Political Skepticism from a Libertarian-leaning Independent

The House passed a resolution this week expressing support for the Iranian dissidents and condemning the violence being perpetrated against them. The resolution was near unanimous, passing by a margin of 405-1.

Ron Paul was the only member of the House with the courage and intelligence to vote against this meaningless exercise in feel-good showboating. The fact that he was the only member to vote against it has become a big part of the story, and led to moronic criticism of the one person who dared to go against the flow. He voiced his opposition by saying this:

I rise in reluctant opposition to H Res 560, which condemns the Iranian government for its recent actions during the unrest in that country. While I never condone violence, much less the violence that governments are only too willing to mete out to their own citizens, I am always very cautious about “condemning” the actions of governments overseas. As an elected member of the United States House of Representatives, I have always questioned our constitutional authority to sit in judgment of the actions of foreign governments of which we are not representatives. I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little. And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran.

Of course I do not support attempts by foreign governments to suppress the democratic aspirations of their people, but when is the last time we condemned Saudi Arabia or Egypt or the many other countries where unlike in Iran there is no opportunity to exercise any substantial vote on political leadership? It seems our criticism is selective and applied when there are political points to be made. I have admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly.

I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.

Even though the resolution flies in the face of Obama’s position on Iran, the White House won’t come out and say it was a stupid thing to do. Obama’s position of silence on the matter was quite possible the most intelligent foreign policy decision he’s made yet. But he’s not going to come out and tell his Democrat-controlled Congress that they are morons for passing what amounts to an official government statement of support for the Iranian protestors.

Pat Buchanan also has a great article up on the subject, in which he concludes:

Why interfere? Why turn a widening confrontation between the Ayatollah Khamenei and the people into a spat between the president of the United States and the president of Iran?

It is impossible to believe a denunciation of the regime by Obama will cause it to stay its hand if it believes its power is imperiled. But it is certain that if Obama denounces Tehran, those demonstrators will be portrayed as dupes and agents of America before and after they meet their fate.

If standing up and denouncing the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad from 7,000 miles away is moral heroism, it is moral heroism at other people’s expense.

The violence is heating up today and there’s not a doubt in my mind that it’s at least in part due to this act of grandstanding by the useless morons in Congress.