0
0
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has created a great deal of controversy with his libertarian views. He has caused much turmoil both in the conservative camp and among liberals. It appears however, that only liberals are willing to talk about his views. The fact that so many of his views are also espoused by true liberals illustrates how the far right is sometimes nearly indistinguishable from the far left.
Several respected liberal writers have taken up the issue, but the comments by Nathan Fuller (link below) are among the most thoughtful. He also includes links to other writers should the reader wish to examine some of the comments more closely. Fuller is responding to comments in “Glenn Greenwald on Ran Paul: Why Worldview Matters.”
The main attraction of Ron Paul is his commitment to stopping what seems to be the United States involvement in endless war, a view that is likely attractive to much of the electorate regardless of their political leanings. Unfortunately, is appears not to be attractive to most political candidates. I believe that readers of the entire spectrum of political thought will find Fuller’s thoughts insightful. Additionally, the comments on this site are also studied and reasoned and do not contain the vitriol so often surfacing in reader comments.
On Voter Priorities
By Nathan L Fuller
A Response to Taryn Hart.
As his infamous newsletters resurface, as he gains national support, and as the Iowa caucus is held today, Ron Paul is all over the damn Internet, especially in progressive circles. Matt Stoller, Mike Tracey, Robert Scheer, and Glenn Greenwald – among many others – have all written compelling pieces on the liberal debates surrounding the noted libertarian.
Taryn Hart, who blogs at Plutocracy Files (whose Occupy Wall Street interview work I recommend), joins the discussion to critique Greenwald’s article, and since she requested my thoughts, I’ll provide them here. The piece is called “Glenn Greenwald on Ron Paul: Why Worldview Matters.”
A preliminary reminder: Hart is not among the primary targets of Greenwald’s piece. The article, entitled “Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies,” first and foremost takes aim at progressives who support Obama over Paul and continue to tout their anti-war credentials. As Hart makes explicitly clear in her first footnote, she does not “support Obama nor justify his actions as President.” Hart has claimed she is considering not voting, and I hope she revisits that discussion soon.
But she is a progressive, and the question of support for Paul, or at least his candidacy, remains. Hart’s criticism of Greenwald’s argument goes like this:
Specifically, Greenwald’s argument assumes that all that matters is a candidate’s positions on isolated issues – as if it’s just a matter of creating a ranked pro and con list for each candidate and crunching the numbers.
…
Greenwald suggests choosing between the candidates is just a matter of prioritizing a limited list of isolated issues. However, it’s not just a candidate’s positions on individual issues that are important**; what’s also important (in most instances more important) is the candidate’s worldview. A President’s worldview will determine the outcome of thousands of decisions the President will make, almost all of which will not be campaign issues and many of which are unforeseeable.
First, I take issue with the “isolated issues” claim – one I think trivializes progressives’ stance. Paul opposes our current wars (hot, cold, covert, on drugs, and on whistleblowers), opposes imperialism, has called American corporatism a route to “soft fascism,” supports Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks, has praised Occupy Wall Street, and opposes the Patriot Act and the growing surveillance and police state. These are many issues that progressives (especially under Bush) have supported in the past, and they are hardly isolated – reducing the military-industrial complex would reduce our national deficit, removing our troops from the Middle East and ending support for Israeli apartheid would have drastic effects in global relations, to comment on just two. …
It's true! Ron Paul is the best candidate in the race! His ideas are pure gold! The Denver Conspiracy Examiner can explain that one to you!
Sarah Palin, Senator DeMint of South Carolina, Charles Krauthammer, Mark Steyn, have all come out in favor of Ron Paul. They are all on the conservative far right.
They have not endorsed his candidacy nor will they. Charles Krauthammer is as big a neocon war lover as they come. What they're doing is attempting to soften Paul supporter's view of them in the hopes of swaying them to vote for whomever they prop up. How can you not see that?
The day I hear Till then Krauthammer constantley talking about the backers of the Super Pacs(Romney=Goldam, JP Mucker, Blackruckus.. that'll be the day I believe he is actually trying to report.. instead of pontificate. When the MSM in general,
are willing to discuss who gives them money for advertisements of Candidates(Central Bankers) I will believe they are not paid to control the election process.
Till then Charles is just another arm chair quarter back(No offence/wheel chair bound)
I've noticed that when you get election news on Google's news page there is never a mention of Ron Paul. You have to type in his name in order to read about him. Even when he was second place, I saw stories about third, fourth and fifth place candidates but none about Ron. Once again I had to look on my own. This is blatant favoritism on the part of a major internet outlet.
glad to know that im not the only one noticing this! cheers for speaking up!
CBS News on their Subsidiary "News radio" stations cover the elections every hour. I listened in the car for hours and heard every candidates name except for Ron Paul. So RON PAUL.. THAT"S ALL!
I hope the good faith-loving people of SC do the right thing- go for the golden rule candidate. He wants peace, no favoritism except for our country and will responsibly balance the budget within his first 3 years. Why would the evangelicals want someone like Santorum? he such a hater. Good luck to RP-
When progs and neo conservatives disagree with some part of what Ron Paul is trying to do…it's always for the same reason…both progs and neo conservatives wish to use force to accomplish their political goals, Ron Paul wants to use peace, freedom, the rule of law and rejection of force to achieve his.
I'm concerned about potential impacts of Ron Paul's policies and how it is very different from what we have. There is most likely some adverse ramifications we didn’t anticipate. However, the nation has been moving the wrong direction for last 20 years in terms of foreign polciy (i feel less safe with more people in middle east hating us), fiscal policy ($15 Trillion in debt or we’re essentially broke), bigger government (that manages everything from our retirement, housing, healthcare, education, etc.), and freedom (Patriot Act, NDAA which gives too much power to the government at our expense).
Ron Paul's policy makes most sense to me and might be the only potential path available to us. Even if he is only right on 80% of the policies, it's definitely a better direction. None of the other candidates have either the plan or credibility to make the real change, definitely not Obama who broke his promises by not engaging in active diplomacy to end wars, bailing out the banks, and signing NDAA.
I believe Ron Paul when he says he will keep his promise because he did for last 30 years, probably the only politician I can say this about.
Paul FAR LEFT?
This left/right paradigm is FALSE. Following the Constitution means having to declare war to wage war, it means having to charge people and try them in a court of law before you execute them, it means in order for somebody to be imprisoned, they need to first go to a trial and have the right to defend themselves.
That's not left or right.
so sick of this STUPID pretend dichotomy. Obama isn't on "the left", look at all the policies he kept from Bush? Warrantless wiretapping (unconstitutional), engaging in war in Libya without Congressional approval much less declaration (unconstitutional), the Patriot Act was signed again (unconstitutional), Guatanamo has been kept open (unconstitutional) and he added to Bush's GROSS violations with the NDAA which allows US citizens to be detained indefinitely without charge or trial (unconstitutional), and he had a US citizen killed after the Federal government declared he was a terrorist even though the government had over 10 YEARS to build a case, issue a warrant for his arrest (never did that), and have a trial in absentia (didn't bother to do that either) – UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Paul isn't on the FAR right, or the FAR left, he just wants to follow the Constitution and what person is stupid enough to give up the ONE DOCUMENT that protects them from an out of control government?
A lot more than I thought, apparently. Pravda, I mean US media, certainly doesn't care about it very much.
I wouldn't mind a left-right paradigm if it were presented correctly. The faulty paradigm looks like this:
Liberal <—————————> Conservative
Notwithstanding the fact that those terms are essentially meaningless as a dividing line (I for one am both, depending on the issue), a correct left-right paradigm would look like this:
Total Government <——————————–> No Government
Undert this model, you would have Anarchy on the far right. Not good. Just to the left of that would be representative constitutional limited government. On the far left you would have fascism (a "conservative" dictator or oligarchy), communism (a "liberal" dictator or oligarchy), and imperial monarchy, which could include a benevolent dictatorship. And of course, this would actually be better than the others because, as Voltaire implied, it could be tempered by the occasional assassination.
To the right of the far left, you would have varying forms of socialism, like we have today throughout the world, including the US.
This, I submit, would be a more legitimate left-right paradigm.
I would like to ask where you put the present system, government controlled by big business for their benefit, in your spectrum.
Editor
@Editor – Good question. So good, in fact, that I have to admit I don't know. I'm just trying to start the discussion. Let's see…
I guess we would label we're talking about "corporatocracy"? My gut reaction is that could perhaps fall under any system under the auspices of simple "corruption". If that is purely the system (i.e., the form of government were actually defined that way), it would certainly be an oligarchy of sorts, though the "few" would be rather numerous.
On the other hand, perhaps it could fall under modern-day knight errantry, lords, dukes, princes, etc. under the guise of whatever system contrived.
Some refer to this simply as crony capitalism which I think is an apt term. Probably not the perfect label, but then none of them are.
At the very least, you would have to place it left of center, as it relies on big govenment, heavy on bureaucracy, and of course a nation of sheep to prop it up.
What do you think?
Editor: It is, to some extent, necessary to separate economic structure from governmental structure. For example, communism was a dictatorship claiming to be socialism. In discussions with my family I have opined that from our position, somewhere in the middle, we would be hard pressed to tell the difference between pure socialism and unrestrained capitalism. In neither case would we have any input to the process or control over our future. (I think I am off topic now)
[Correction: I should have used the term "nobility", not knight-errantry.]
the confusion here stems from the false assumption that the american political spectrum is a straight line. Sorry, it's not. Try googling the "worlds smallest political quiz" and you see what i mean
Anyone who thinks the US is a socialist country has no political understanding whatsoever. 'Socialism' and 'liberalism' are NOT synonymous, despite what you might hear on CNN or Fox News.
Liberalism = Capitalism + strong welfare state + weak enforcement of morality
Conservatism = Capitalism + weak welfare state + strong enforcement of morality
Socialism and capitalism are mutually contradictory. Socialism calls for the elimination of the capitalist-class and the collective ownership of the means of production by workers (the proletariat).
Capitalism with a welfare state (including various forms of corporate welfare) is not socialism! Socialist societies are marked by a narrow distribution of income and wealth. The income and wealth gap in the US has been growing by leaps and bounds over the past 30 years. The US is one of the most unequal societies in the western world!
Editor: I think this post requires a definition of morality. Enforcing some one to a theocracy is just forcing your morals on the masses. I do not think that liberalism is less moral than conservatism, depending on your definations.
@admin – Agree on the division you speak of. Capitalism is probably the least useful term for describing a system of government. At the same time, it is at the root of the system in the sense that it is how a government sees "capital" (belonging to the individual, belonging to the state, belonging to the king…) that defines the system.
@Dan Bear – I love that quiz. However, that paradigm is not perfect either. It does provide a good sense of "leanings" which is helpful in opening discussions with people. My left-right paradigm (which isn't mine by the way; I stole it from Richard Mayberry), is merely a better linear model. If you could ever get talking heads and pundits to use it, it would be a lot more appropriate than the current left-right paradigm.
@
@Ryan – You are partly right. However I disagree that capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive. For starters, "capitalism" is just a meaningless term. You are right to equate it with control/ownership of the means of production. But that's where it stops also. From there, it becomes a question of how and who controls/owns the capital. So I don't agree with your statement that "Socialism calls for the elimination of the capitalist-class". It's about who owns/controls the means of production. And because we've defined all of the systems so poorly and defined things like "capitalism" to have meaning (which, again, it doesn't), the confusion remains. Look at China. It is socialist-capitalist. In any event, all of your models DO fall into the category of "statism". In at least SOME sense, liberalism seeks social freedom and economic slavery, while conservatism seeks economic freedom and social slavery. This too falls short of legitimacy, but there's something to it, at least for a lot of people.
The US media is owned by corporations. Google ABC, NBC and CBS. That is why so many people are going to BBC for an accurate news report. Hence the reason Ron Paul is ignored…………..
Editor: Response to Ryan: If you really want to find out what is happening, then completely forget the MSM, including BBC. Go to Rolling Stone, Truth Dig, The Nation, Salon, Brad's Blog and many more. They do tend to be "Liberal" but at least they acknowledge that so that you can factor that into your valuation. You can not say as much about MSM, whom I do not see as being particularly liberal. I see them catering to the advertisers whose $$ keep theme going.
Anything as long, they can keep the status quo -the new Americanism!!
Give me Liberty r give me Death!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD_ybaXhXno This is a must watch video for Judge Napolitano about the government. Watch it and share it. I am voting Ron Paul as the only choice period!
Everyone please watch this and then spread it around!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD_ybaXhXno
Lawyers continue to occupy high public office (senate, congress & WHITE HOUSE)
Call the doctor — RON PAUL 2012 —
MSM and you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_lYGyIaK80
RON PAUL MONEY BOMB GOING ON RIGHT NOW!
We the people need to support our candidate!
(Lord knows the corporations and lobbyists will continue to support theirs!)
http://secure.ronpaul2012.com
Mr Paul, Why do you persist in the 9/11 lie?
It was a controlled demolition and an inside job.
Do you fear telling the truth on this issue?
If you do I understand why, but it is your honesty
that clears the air of the lies and 9/11 is the biggest,
most deadly lie of all.
RON PAUL IS A SOCIAL DARWINIST RACIST
RON PAUL—-
DOES NOT WANT BLACK KIDS TO ATTEND COLLEGE ANYMORE—AS HE SAID HE WILL CUT THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.
RON PAUL WANTS BLACKS AND BLACK KIDS TO BECOME DRUG DEALERS AND USERS—-SO THAT
THEY ARE NOT A COMPETITION TO WHITES IN THE PROFESSIONS OR POLITICS.
SAY NO TO NAZISM AND RACISM IN THE 21ST CENTURY
Stop your shouting. Yes Paul wants to cut the department of education, go talk to some teachers, they love the idea. Paul plans to maintain pell grants and student loans until a way can be found to move away from the current system without disrupting it entirely. Seriously, he wants blacks to become drug dealers, are you really this ignorant? Even if Paul ended the federal prohibition on drugs nothing would change since they are also illegal on a state level. The only place anything changes at all would be CA and CO which have legalized medical marijuana. Also smuggling drugs would still be illegal (they'd be breaking tax laws) and so enforcement of cross border smuggling would remain a federal issue.
Frank,
I urge you to research his position.
Education happens at the local level. Between teacher and student. It does not happen from the Governor's Mansion or from Washington D.C.
Like many bureaucracies, the Department of Education siphons off scrace resources will very little value add.
Ron Paul does not oppose public education. He just opposes low value government bureaucracies.
Why oh Why can't people understand that the far left and the far right do not meet. What you have here is not a left/right spectrum. You have a spectrum with liberty at one end and authoritarianism at the other. Where all these people are meeting is at the liberty end of the spectrum. Most people in this country now embrace authoritarianism. People claim we are free, but when faced with the prospect of actually having real freedom and allowing others the same thing, they are terrified. Ron Paul is espousing liberty. If this frightens you, maybe you should think twice the next time you sing the words, "land of the free and the home of the brave." Freedom is not for the chickenhearted.
oh,but they do. Even statism and anarchism meet meet, because anarchism leads to mini statist states. and full statism devolves into anarchism when the state eventually collapses
Ron Paul is the best of all worlds.
He is the anti-establishment as he is oppossed to more deficits, more war, more banker bail-outs, NDAA, destruction of our Constitution, and destruction of our way of life.
The 'establishment' has dug us into a deep hole and they are still digging.
It's time to take our country back. Ron Paul 2012.
The attraction to Ron Paul from conservatives, progressives, liberals, gay, straight, black, white, asian, indian, male, female,etc.. is the desire for Liberty. We have all been herded away from our founding documents into a statist system and it is nearly over for the old American Constitutional Republic if someone does not come along now to stop this creeping tyranny from achieving it's goal. Ron Paul is the man for this hour in our fragile country and he has my financial support and vote if it is under the Republican Party or 3rd Party. His own Party filled with RINO's (Republicans in name only) along with the controlled media are against him but he is connecting with all walks of life outside of the 2 major corrupt political parties. Go Ron Paul.
It’s not a question of far right or far left. Ron Paul’s views are universal. It’s called Freedom. You diminish yourself by putting Freedom in the camp of liberals. You by your admission are for assassinations, endless war and indefinite detention.