My old friend Joe Torres writes a little about his journey and the supposed debate:
Or at least it’s kind of like a debate. David Bahnsen has written this piece and Pastor Wilson has responded here.
I would think I am the “target audience” for Bahnsen’s article as I have been reliably Republican and conservative in my political approach, but for the last few years I find myself drawn more and more away from the Republicans and toward some of the Libertarians especially Ron Paul. I keep hearing from many Republicans how “crazy” and “anti-semitic” and “dangerous” Ron Paul is (or in Bahnsen’s case how crazy, etc. Ron Paul’s associates are), but I just haven’t seen it.
And articles like Bahnsen’s don’t really do much to persuade me as he dramatically undermines his case with his ad hominem attacks. I always think when a writer swerves into personal attacks it’s because he believes his substantive points are not getting the job done.
The substance of the wider disagreement between traditional Republicans and Ron Paul seems to boil down to two basic issues:
1) Is it helpful to our long term security to station and engage troops all over the world or not?
2) Should we eliminate centralized control over the money supply or not?
I grant there are several other peripheral issues, and who is going to agree on all the issues? I don’t think I even agree with myself on many issues from week to week.
Is Ron Paul a perfect candidate? Of course not. Who expects a perfect candidate? But he has successfully given a voice to one side of some of the big issues that had virtually no voice. And he’s made it very plausible to believe that our foreign policy and our monetary policy work hand in glove in a way that undermines our long term liberties.
<>
