We Don't Need Another "Wartime President"

By Ron Paul

Recently, Ted Cruz made the following comment that I'd like to address: "Our enemies are at war with us. I believe our nation needs a wartime president to defend it."

That's a dangerous and immoral statement. Where does Cruz get the idea that a wartime president is wonderful, especially when we're generally the one who start all the wars? Syria's Assad did not declare war against us. We said that "Assad has to go" so now we're over there messing that country up.

George W. Bush actually said the same thing. It has been reported that Bush knew that all presidents who want to be "great" have to be wartime presidents. So he went out looking for war, and he ended up with his war. I don't know if history will ever show that George W. Bush was a great president because he was a wartime president.

The big issue with Ted Cruz is that he implies that America needs a good wartime president because we've been attacked. But we're the ones that invaded Iraq, invaded Afghanistan, got into Libya and Ukraine, and now we're seriously involved in Syria. 

To want a wartime president is another way of saying that you want an authoritarian president! Wartime presidents have unusual powers. People often give up their freedoms out of fear and in response to war propaganda. So wartime presidents are very dangerous, especially when we're the ones starting the wars!

People generally know this to be true, and ultimately come around to this feeling. Unfortunately, we now have a lot of candidates who are competing with one another to be another wartime president. I consider that very dangerous because they should instead be talking about a foreign policy where we wouldn't be militarily antagonizing other countries, and where we wouldn't get into war without proper authority.

When someone says that we need a "wartime president" be very careful, and very leery because it's very dangerous to liberty.

---