Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies by Glenn Greenwald @ Salon.com
The simple fact is that progressives are supporting a candidate for President who has done all of that — things liberalism has long held to be pernicious. I know it’s annoying and miserable to hear. Progressives like to think of themselves as the faction that stands for peace, opposes wars, believes in due process and civil liberties, distrusts the military-industrial complex, supports candidates who are devoted to individual rights, transparency and economic equality. All of these facts — like the history laid out by Stoller in that essay — negate that desired self-perception. These facts demonstrate that the leader progressives have empowered and will empower again has worked in direct opposition to those values and engaged in conduct that is nothing short of horrific. So there is an eagerness to avoid hearing about them, to pretend they don’t exist. And there’s a corresponding hostility toward those who point them out, who insist that they not be ignored.
The parallel reality — the undeniable fact — is that all of these listed heinous views and actions from Barack Obama have been vehemently opposed and condemned by Ron Paul: and among the major GOP candidates, only by Ron Paul. For that reason, Paul’s candidacy forces progressives to face the hideous positions and actions of their candidate, of the person they want to empower for another four years. If Paul were not in the race or were not receiving attention, none of these issues would receive any attention because all the other major GOP candidates either agree with Obama on these matters or hold even worse views.
...
It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize Paul harshly and point out the horrible aspects of his belief system and past actions. But that’s worthwhile only if it’s accompanied by a similarly candid assessment of all the candidates, including the sitting President.
Dec 31 2011, 10:53 am
|
|
Ryuk25
 |
Perhaps
|
All the "criticism" of Ron Paul that I read in the news tends to simply make me want to vote for him more.
| |
Probably the best criticism I've ever seen for Ron Paul is the fact that he supports the We the People Act. While it would give states more power regarding privacy, which isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, it would also undo a lot of Supreme Court trials (for example, many states would seize the opportunity to outlaw abortion, and some areas may even try to bring back school prayer or outlaw homosexuality).
| |
The We The People act is simply awful, in my opinion. While I like the idea of states having more autonomy, in theory, in practice the past has demonstrated that many, perhaps even most, states will not defend the rights of minorities, and that it takes the Federal Government to step in and defend them. This is one of my biggest things that I have against Ron Paul. Hardly the only thing, though, as his opinion of homosexuality and gay marriage is, quite clearly, unenlightened, and he really seems to want to undo all the steps forward of the twentieth century, in terms of the structure of the Federal Government (.e.g, the Department of Education which, while having its flaws, is apparently the only thing that keeps students from learning shit like Intelligent Design).
| |
Popisfizzy wrote:
The We The People act is simply awful, in my opinion. While I like the idea of states having more autonomy, in theory, in practice the past has demonstrated that many, perhaps even most, states will not defend the rights of minorities, and that it takes the Federal Government to step in and defend them. This is one of my biggest things that I have against Ron Paul. Very fair. (Both you and Jeff) There is a concept called nullification which puts tangible references to the past to which you allude. Hardly the only thing, though, as his opinion of homosexuality and gay marriage is, quite clearly, unenlightened We must make a distinction between personal opinion and governance principles. His platform on marriage as a contract and personal behavior are very much in line with libertarian principles. I am curious though: is the unenlightened part you are referring to the libertarianism, or the specific platform itself? and he really seems to want to undo all the steps forward of the twentieth century, in terms of the structure of the Federal Government (.e.g, the Department of Education which, while having its flaws, is apparently the only thing that keeps students from learning shit like Intelligent Design). It's a double edged sword. It's like what chemotherapy does to cancer, I suppose. With the various steps forward (such as mandatory k-12) couples itself with massive steps backward (teacher's unions). Besides, truth always triumphs over faith. If Kansas wishes to teach intelligent design, they will be at a significant scientific disadvantage to the 49 states which do not. It is state's choice (well, actually it's on a municipal level) what curriculum to teach. Consider this, PiF... does money on a federal level ensure an educated student? | |
Jeff8500 wrote:
Probably the best criticism I've ever seen for Ron Paul is the fact that he supports the We the People Act. While it would give states more power regarding privacy, which isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, it would also undo a lot of Supreme Court trials (for example, many states would seize the opportunity to outlaw abortion, and some areas may even try to bring back school prayer or outlaw homosexuality). GTFO OF HERE!!! | |
They teach intelligent design in schools? They taught me Darwin's theory of evolution, and my U.S. History teacher even made fun of God, saying he doesn't believe in a "magical guy in the sky".
| |
EmpirezTeam wrote:
They teach intelligent design in schools? They taught me Darwin's theory of evolution, and my U.S. History teacher even made fun of God, saying he doesn't believe in a "magical guy in the sky". No, they don't, Pif is just saying that states could if Ron Paul gets rid of the Department of Education. | |
Jeff8500 wrote:
No, they don't, Pif is just saying that states could if Ron Paul gets rid of the Department of Education. Just to clarify, with or without the DoE, states are already entitled to control its curriculum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_evolution_hearings | |
The problem is that states aren't an island. Hell, nations aren't an island, but states even less so. You let them go off and do their own thing and then suddenly Texas puts ID in their curriculum, and because of the way the economics work suddenly the majority of textbooks in the US need to have ID in them.
I dislike Ron Paul because I don't think he stands for equality of opportunity. Without a public healthcare system, without strong labour laws, without a state-funded tertiary education system, people who are poor just don't have the opportunity to succeed that they would if they were rich. Sure, some do, but mostly they just don't have a chance. Paul's libertarianism is at odds with that, from my POV. Even taking the claim he's for civil liberties at face value (I don't think states-rights is consistent with strong support for civil liberties), then what you've got is that left-wingers can sympathise with Paul's social policies but are utterly repelled by his economic policies. Probably not any worse than the other republican candidates, though. :/. This is not to say I'm a fan of Obama. It's absolutely true that he's not been a supporter of civil liberties, social inclusion, not going to war with people, etc.. But I don't think that's a fault of 'the people progressives support' - after all, social democracy throughout Europe actually works pretty well, Australia too - but more a function of what's available in American politics. A truly progressive, left-wing social/economic policies candidate just plain isn't viable in the American political landscape. What you really need, more than any other change to your laws, is some kind of preferential or instant runoff voting. Essentially /anything/ other than first-past-the-post. Your voting system is broken and it's destroyed your politics. | |
Jp wrote:
The problem is that states aren't an island. Hell, nations aren't an island, but states even less so. I definitely agree with you here. My personal belief is that the US was formed as a constitutional republic -- now this changed significantly with the passing of the 14th amendment. For this main reason, I can't ever entirely prescribe to the libertarian platform. I am in full support of individual liberties, but there will always be an aspect of the concept of the "tyranny of the majority" that is part of keeping a nation at least somewhat intertwined. You let them go off and do their own thing and then suddenly Texas puts ID in their curriculum, and because of the way the economics work suddenly the majority of textbooks in the US need to have ID in them. Again, each municipality can already dictate their own curriculum. Textbook content is already driven by economics. I do not foresee any change regardless of party. I dislike Ron Paul because I don't think he stands for equality of opportunity. Without a public healthcare system, without strong labour laws, without a state-funded tertiary education system, people who are poor just don't have the opportunity to succeed that they would if they were rich. This is under the assumption that the federal government can guarantee flat and equitable opportunity. I contend that this is an incorrect assumption. I could dedicate a good length of time on this, but I will wait another day for that... I will address your issues as directly as I can in respect to Ron Paul: 1) Public Healthcare -- The current branches of federal health care: VA, Medicare, and Medicaid would remain funded for the existing set of people who are already dependent on it. The economic mathematics behind the federal health care system is catastrophic. I would highly recommend watching the five year old documentary IOUSA as a background. 2) Labor Laws: Under the 1st amendment, there is a right to assembly. Ron Paul has stated that all people have the right to unionize. 3) State funded education: Ron Paul completely supports every state's right to fund education. Most of RPs economic policies hit squarely on crony capitalism -- focusing on the cycle of government funding of already well funded corporations/industries, or the dilution of the American dollar through the central bank printing press. You may disagree, but I believe these items have a much more destructive effect on the poor and middle class than the items you listed. <iSure, some do, but mostly they just don't have a chance. Paul's libertarianism is at odds with that, from my POV. Even taking the claim he's for civil liberties at face value (I don't think states-rights is consistent with strong support for civil liberties), then what you've got is that left-wingers can sympathise with Paul's social policies but are utterly repelled by his economic policies. Very fair assessment, but you have to parse the libertarian and constitutionalism out properly. Libertarianism would want to have rights restored ultimately to the individual. Under a constitutional republic government, the best a libertarian style government can achieve is to allow for no federal infringement on individual rights, but protecting an implicit sovereignty to the states. Probably not any worse than the other republican candidates, though. :/. This is not to say I'm a fan of Obama. It's absolutely true that he's not been a supporter of civil liberties, social inclusion, not going to war with people, etc.. But I don't think that's a fault of 'the people progressives support' - after all, social democracy throughout Europe actually works pretty well, Australia too - but more a function of what's available in American politics. A truly progressive, left-wing social/economic policies candidate just plain isn't viable in the American political landscape. What you really need, more than any other change to your laws, is some kind of preferential or instant runoff voting. Essentially /anything/ other than first-past-the-post. Your voting system is broken and it's destroyed your politics. Yes. I'm pretty sick of the left/right D/R perception. When you have Bush introducing the 4th amendment busting Patriot act, then Obama assassinating a US citizen without due process and now signing a bill into law which allows for infinite detention of US citizens without due process, one has to realize that the traditional D/R divide doesn't actually ever help the vast majority of US citizens. | |