I think the issue of Iran could resonate with GOP voters if they'd step back and really think about what the other candidates are saying; it really blows my mind how everyone is nodding along with some of these talking points. Even ignoring the larger historic problems with an intervention in Iran, the main Republican candidates are refusing to rule out this:
An unprovoked nuclear attack on a country without the ability to strike back, for developing nuclear technologies we've condoned unconditionally in other countries regardless of those countries' tendencies to have militarist coups and civil wars, to lose track of nuclear weapons, and to involve themselves in 60-year-long wars with other nuclear powers. Oh, right, and this decision will be made by the President alone, that President being either one of the candidates currently under fire for not being able to make up their minds about far less important things, or maybe the candidate who doesn't read anything about the politics of the region, or maybe, if you're lucky, one of the candidates who will find a solution through prayer. Which is a great idea until you realize that's what the other side does, too.
The proper American public response ought to be "
What?"
"
We can't take that off the table?"
I think if they're reminded of the fact that the last nuclear strike we used
saved millions of lives and ended the worst war in history, at the start of which a Congress of elected representatives voted to
defend our country, and that
that strike was and is controversial and harmful to our image abroad, maybe the average citizen can begin to reframe, in their own estimation, the current proposals. I think that even with the current hypernationalism, most conservative voters realize the US does not exist in a void, and has to have a responsible foreign policy - the move in most of the GOP towards staying in Iraq to "stabilize the region" shows that. If Ron pushes his noninterventionism, I really think he'll pick up a lot of votes.
Additionally, I heard the point made (it may well have been in one of the interviews) that "if Al Qaeda hates us for our freedom, why didn't they attack Switzerland?" and I think it's a much better sound byte than anyone gave it credit for. Ron Paul needs to get GOP voters to step away from the nationalism Bush's administration has imposed upon the country if he wants to get votes from security candidates like Giuliani, and I think just pointing out the facts will do the job.
Edit:
Convincing liberal voters may be more of a challenge, because the idea that government should help people financially is now deeply ingrained in our culture, and the trend is to expand the notion (into healthcare) rather than shrink it. But I think if Ron talks about "quaint" American values of self-reliance and hard work, focuses on how welfare damages the economy (he is an expert on the economic ideas of Mises I believe) and, most importantly, emphasises that corruption causes government power goes to help big corporations (a big WINNER of an argument in my opinion), and emphasizes that reducing welfare is something which will be done gradually and that nobody will be left to starve, then I think you can defuse alot of this opposition.
This is one way of answering liberals, but I think the simplest and best answer is Ron's, that getting out of the war in Iraq and scaling down the military to a level necessary for defense will make up most of the loss from the contraction of the IRS, and won't require cutting still-important government programs like Medicare. Is there anything more elegant than that?
