I ranked the issues most important to me, and analyzed each candidates’ position (see graphic). Three key points:

1. Ron Paul’s stances on free trade, gay marriage and women’s rights are problems for me.
2. On social issues, I like the old Mitt Romney.
3. My views on foreign policy are extreme. Good discussion of libertarianism and foreign policy here and here.