Palmetto Freedom Forum: What Can Ron Paul Expect from the Panel?

On Labor Day, five Republicans seeking the nomination as the Party's candidate for President will have the opportunity to drill down on their policy positions at The Palmetto Freedom Forum. The Forum should be one of the most facinating events of the entire 2012 Presidential campaign. It will feature a full-throated debate on the political philosophy of our Founding Fathers, Natural Law.

The forum is sponsored by American Principles Project. Each candidate will participate individually in a question and answer session with three panelists – Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), Congressman Steve King (R-IA), and Dr. Robert George, founder of American Principles Project and McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University.

South Carolina citizens are very familiar with our conservative Senator Jim DeMint. Steve King is a conservative Republican Congressman from the 5th District of Iowa. We are curious, however, about the only non-elected official who will be interrogating the Republican candidates, Dr. Robert George.

Just who is Dr. George? New York Times Journalist David Kirkpatrick calls George, "the reigning brain of the Christian right." He published a lengthy article about Dr. George's philosophy as a Christian writer. See David D. Kirkpatrick, The Conservative Christian Big Thinker, N.Y Times Magazine (Dec. 20, 2009).

Dr. George is a Roman Catholic with a law and theology degree from Harvard. He also has Doctors Degree in philosophy from Oxford. Dr. George bases his political philosophy on the concept of Natural Law. Kirkpatrick writes,

George is the leading voice for a group of Catholic scholars known as the new natural lawyers. . . . What makes his natural law “new” is that it disavows dependence on divine revelation or biblical Scripture — or even history and anthropology. Instead, George rests his ethics on a foundation of “practical reason”: “invoking no authority beyond the authority of reason itself,” as he put it in one essay.

The Natural Law philosophy based upon reason was a philosophy advocated by philosophers in the 17th and 18th Century, including John Locke and Thomas Paine. The Founding Fathers were so familiar with Natural Law that John Adams apologized for Jefferson's initial draft of the Declaration of Independence on the grounds that it seemed to borrow heavily on the writing of Locke.

The first sentence of the American Declaration of Independence justified American independence because of the English King George's repeated violation of "Laws of Nature." The second sentence declared that the individual liberties of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," were endowed by our Creator and unalienable. The founding document of America declared Natural Law truth. Thus, the American government is based upon the concept of self-ownership, or individual liberty.

At first blush, it would seem that the political philosophy of Dr. George would be in accord the political philosophy of Dr. Ron Paul. Both men advocate principles of individual liberty, and the philosophy of Natural Law, which Dr. Paul calls the "first principles." Both subscribe to the concept of "Just War" as a general limitation on the authority of a government to commit its people to war.

Natural Law proponents usually stand in accord with Dr. Paul against Bush-era Republican positions that advocate for interventionist foreign policies, and which justify laws like the Patriot Act or the Food Safety Act. That federal legislation destroyed individual liberty.

However, according Kirkpatrick's article, Dr. George has publicly stated he favored George Bush's 2003 decision to invade Iraq, and argued that Iraq was a just war. Ron Paul strongly disagrees with that notion, and further asserts that it violates the Constitution because it is an illegal, undeclared war. As Dr. George questions Dr. Paul at the forum, we may find out how Dr. George justifies the American intervention in Iraq as a just war.

Both of the politicians on the panel (DeMint and King) have consistently voted in favor or expanding war efforts abroad, and for extending the Patriot Act authority for federal law enforcement. Such laws directly infringe upon individual liberties of American citizens. As such, the votes of DeMint and King arguably violate natural law principles of individual liberty. The power to spy on Americans and compel production of private banking, Internet, and medical records without search warrants is a power far beyond that envisioned by our Founding Fathers.

It will be interesting to see if Dr. George provides philosophical cover for DeMint and King's votes for laws like the Patriot Act. Dr. George may use Natural Law philosophical arguments to contradict Dr. Paul's anti-war stand, or Dr. Paul's position that the federal government has invaded individual liberties by extra-Constitutional expansion of federal domestic police power. That interchange will be facinating and enlightening.

In a related social conservative area, Dr. George also argues human sexual activity outside of marraige is unnatural and immoral. He uses an interpretation of Natural Law to support an argument that the only moral sexual act is sexual intercourse within marraige.

It is unclear whether Dr. George will assert that viewpoint on Natural Law morality translates into federal Constitutional authority to define marraige and prohibit sexual activity of Americans outside of it. If so, it would seem Dr. George's interpretation of Natural Law would contradict the viewpoints of Locke, Adams, Paine, Jefferson, and Dr. Paul; to wit, that each individual owns himself and must have liberty to make personal choices without the force of government being brought to bear. Again, watching Dr. George question Dr. Paul about such philosophical matters of liberty will be interesting and compelling.

Can Dr. Paul spar with an intellectual giant like Dr. George? That is a good question.

One great aspect of the Palmetto Freedom Forum is that unlike the network debates it will allow the Republican candidates more time to explain their viewpoints on various issues. For Dr. Paul, who has strong philosophical arguments for all his positions, this is vitally important. It is often difficult for Dr. Paul to convey ideas in a thirty second soundbite of a debate.

On balance, however, we are skeptical that the Palmetto Freedom Forum will work to Dr. Paul's benefit. It seems unlikely that DeMint and King will support Dr. Paul's argument against the endless wars on terror, or that the Patriot Act constitutes an unwarranted expansion of federal authority and spending. We would expect questions from both that attempt to demagogue the issue by way of fear mongering to justify the war on terror. We anticipate a three-against-one fight on foreign wars and the expansion of a federal police state as a means to fight the wars on drugs and terror.

Moreover, the presence of Dr. George on the Panel may serve to provide philosophical cover for DeMint's and King's votes on these matters of national security, or for advocacy in the area of expanding federal authority to regulate marraige and human sexual activity. If Dr. George can neutralize Dr. Paul's philosophical argument, such advocacy will provide cover for politicians DeMint and King.

Even though it is clear Dr. George is a powerful intellectual weapon on the Freedom Forum panel, we believe that Dr. Paul will vigorously contest with him in the field of the philosophy of liberty. Dr. Paul is no slouch on explaining liberty. Therefore, we expect the interchange will reveal many areas of agreement between Dr. George and Dr. Paul on key philosophical issues as they relate to limited government and Natural Law. Thus, as iron sharpens iron, we hope Dr. Paul and Dr. George will sharpen each other and the public's understanding of our American tradition of individual liberty.