I haven't seen the second Republican debate, but I'm amazed at the sneering comments directed at Ron Paul. Perhaps watching the candidates debate, rather than just reading the text, will change my mind but I doubt it. The congressman's remark that Islamic terrorists attack Americans not because of our freedom but because of our government's intrusion (in Iran, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Bosnia, Libya, etc.) into Islamic countries with bombs or troops seems a reasonable if simplified explanation. "They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free," Paul explained. "They come and they attack us because we're over there."

By "over there" I would add (and perhaps the congressman would not) that it's not just our military that infuriates the Islamic world, but our pornography, our obnoxious music, our racy movies--in a word--our culture. It's not our fault that they buy our culture and hate it at the same time. Americans simultaneously buy their oil and curse it. Their hypocrisy is not so hard to understand when we confront our own.

The argument that "They hate us because we're free" has always struck me as obtuse and self-serving. It's a way of avoiding the question of why many Muslims hate us and at the same time giving ourselves a pat on the back. The more important point is to understand that they do hate us. But it shouldn't be forbidden to ask why. Support for Israel, wars with Islamic nations, our ubiquitous culture, government leaders using the U.S. as a scapegoat for domestic problems, and resentment over our success are a few of the causes for Islamic hatred of the United States. The most cogent and concise answer to the why-do-they-hate-us question comes from Samuel Huntington. In The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, the Harvard professor writes: "The underlying problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power. The problem for Islam is not the CIA or the U.S. Department of Defense. It is the West, a different civilization whose people are convinced of the universality of their culture and believe that their superior, if declining, power imposes on them the obligation to extend that culture throughout the world. These are the basic ingredients that fuel conflict between Islam and the West."

Just because we identify what motivates our enemies doesn't mean that we should automatically change our behavior. Should we really seek the affirmation of people who practice female cliterectomy, partake in honor killings, force women to wear masks over there faces, and engage in other forms of barbarism? When in doubt, do the opposite of what they want. But if changing a policy is just and in the national interest, why not switch course? Why should we have policed conflicts in Bosnia, Lebanon, and Somalia? How did bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan bolster American interests? Was invading Iraq on the whole a beneficial decision for America? Questioning our bellicose policies in the Middle East shouldn't be off limits, particularly in a political debate. This is especially true for a Republican presidential debate. The recent GOP drubbing at the ballot box had much to do with the unpopularity of those bellicose policies and the greatest obstacle to success for the candidate who wins the nomination will be the unpopularity of those bellicose policies.

Why not talk about serial interventionism now rather than lose because of it in November of '08? Browbeating the guy who puts his finger on the GOP's biggest problem doesn't speak well for the other nine GOP candidates who hope to be president. America sent the Republicans a message in November '06. Republicans didn't listen. Ron Paul repeated that message Tuesday night. Ignore such warnings at your own peril.

I wrote a whole book in response to the ugly, irrational response to 9/11 that blamed America for the attacks. The first chapter of Why the Left Hates America exhaustively examines the knee-jerk, blame-America response to 9/11. Ron Paul's debate comments may be provocative, but they bear no resemblance to the reflexive anti-Americanism that greeted 9/11, particularly among intellectual morons and their campus camp followers. Had he said anything like that, I would withdraw my support for him. I just don't see how any honest and intelligent person can say that Dr. Paul blames 9/11 on America based on his words in Tuesday's debate. Nevertheless, that's what people are saying. This is because questioning the president's idiotic explanation that we are hated because we are free has become the third rail of Republican politics.

Call for an unpoliced border, for tax funding of infanticide, for an unconstitutional repeal of the Second Amendment, or for limits on political speech through reforms of campaign finance laws, and you will remain in the good graces of GOP insiders. Dare to suggest that invading Iraq was a mistake, or that decades of military interventions in Islamic lands has catalyzed Islamic hatred of America, and you become anathema. This myopia in large part explains why the GOP became anathema to voters last fall.

Juxtapose Paul's position, that what we do rather than who we are incites anti-Americanism, with the president's explanation for why Islamic terrorists hate us: "They hate us, because we're free. They hate the thought that Americans welcome all religions. They can't stand that thought. They hate the thought that we educate everybody. They hate our freedoms. They hate the fact that we hold each individual--we dignify each individual. We believe in the dignity of every person. They can't stand that." That sounds nice. It makes you feel good. But it's not true. Did Muhammed Atta fly the jet into the World Trade Center screaming, "This is for educating everybody!" Your brain is on "off" if you believe this.

There are a multitude of reasons why Islamic terrorists seek to kill Americans. Foremost among them is the one the Texas congressman highlights: our longstanding and heavy military presence in the Middle East. A quarter-century of military actions, even justified military actions, takes its toll. The many, many military interventions weren't all good. They weren't all bad. Rational people can judge their worth to America's just interests on a case-by-case basis. But that's not the way enraged nationalists/religious fundamentalists in that part of the world analyze the bombings, the invasions, and the peacekeeping missions.

The extraordinary response to Paul's remarks is not from ordinary viewers, who voted Paul second place in the ten-man field in a FoxNews.com poll, the winner in WorldNetDaily's poll on the debate, and the clear winner in the MSNBC internet poll. It's from Rudy fans and GOP insiders. A New York Post news piece dubbed Paul "a fringe Republican White House hopeful with little support" and shamefully claimed that Paul tried "to blame the United States for 9/11." RightWingNews labels Paul part "nutty, America hating, conspiracy loving crank." "Furthermore, after he bent over backwards to justify Al-Qaeda's 9/11 attack last night, I don't even want him in the Republican Party, much less as a Presidential candidate," fumed John Hawkins, the site's proprietor, who has issued no similar excommunication orders that I'm aware of based on Giuliani's support for abortion funding or McCain's enthusiasm for open borders. Byron York sniffed that the spotlight Paul enjoyed was "not the sort of name recognition Republican presidential candidates want."

Why, then, are so many people saying Ron Paul won the debate?

Paul refutes charges that he "blames America" for 9/11 here: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/05/16/ron-paul-demands-giuliani-read-the-9-11-report-apologise/

"Why then are so many people saying Ron Paul won the debate?" They are saying this because he did. The fact that Republican partisians are acting as they are is because they are hopelessly out of touch with the voters. My pick for the Republican nomination wouild be Ron Paul, however, I'm not holding my breath waiting for the Republicans to nominate him.

From watching the relevant portions of the debate and the post debate commentary, it seems all Ron Paul did was suggest that American foreign policy has played a role in motivating Islamic terrorists to attack us. It is undeniable that he is correct. In a way its too bad the debate moderators shut down that portion of the debate by changing the subject. I think this is a debate we need to have.

Ron Paul makes reference to certain foreign policy activities by the US. It would have been nice to have been able to examine the ones he mentioned within the proper context. It also would have been nice to have a discussion about the true nature of the brand of Islam that is practiced by our enemies. It seems to me that the brand of Islam as practiced by our enemies is pretty close to pure evil. It seems to me that a combination of some clearly questionable foreign policy decisions on the part of American leaders combined with the reprehensible nature of the brand of Islam that is practiced by our enemies have combined to create a "perfect storm" of sorts.

One of the neat things about America is we are able to take stock of oursleves and make appropiate adjustments where needed. I don't see this quality in our enemies. It is possible that I simply missed it. For example, it does not seem to me that are any "Ron Paul's" in Iran or Iraq, at least not in Shia or Sunni areas of Iraq. Also, there are no "Ron Paul's" in Russia or China. At least none who are alive!!

(1) Well said, Dan, but you're missing the point. Rudy siezed an opportunity to score cheap political points, and it worked. His "I'm-not-going-to-stand-here-and-listen-to-you-bad-mouth-the-United-States-of-America" sound-bite is all over the news.

(2) Style over substance point: Paul may be the closet thing to a conservative, but let's face it, he's too old, too ugly, and not a talented enough orator to win an election.

(3) Minor detail unrelated to Paul: I wonder whether those who live in D.C. (or other cities with a rail system) know that the third rail metaphor is lost on most of the country. I grew up in a suburb of Dallas (a metropolitan area of 5 million people, but too spread out for a rail system), and I had never heard of the third rail until I moved to D.C.

I think Paul's theory on why 9/11 happened is fairly accurate. It's about time somone had the balls to say it.

Thanks, Ralph. The third rail is what carries electricity to the train. If you touch it, you die. If you find yourself on the tracks, you need not be afraid of the two rails that serve as the track for the train's wheels. The third rail is the one you should avoid.

As his claim to fame remains what he did in the aftermath of 9/11, Rudy sounds like a one note candidate and when Paul pitched a 9/11 related softball over the plate, Rudy hit it out of the park. But, is this the only reason that so many think he won the debate? What about the other candidates and the other issues? The American public is so easy.

Great post. Ron Paul has fired me up like I haven't been in at least 10 years when the GOP abandoned even the label of conservatism. I don't think I'm the only one, either. Note that I have been reading his "Texas Straight Talk" articles for a couple of years now, because like him I am very interested in monetary policy and our unconstitutional money and banking system. He's _always_ been the lone wolf out there protesting and voting against these things. But to hear him start to speak out in these debates has just stirred something. I hope more people wake up. The longer Ron Paul can make people *think* that will be a huge step up from where we have been.

"he's too old, too ugly, and not a talented enough orator to win an election."

Ralph: he beats the hell out of McCain on all three, Rudy and Romney on the last two (plus he looks more vigorous, even though he's older than Rudy -- Rudy really looked like sh*t), and he is the best spoken person running, because he can construct sentences that are smooth and meaningful, whereas most politicians can only do one of the two.

Dan,

Fantastic post. I just quoted you in the trackback, which saved me from saying much the same thing, but much less eloquently and persuasively.

In the post of mine, I briefly explain why this whole episode may be a political boon for Dr. Paul. Thanks to Giuliani and all the hand-wringing neo-cons on talk radio, Dr. Paul has received more press coverage than he ever could have hoped to achieve on his own.

And there are further indicators beyond the decidedly unscientific polls you cite: Technorati has "Ron Paul" listed as the #1 Search right now, with nearly 25,000 blogs mentioning his candidacy. I'm not going to prematurely get my hopes up, as I still see the greatest value of Dr. Paul's campaign being in his sticking around long enough to substantially impact all areas of the debate. But this is already better than I could have ever hoped.

I expanded on my aforementioned post just a moment ago in an entry I titled, "Educating Rudy." Here I discuss what American exceptionalism is and what it should not be, and I embedded an excellent video of a portion of a recent speech given by Dr. Paul in New Hampshire.

I love one quote of his in particular from that speech, and it is relevant to this post of yours. He said,

“[There are those who say, ‘We gotta go over there and fight them there, because we don’t want them over here.’ I think there is a great fallacy in that logic, mainly because they came over here because we were over there.”

Again, great job, Dan.

Sorry - here's that link to my "Educating Rudy" post: http://eric.langborgh.com/?p=540