Remember, Remember The Fifth of November

Kay Steiger is perturbed by the idea that Ron Paul was using Guy Fawkes Day as a fundraising gimmick: "Ron Paul is associating himself with a historical figure who spearheaded a plot to blow up the houses of Parliament -- by very definition, a terrorist. True, England was persecuting Catholics and Fawkes role was to fight back against a religiously intolerant government, but he was still a terrorist by definition."

There's some interpretive ambiguity here, though, since the idea of Guy Fawkes Day isn't to celebrate Fawkes but rather to celebrate the foiling of the plot and I think it was traditionally observed by getting drunk and beating up Catholics. That, however, would also be a weird association for Paul to be courting.

On the other hand, V for Vendetta appropriates Fawkes as a kind of libertarian icon and it would make sense for Paul to appropriate that, so on that level it makes sense. Also: He managed to raise a lot of money, which was the point of the exercise, so it definitely makes sense on that level.

Comments

I've said this before, but the blogosphere as an entity likes to pretend that there is a hard and fast rule separating the legitimate use of violence in freedom struggles and illegitimate use. But that is a notion that is very hard to support historically, and many of the liberation struggles we generally approve of have used actions commonly described as terrorism. Like, say, the American Revolution, where Torries were terrorized and murdered for their support of British rule.

Posted by Freddie | November 6, 2007 8:05 PM

I've said this before, but the blogosphere as an entity likes to pretend that there is a hard and fast rule separating the legitimate use of violence in freedom struggles and illegitimate use.

I don't think it's the blogosphere's pretense; it just accepts the pretense, for reasons both sincere and lazy.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 6, 2007 8:10 PM

Ron Paul isn't using Guy Fawkes day, a supporter of his is - this was not orchestrated by the Paul campaign.

Posted by Glaivester | November 6, 2007 8:19 PM

Shorter Glaivester:

Ron Paul isn't a crazy terrorist sympathizer, his supporters are.

Posted by Zephyrus | November 6, 2007 8:35 PM

Re Zephyrus's comment
"Shorter Glaivester: Ron Paul isn't a crazy terrorist sympathizer, his supporters are."
------------
You speak as if that's a bad thing.

Posted by Don Williams | November 6, 2007 8:39 PM

Matthew Yglesias forgot to mention Natalie Portman's performance in "V for Vendetta" -- the
Auschwitz-like victim of Nazi-style fascism who pushes the lever to blow Parliament sky high.

And drive every member of Likud into a carpet-chewing frenzy.

See http://www.actuabd.com/IMG/jpg/V-For-Vendetta-Image.jpg

Posted by Don Williams | November 6, 2007 8:47 PM

Remember, remember the Fifth of November,
The Gunpowder Treason and Plot,
I know of no reason
Why Gunpowder Treason
Should ever be forgot.

Matt's right that Guy Fawkes Night is a celebration of disrupting terrorism (and anti-catholicism), not a celebration of the terrorist in question.

I think we have to consider the possibility that the organizers chose the Fifth of November so it would be remember-remembered. The Ron Paul stunt relied a great deal on scheduled collective action, after all.

Posted by southpaw | November 6, 2007 9:06 PM

Neo-Nazi Support for Ron Paul
http://adamholland.blogspot.com/2007/10/neo-nazi-support-for-ron-paul.html
or http://tinyurl.com/yv42e5

Posted by Michael Pugliese | November 6, 2007 9:21 PM

In a Newsweek interview, Israeli Natalie Portman had an interesting comment re the movie "V for Vendetta":

Newsweek: Your new movie, "V for Vendetta," is about an uprising against a totalitarian society. Did you learn any lessons about what's going on in the world today?

Portman:
The main thing is that it's so much about violence, and how you define freedom fighting as opposed to terrorism. I realized that violence in any form is sort of a Catch-22. Violence is horrible in all forms. That's the brilliant conclusion I've come up with. But at the same time you can only be nonviolent if you're in a nonviolent environment. If you're in a violent environment and you're nonviolent, you become extinct.
---------
Hamas couldn't have said it better.

Ref: http://www.newsweek.com/id/50465/page/3

Posted by Don Williams | November 6, 2007 9:26 PM

I'm not sure why you would think that V from V for Vendetta appropriates Guy Fawkes as a libertarian icon - he's pretty clearly using Fawkes as an anarchist icon. This is much clearer in the book than in the movie (watered down as the movie is in comparison to Moore's book), but it's still there in the movie.

Also, the whole point of V is that V is a terrorist - and neither he nor the author make any bones about it. That's why the Fawkes imagery is used, that's why the ending had to be the way it was, and that's why the ending of the movie is so disappointing (because the devolution of society into chaos and rioting as shown in the book is the natural result of anarchy, not a freaking "Care Bears" moment, and a different kind of hero is needed to build society up from that moment than the anti-hero anarchist who tore it down.)

Anyway, there was an interesting article about Guy Fawkes day up on Harpers yesterday:

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/11/hbc-90001590

Posted by NonyNony | November 6, 2007 9:26 PM

I think our current government could use a good (figurative) blowing up so we could start over.

Posted by Captain Noble | November 6, 2007 9:41 PM

The real target of the gunpowder plot was King James I who was due to attend the State Opening of Parliament that day.

Posted by ndm | November 6, 2007 9:54 PM

Re: If you're in a violent environment and you're nonviolent, you become extinct.

Gandhi and Dr. King would disagree. OK, they both ended up dead, by violence. But we all end up dead, one way or another. In their cases though they left a changed world behind.

Posted by Jonf | November 6, 2007 9:56 PM

Only man to enter Parliament with honest intentions.

Posted by Fledermaus | November 6, 2007 9:56 PM

If you're in a violent environment and you're nonviolent, you become extinct.

As Meyer Alewitz said, "The problem with nonviolence is, if you don't fight back they'll kill you."

Posted by Freddie | November 6, 2007 10:10 PM

"because the devolution of society into chaos and rioting as shown in the book is the natural result of anarchy"

Bullshit.

The natural result of the state is war and/or the devolution of society into chaos and rioting due to oppression - which is also the natural result of the state.

Most anarchist societies have been incredibly peaceful (in the few places they have existed naturally by historical accident.)

However, you are correct that V is not a "libertarian" - he is an anarchist. And he is a terrorist - demonstrating that terrorism is the most effective form of anti-state action, in fact.

You will also note that V never directly targets civilians in his campaign. Like the original Russian "terrorists", his campaign is directed solely at the state - and those who support it.

The amusing thing about your post is that you precisely mimic Chancellor Sutler in the picture above where he is ranting, "I want EVERYONE to remember WHY THEY NEED US!"

Yeah, right - we need the state to prevent "chaos and rioting". Sure. I'll buy that for a dollar.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 6, 2007 10:24 PM

George Washington was a Terrorist! Why, he even overthrew the government!

Shit like this is why I don't trust liberals. violence to win or preserve your own freedoms is always justified. This is exactly why the word terrorism has always been a 'gotcha' attack, and never one with any real meaning. Guy Fawkes was a hero, and he deserves to be remembered as such.

Posted by Soullite | November 6, 2007 10:26 PM

Shit like this is why I don't trust liberals. violence to win or preserve your own freedoms is always justified. This is exactly why the word terrorism has always been a 'gotcha' attack, and never one with any real meaning.

Uh, who do you think it is who is regularly applying the terrorist label these days? Liberals?

Posted by Freddie | November 6, 2007 10:27 PM

how dare that terrorist guy fawkes attempt to violently overthrow the despotic english aristocracy. in america, we don't stand for that kind of thing.

i.e., calling guy fawkes "a terrorist" is deeply ahistorical, not to mention anachronistic.

Posted by snuh | November 6, 2007 10:33 PM

Do a search on Giuliani, Crystal Apple, Gerry Adams.

Giuliani not only supports terrorists, he helped raise funds for them and gave their leader a 'humanitarian' award in an effort to pander to the NYC Irish vote.

The Fawkes plot was pretty complex, it is not really fair to say that Fawkes was merely protesting the ill treatment of Catholics, the plotters were Taleban types who planned a little persecution of their own after slaughtering the Protestant aristocracy en-masse.

Far from furthering the cause of Catholic emancipation, Fawkes and his conspirators made it impossible, it took another 200 years.

Posted by PHB | November 6, 2007 10:42 PM

Re Jonf's comment "Gandhi and Dr. King would disagree. OK, they both ended up dead, by violence. But we all end up dead, one way or another. In their cases though they left a changed world behind "
------------
1) People who are ignorant of how direct action works think nonviolence is the whole story-- in truth, it's a small part.

Basically, if you want a fair shake from an oppressive regime -- i.e, from those wealthy men who got rich by being greedy and selfish -- then you have to squeeze their balls. Either by killing them, by scaring them, or by plausibly threatening to cost them money in big fat gobs. Or by all three.

2) There are several methods in the toolbox:

a) subversion --alienate their citizens against them by political advocacy and propaganda as a preliminary to armed overthrow. CIA used to have a 3 month program on use of student organizations, unions,etc to subvert foreign governments. Recent memoirs indicate this subject has been dropped from the training program since the US government decided this tool is best handled by overt NGOs.

b) sabotage -- destruction of infrastructure and wealth to disrupt economy. Includes mines on transport corridors (roads, waterways)

c) assassination -- direct killing of targets via sniping, bombing, ambushes, raids

d) terrorism -- indirect infliction of economic damage by disrupting commerce

e) guerrilla warfare --use of an underground army against a foreign government

f) coup d'etat -- use of a foreign government's own military against it.

g) espionage -- stealing secret information from a government in order to give its rivals an advantage.

h) diplomacy -- courting a foreign government's rivals for aid

3) The FIRST primary point is that the revolution needs TWO types of people: the overt and the covert. The overt part engages in political protests, lobbying,diplomacy,etc -- it is the public face of the revolution. The covert part engages in the illegal forms of force.

4)The SECOND primary point is that the overt and covert parts must NEVER mix except in the most secure of circumstances.

5) The reason why someone engaged in illegal violence should NOT also go on the Internet and advocate for their cause is obvious. Look at the Unabomber.

6) But the overt political side must never allow itself to become linked with the covert unit committing illegal violence. The reasons are also obvious: (a) The overt unit is under constant surveillance (b) The overt unit would thus lead the enemy to the covert unit (c) The overt unit would also discredit its cause by becoming associated with illegal violence -- and would give the enemy justification to imprison all overt members for "terrorism".

7) LBJ did not push for civil rights because of Martin Luther King. He pushed for civil rights because the government rightly feared major damage if the Soviet Union was able to exploit discontented groups within the US population. Such alienated citizens -- properly trained -- could have inflicted enormous damage. Look at what just ten? members of the Rosenberg-Cohen atomic spy rings were able to do.

8) The FBI should have known that the Weathermen and Black Panthers were not under the control of the Soviet Union -- because the Weathermen and Black Panthers were too fucking incompetent. In contrast, look at US Army alumni Timothy McVeigh and the DC Sniper, John Mohammand.

Posted by Don Williams | November 6, 2007 10:51 PM

In the history of revolutionary struggles or movements for true national liberation, there is often a victory like this that electrifies the world and brings great sympathy and assistance from other nations to those struggling for freedom. Past American Presidents, past American Congresses, and always, of course, the American people have offered help to others fighting in the freedom cause that we began. So, tonight, each of us joins in saluting the heroes of the Lomba River and their leader, the hope of Angola, Jonas Savimbi.

Posted by Ronald Reagan | November 6, 2007 10:59 PM

Re snuh's comment "how dare that terrorist guy fawkes attempt to violently overthrow the despotic english aristocracy. in america, we don't stand for that kind of thing."
---------
The Harper's article that someone linked to above notes that , during the American Revolution, George Washington BANNED the customary celebration of Guy Fawkes Day --on the grounds that it celebrated the foiling of the Catholic plot.

If you are a traitor to the crown, you hardly want to celebrate the execution of an earlier traitor to the crown.

Posted by Don Williams | November 6, 2007 11:01 PM

"V for Vendetta appropriates Fawkes as a kind of libertarian icon "

The kind of libertarian icon that is actually anarchist. Alan Moore ain't in favor of unfettered business enterprises organizing society. From what I saw of the movie (BORING!), its makers aren't either.

Posted by Kyle | November 6, 2007 11:04 PM

because the Weathermen and Black Panthers were too fucking incompetent.

What was incompetent about the Weathermen? I may or may not agree, but as an organization (despite the mythology) they took elaborate pains to not be a terrorist organization. They never killed anyone in their bombings and that takes work.

They wanted it both ways, they were going to "bring the war home", except for the part about people dying which just seems schizophrenic and wierd. They are still remembered as some sort of left-wing bogeymen despite the fact that their victims were composed entirely of inanimate objects (some of which the world really was better off without), so the idea that had they been really murderous they would have been more effective seems counter-intuitive at least.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 6, 2007 11:18 PM

Treason is the reason for the season!

Posted by V | November 6, 2007 11:21 PM

The amusing thing about your post is that you precisely mimic Chancellor Sutler in the picture above where he is ranting, "I want EVERYONE to remember WHY THEY NEED US!"

Hey - I'm not the one who wrote the book.

In the book, V's reign of terror led to the downfall of the government. Which led to rioting in the streets and chaos. Which is exactly what V wanted and planned for, and really is what one could expect in the aftermath of the destruction of an invasive, totalitarian regime.

Because V's story is not the story of a principled man out to take down a corrupt regime through unprincipled methods. V's story is the story of one man, horribly wronged by an unjust system, deciding to take down that system as a form of revenge for what they did to him. And that revenge had to be taken out on the PUBLIC that was complicit in his torture as much as it was on the government that did it to him. That part of his revenge was the chaos and rioting and looting inflicted upon them for what they did to him.

Which the movie totally botches, of course, as it turns V into a superhero figure leading people to freedom instead of a terrorist figure throwing them into chaos. V's great "redemptive" act in the book was his torture of Evey to turn her into the Christ-like figure that he couldn't be because of his need for vengeance. Leaving her behind to fix the chaos he caused and rebuild a better world from the remnants.

But hey - if you want to believe that in the aftermath of the collapse of a totalitarian regime the people would all wear Guy Fawkes masks, hold hands, and have a big group Care Bear moment that's your prerogative. The Care Bear moment has never happened in the history of humanity, but whatever floats your boat.

Also:
Most anarchist societies have been incredibly peaceful (in the few places they have existed naturally by historical accident.)

There has never been an anarchist society the size of London, let alone the size of England. And there's a good reason for this. The anarchist societies that have existed in the world have been hunter/gatherer societies where scarcity isn't an issue. As soon as scarcity of resources becomes an issue, and property starts to exist in some form, anarchy devolves into "might makes right" and the anarchist society is replaced with something else - either something authoritarian in nature or something communal in nature, but something that is no longer anarchy.

Posted by NonyNony | November 6, 2007 11:24 PM

ITV brought in a bunch of weapons experts to theorize what would have happened if the plotters had, in fact, carried out the plan.

Everything within a 100 meter radius would have been killed, and frankly, the explosion would have wiped out the entire city block.

Considering the densely packed slum that was Elizabethan and Stuart London, that explosion would have probably killed hundreds, if not thousands, most of whom would have committed no crime other than being around Westminster at the time.

I would say that this makes Fawkes a terrorist. Now, he could still be called a freedom fighter, but murdering hundreds of people who had no particular interest in what was an elite struggle marks him in the terror camp.

Posted by Greg | November 6, 2007 11:25 PM

Let's be absolutely clear about something. I am no Ron Paul supporter, but his supporters are. They would follow him to the gates of Hell if he asked them to. No other GOP candidate has captivated the GOP discontent with the GOP. One gets the sense that if Reagan were alive today he would be going to bat for Paul. He is the king of the also-rans, which keeps him decidedly anti-establishment. The obvious question for the $180,000-an-hour fundraising drive is how many people contributed and how many would contribute again. It would not be reckless for his campaign to try another drive--they could do it again. I have met some of these supporters and have the utmost respect for them; his campaign literature may be amateur--and some of his immigration positions would make a guy fawkes out of any of us--but it would be foolhardy to underestimate Paul.

Posted by JC | November 6, 2007 11:42 PM

Ron Paul is associating himself with a historical figure who spearheaded a plot to blow up the houses of Parliament -- by very definition, a terrorist.

I suppose you could make the same argument against the Boston Tea party (an event which, of course, escalated in the burning of the Peggy Stewart in Annapolis). Merchants who attempted to pay the British tax were often targeted for retribution.

But really, terrorism? Aren't we using that term too broadly? Blowing up parliament would be an act of war. Just like the burning of Washington D.C. by the British in 1814.

Randomly targeting citizens as they go about their daily lives is terrorism. If you're willing to declare every violent act "terrorism" then you've completely stripped the word of any meaning.

Posted by Jinchi | November 6, 2007 11:44 PM

What NonyNony said above. He was more an anarchist than a libertarian.

But V wasn't really a political philosophy--he was blowback, personified. He was a part of the old order, though he despised it, and he knew he had to go when it did.

Man, that movie had great lines. My favorites came in the scenes with the doctor, when he really pointed to what a self-involved thing intent & regret are in people who have accepted power. What a lie "unintended consequences" is. When you exercise power, you're not important. Your feelings aren't important. The consequences of your actions are what matter. When you have power, dividing consequences into "intended" and "unintended" is ridiculous, and a cop-out. There are just consequences, and the real question is whether they were foreseeable and preventable, not whether they were intended. Furthermore, even horrible people have what they think are wonderful intentions, so it's a masturbatory exercise to try and convince others to excuse horrible consequences by agreeing with you that hey, you meant well.

V doesn't come for what you meant to do. He comes for what you did.

Posted by anon | November 6, 2007 11:47 PM

If you're going to call Guy Fawkes a terrorist, you simply have to call the American revolution a terrorist movement. The revolutionaries deliberately targeted civilians who supported British rule. They destroyed their homes and businesses, kidnapped them, tortured them through tarring and feathering (which, despite the comic connotations it's taken on, was indeed torture) and sometimes murdered them.

Posted by Freddie | November 7, 2007 12:03 AM

Let's keep in mind that Kay's definition of "terrorism" necessarily falls on any rebellion against any state regardless of provocation.

True, England was persecuting Catholics and Fawkes role was to fight back against a religiously intolerant government, but he was still a terrorist by definition.

So, by her logic, the American, Russian, and French revolutions were all originally acts of terrorism. So was the Southern rebellion in the American Civil War.

Posted by Jinchi | November 7, 2007 12:03 AM

I really enjoyed V for Vendetta, it has the most batshit semiotics of any blockbuster I’ve ever seen. The manifest insanity of its history and political program let’s the film’s heavy tropping on facisism, terrorism, Gitmo and stylized violence detach and stand as an example of the inherent irresponsibility of these exercises.

If you find yourself cheering a little bit at the destruction of the Parliament buildings , then maybe it works as a sort inoculation against USS Abraham Lincoln-type stage stetting in the future.

Posted by the blackbird is involved | November 7, 2007 12:31 AM

Matt, I realize the blogosphere's built on linking and commentary, but to begin a post with "Kay Steiger is perturbed" really threatens to sap reader interest...

On the other hand, it *is* fun to read about the dual/dueling interpretations of Guy Fawkes, the holiday, the reinterpretations, possibly-analogous situations, etc....

Posted by Chris | November 7, 2007 12:46 AM

Just to present some bona fides, I'm British, and went to "Fireworks Night" every year of my life for 20-odd years. And believe me when I say that the whole evening is one big rejoicing-in-torture session. Obviously not explicitly, here's what happens. Kids make a "Guy". It is a stuffed effigy, scarecrow-like. Sometimes with a pumpkin for a head (I mean, why not sling some Halloween in there), but also often with normal head and a goatee, for some authentic scary Catholic look. And they go around with the Guy, and knock on neighbours' doors, and get a bit of cash for making such an effort. And then, on Fireworks Night itself, everyone goes to the local recreation ground/public space, and there is a big ol' fireworks show, and a big ol' bonfire. And the real climax of the evening is when, to the cheers of the crowd, the Guys are thrown onto the flames. We publicly burnt him after torture before, and for some 400 years, we've burnt him again. Crazed crowds in Khandahar are rookies compared to this.

So yeah, the optics of making November 5th a day of particular concentration for your campaign aren't all that great. I'm sure the Catholic Church ain't impressed. But then, Ron Paul won't really care. And, above all else, Fireworks Night is bloody good fun.

Posted by Sam | November 7, 2007 1:55 AM

You can read Yglesias' insipid (and WRONG) take, or you can check out Daniel Larison. That's a good rule of thumb for a whole lotta topics beyond Guy Fawkes or Ron Paul or "V For Vendetta", too.

Posted by sglover | November 7, 2007 2:04 AM

Neo-Nazi Support for Ron Paul

That's not necessarily fair. I'm sure somewhere there are organizations like the United Slaves supporting Obama, but that shouldn't reflect negatively on the candidate. Unless Paul starts talking about the repeal of the 14th amendment, it's not right to tar him with that brush.

*

With donations in these numbers ($4.2 mil with an average donation of $98 ~ 43,000 donors) it does make you wonder just how many disenfranchised Americans there are out there.

Half of Americans don't vote. Are these the same people?

Are there enough (big L) Libertarians, separatists, war protesters, tax protesters, truthers, hermits, trekkers, techies, Hillary and Giuliani-haters, conspiracy theorists, isolationists, paranoid schizophrenics, Gold Bugs and politic-exhausted Jack Cafferty types to give this guy a plurality in a Paul-Giuliani-Clinton race? What if the social conservatives make good on their threat and vote for the only pro-life candidate in the race?

I'm guessing "no," but I didn't exactly think Paul would have the most money of any Republican in the race right now, nor did I think an old man who won't shut up about a non-issue like the federal reserve could essentially flip the college demographic that normally flirts with communism at this stage in their lives into a bunch of radical minarchists (still crazy, but a big, big improvement).

Then there's this. Sullivan linked to it. I have no idea what this means and why Ron Paul-itis is spreading to people in all these nations (particularly when he wants to cut off aid and, in all likelihood, defund the Peace Corps). In Romania, the US is an important bulwark against Putin, and your average Romanian has a very keen memory of the effects of Russian influence. I know some Romanians. I can't even begin to explain how much the they hate the Russians--people, government, everything. Paul would not counter Putin's influence. Yet there's a Romanian on this blogroll.

I also don't know what it means that Sullivan and the two Brits at the Corner like him so much (while all the Americans seem to loathe him) or what that says about American vs. European conservatism.

I thought the most interesting development of the primaries would be the winner of the fight for control of the Republican Party between the Neocons (Giuliani), the vaguely libertarian federalists (Thompson), the Elites (Romney) and the Social Conservatives (Huckabee). I was wondering if the primary skunk I voted for would be the same skunk that wins the nomination. Then a radical catches on with people no one knew existed and raises more money than any of the skunks.

As for Paul, I appreciate the notion that a politician is talking about abolishing the Dept of Education, the ONDCP (which is my pet peeve--not due to drug fondness, rather, due to its Pravda-like proclamations), DHS (which seems to complicate things more than the separate agencies ever did) and the income tax, but can he really do any of this? Without an income tax, can the President pay the Secret service agents that keep him alive? Without DOE giveaways, will schools in poor neighborhoods become health hazards? Can a president really implement any of this, anyway?

It looks like this Paul stuff is going to be the strangest and most interesting campaign-related development of the young century.

Posted by Shinyk | November 7, 2007 3:42 AM

"As soon as scarcity of resources becomes an issue, and property starts to exist in some form, anarchy devolves into "might makes right""

There is, of course, no basis for this claim at all.

Property exists whether or not there is scarcity of resources. The problem with scarcity of resources, as that great anarchist movie "The Magnificent Seven" demonstrated, is that it causes the rise of the state - which is essentially an extortion/protection racket.

In fact, some anthropologists believe that the state originated with the advent of agriculture, after having been developed as bandit groups preying on trade caravans. The bandits would approach traders, claim that there were bandits around, and would they like protection. Once agriculture came into existence, the bandits, like the ones in the movie, became a permanent fixture and began controlling the farmers - harvesting the people who harvested the crops, as it were. They displaced the ancient tribal leaders who led by example and experience, and instead instituted the notion of the "rule of law" - their law.

"and the anarchist society is replaced with something else - either something authoritarian in nature or something communal in nature, but something that is no longer anarchy."

Communal anarchism is just as feasible as non-communal anarchism. There are two broad forms of anarchist theory, left and right, communal and competitive.

Actually, I no longer believe that humans are capable of ANY stable social system - including anarchism, and certainly no form of the state which does not devolve into oppression and eventual revolution or chaos.

As for the "V" book, it is not unlikely that a situation as depicted would descend into chaos. A population of serfs is going to be hard put to come up with the sort of self-discipline and rationality necessary to organize an anarchist society out of the ruins of the old society.

That wasn't my point. My point was that anarchism per se does not and never has meant chaos and rioting.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 7, 2007 5:52 AM

well, one person's terrorist is another person's noble revolutionary, as I think we should all be well aware by now. As someone already pointed out upthread, the American revolution could be considered terrorist 'by definition.'

Posted by hum | November 7, 2007 10:45 AM

Well to flip this back to the political what this means is that Ron Paul is around to stay. He could sustain the kind of campaign he has been running on the one day take alone, and if he demonstrates any amount of ability to go back to the well, and I don't see any reason he doesn't, he can stay in the race for the duration.

The other candidates are all governed by the expectations game to one degree or another. That is if Romney doesn't hold Iowa NH becomes all or nothing for him, if Huckleberry Fred doesn't have a strong showing in SC its game over, and so on. Ron Paul is not burdened really by any of that, he has a message, he has the means to get that message out in a way no libertarian ever has before. And no reason to leave the stage.

I doubt Paul has any illusions about winning it outright, and as usual the possibilities of a brokered convention are pretty limited, but it would be interesting though perhaps a little frightening to see the other remaining candidates bargaining for Paul's block of delegates.

Posted by Bruce Webb | November 7, 2007 12:14 PM

Whoops, Kay Steiger's not who I thought she was; I thought that was some right-wing Townhaller or something, and now I see she's a TAPPED person. Sorry 'bout that...

Posted by Chris | November 8, 2007 1:44 PM