« Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy? | Main | Schiphol Security » Ron Paul: Fringe Extremist21 Dec 2007 12:21 pm
The good thing about Ron Paul is that he dissents from some of the misguided elements of the bipartisan consensus in American foreign policy. The bad thing is that said dissent is part and parcel of a deranged extremist worldview, as Dana Goldstein points out. Photo by Flickr user slobug. Comments (40)
Everybody better grab some popcorn, pronto. This thread is going to be like "Silence of the Lambs" in a big hurry. I'm frightened and horrified, but I can't keep my eyes away... 
Goldstein really embarrassed herself with that rant, given that she didn't actually respond to [i]any[/i] of Glenn Greenwald's points. Look: You and presumably Goldstein support candidates who support killing people because of their skin color and/or religion. This makes you deranged and morally bankrupt. See how easy this is?
Wow, those RonPaulBots are crazy. I'll be willing to wager that quite a few of them come from the same person, and that all of those "I'm black and I like Ron Paul" posts are from white men. The irony is that Ron Paul and G. W. Bush are opposite sides of the same coin. They both hate the Federal government. Bush is trying to destroy it from within by promoting cronies and hacks to run the agencies, and then axe them through incompetence. IE appointing a failed Senator that tried to kill the Department of Energy to run the...Department of Energy. Or the horse show guy to run FEMA. The list goes on. The only thing different about Ron Paul and Bush is that one is overt about hating the government and one is covert. Also one is a hawk and one is a dove.
Just Google "we the people act" to see how "principled" Ron Paul really is. In that act, which Ron introduced to the House on three separate occasions, the federal courts would be stripped of jurisdiction for cases involving (1) the Establishment Clause, (2) privacy, including but not limited to cases involving sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction, and (3) same-sex marriage, when such cases are brought under the Equal Protection Clause. So why, you may be asking, is this unprincipled? Because the We the People Act is supposedly an attack on the Incorporation Doctrine, which applies against the States (nearly) all of the protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. But the We the People Act only de-incorporates those rights or obligations which are the playthings of social conservatives. If Ron was really principled, wouldn't he strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases involving the entire First Amendment? Why would federal courts be unable to hear challenges to State laws based on the Establishment Clause, but be able to hear challenges to State laws based on the First Amendment guarantees to freedom of speech or press? Because his libertarian streak only extends to the subjects already delineated by straightforward social conservatism. There is nothing especially principled about that.
deranged extremist worldview Well, of course if we accept your belief that libertarianism is a 'deranged extremist worldview', then you're right. And given that this is a popular belief in progressive circles, I imagine that for many of your readers it's QED, you've already won the argument. For everyone else, however, you've really added nothing to the argument (though I appreciate you using the blimp picture, which I like).
Not a paul-bot, but Dana's post was pretty flimsy. I wonder how many hardcore racists out there have supported and donated money to Bush. Let's go find a typical pro-torture, kill-all-the-raghads, shoot-the-beaners, we "wouldn't have had all these problems over the years" Republicans and see how many of them have donated money to Giuliani or Huckabee. If that is your standard, half of all donations to Republican candidates would have to be returned. Also, why is Ron Paul's worldview "deranged and extremist," while, say, the typical neocon view that is represented by every other single Republican candidate (much less the current administration) is "serious?" You and Dana are being very selective here. I bet some child molester out there gave money to the Clinton campaign. I guess Hillary gets her support from child molesters. We should look into that. Fox News 101, isn't it?
"...deranged extremist worldview..." As opposed to the safe and sane D.C. republicratic worldview which includes invading Afghanistan, invading Iraq, endless budget deficits, massive spying on the domestic population, torture of enemy combatants, legalized bribery of elected officials.... Now, Ron Paul is a nut job and I'd never vote for him. But how about we spend more time figuring out exactly what the standard of comparison is here.
"Well, of course if we accept your belief that libertarianism is a 'deranged extremist worldview', then you're right." Dana and Matt are raising red flags and warning readers precisely because Ron Paul is appealing in many ways. Dana points out that the very smart and knowledgable Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald both have written favorably about Paul. To me he's really good on civil liberties and the drug war. For example, even Time magazine's Joel Klein has been awful about warrantless wire tapping and the Telecom companies. So he's not just a deranged conservative redneck. Nor are most of his supporters. As a liberal hawk, I don't consider him a "dove" I consider him an isolationist. He's against the UN and dealing with foreigners. He's not very humane about foreigners in our country, i.e. immigrants. His supporters, like Justin Raimondo tend to blame everything on the "Neocons." Everything's foreigners' or the government's fault. They're libertarian/paleoconservative. Raimondo's wikipedia entry reads "During the 1960s, Raimondo took a brief interest in the philosophy of Ayn Rand before joining Young Americans for Freedom." The current mess in the economy is a result of free-market ideologues like Ron Paul. And the mess is going to hurt the everyday people libertarians claim are being scammed by the Neocons. The government needs democratically-accountable regulators to combat the massive fraud going on in the "private sphere." We don't need the return of the gold standard.
Also, why is Ron Paul's worldview "deranged and extremist," while, say, the typical neocon view that is represented by every other single Republican candidate (much less the current administration) is "serious?" Well, I'll bet the answer is that Dana Goldstein goes to lots of DC dinner parties with neocon-types, and I think Tapped actually used to have one of them blogging for a while, while he also worked for Marty Peretz. By definition, the people you meet at DC dinner parties aren't "deranged and extremist", regardless of anything they actually say or believe...
Well, I'd like to think that I'm not a bot, but I find the post weak. Most of it is based on some newsletter that Paul apparently repudiated. The anti-sexual-harassment-law and anti-aids-coverage statements (though I obviously disagree with them) are standard libertarian points, not Paul-specific. Where's the smokin' gun?
Also, why is Ron Paul's worldview "deranged and extremist," while, say, the typical neocon view that is represented by every other single Republican candidate (much less the current administration) is "serious?" Matt and Dana are more than able to speak for themselves, but I'm pretty sure they'd call the Cheney/neocon outlook "deranged and extremist" too. Thus, your criticism rests on a false dichotomy. Ron Paul is just deranged in a new, more different way.
The current mess in the economy is a result of free-market ideologues like Ron Paul Well, now. That depends what aspects of the economy you consider to be part of 'the mess'. The increasing gap between rich and poor, along with our trade imbalance, I can see being laid at the feet of 'free market ideologues' (though I might argue the specifics). However, the housing bubble and deflation are things that result from monetary policy that Paul specifically opposes, and in fact Paul warned of the potential housing bubble as far back as 2004. Another possible economic mess would be inflation, which may or may not be running higher than official figures indicate; if it is, then once more Paul is on the side of the angels.
Just the usual demagouging and name calling I guess. All these bloggers that like to label Paul as "deranged" and "extremist" never seem to care too much about making legitimate arguments to this point. The fact is every area of life the Federal government has touched has gotten worse. Education is worse, transportation, energy, the economy in general, national defense, etc. I assure you there is nothing extremist about being libertarian and there are many contemporary economists like Mises and Hayek that would support Paul's views, its just that public education ha made our populace so stupid that they have never heard of these men before.
Why exactly are some liberals/progressives spending so much time worrying about Ron Paul? I can understand why disillusioned conservatives like Andrew Sullivan are focusing on the guy...but why is anybody in the left blogosphere spending time "warning" folks about a libertarian conservative who's NOT going to win the GOP nominations, and who would only benefit Democrats if he runs a third party campaign for President? I don't get it. Mike
Yglesias, and Goldstein, and half the commenters on this blog are wasting their time. You can't refute a theology, you can only supplant it or extirpate it. There's two choices only -- a competing theology with a superior narrative, or burning at the stake.
The fact is every area of life the Federal government has touched has gotten worse. Education is worse, transportation, energy, the economy in general, national defense, etc. Dare I even ask for some citation? Of even one of these. How has education "gotten worse?" What metric are you using to judge this descent into ignorance? Let's just start there and move down the list once we establish what it means to actually support your statements with fact. I assure you there is nothing extremist about being libertarian and there are many contemporary economists like Mises and Hayek that would support Paul's views, its just that public education ha made our populace so stupid that they have never heard of these men before. Generally speaking I find it tactless to call out typos on blog posts, but if you're going to rail against how stupid public education "ha" made us all, perhaps you might want to check your very own house for glass walls before chucking that rock.
Keep running Mr. Paul. You're gonna win (I promise) and you'll save us from the scary United Nations and all those blue hats.
Why exactly are some liberals/progressives spending so much time worrying about Ron Paul? Well, there is this quaint notion that the citizenry be involved and knowledgable about all aspects of the government, so far as possible. I mean, I guess you can subscribe to a belief that all that matters is what your side of the aisle is doing but that seems sort of short sighted to me.
Libertarianism as a governing theory (as far as I can see) just doesn't have any legs. It's viable as a movement for people who are either truly disaffected with the system (or as a fashionable rallying point for those who deem themselves "above the fray" of the two party system) but I want someone to actually lay out how a "true Libertarian" president would rule. You say you want a "limited government"...spell it out for me, show me how it works, what you could cut, how you would justify it, how it would be practically applied, etc. A lot of Libertarians (who, I imagine, think that they are the only "realists" out there) actually strike me as having a hopelessly utopian worldview; that is to say, I think the state of liberty that they say they want is unachievable in a modern society. Certainly some of the ideas could work at the margins, and maybe even a few could go mainstream, but in total, I don't think so.
Expat Lumberjack asked about Paul's "We the People Act": Why would federal courts be unable to hear challenges to State laws based on the Establishment Clause, but be able to hear challenges to State laws based on the First Amendment guarantees to freedom of speech or press?" I don't know for sure, but maybe because those are the areas where the federal courts have gone off the rails with respect to the Constitution?
"I mean, I guess you can subscribe to a belief that all that matters is what your side of the aisle is doing but that seems sort of short sighted to me." But people are acting like Ron Paul is some sort of significant political figure, when he's two-steps above being a non-entity. It's almost like liberals are embarassed that Paul, a right-winger with libertarian views that are solidly on the fringe in American politics, nevertheless has a clearer and more principled opposition to the Iraq Catastrofuck (TM The Daily Show) than most of the Democratic candidates, so they feel compelled to run him down to compensate for that. Mike
The neocons are much more scrofulous than Ron Paul. Look what they've done to civil liberties in this country and the anguish and suffering they've brought to Iraqis, the Palestinians, and our own soldiers. They're truly evil and they've hijacked the ENTIRE GOVERNMENT. Paul is harmless, not even worth castigating.
I should also point out that Ron Paul has spent most of his adult professional life living on a government paycheck...so much libertarians.
It's almost like liberals are embarassed that Paul, a right-winger with libertarian views that are solidly on the fringe in American politics, nevertheless has a clearer and more principled opposition to the Iraq Catastrofuck (TM The Daily Show) than most of the Democratic candidates... Barack Obama.
Hmm, the Paulbots are a lot slower on the draw than I expected. They must still be working at their 60-hour a week jobs just so they can support lazy irresponsible people on welfare and the Zionists at the Department of Education.
But people are acting like Ron Paul is some sort of significant political figure, when he's two-steps above being a non-entity. 30 years ago the religious right was two-steps above being a non-entity.
Paul is not going to be President, so these broad based attacks are waste of time. Dana may be sincere, but her post has lots of guilt by association. The Bush campaign relied on a kernel of far rightist - but no one reall blamed Bush. Once again - it's a waste of time to bring up abortion - Not only is Paul not going to win, he would not be able to make abortion illegal even if he did win. Bringing this issue up is a way to a more fashionable argument against Paul because it's hard to argue for Bush's war in Iraq. We have no intention of voting for Paul - Rather, Obama. But we do credit Paul for being adamentine against the war during the debates. He is obviously a decent and tolerant guy - despite some gruesome followers (who are ignorant).
a clearer and more principled opposition to the Iraq... No, actually Barack Obama's opposition to the war is nowhere near as clear as Paul's. His initial opposition was couched in utilitarian terms ('not opposed to all wars... just stupid wars'). He hasn't used his position as a Senator to try to cut funding. His current platform doesn't call for an immediate withdrawal. And for those of us who like to look to the future, it's worth remembering that Obama is among those who has decided to 'keep all options on the table, including military action' on Iran. Paul wants to normalize relations.
Here's my contribution to Ron Paul's cause. I especially urge using those techniques against the Democratic candidates. I note also that DG, SansAClue (MattY), and others on the (American but not Canadian) left have a kneejerk habit of denying the NAFTASuperhighway, when the Canadian government even mentioned it (under a different name) in a speech and has maps of it on their websites: youtube.com/watch?v=Br31mdP8-Ug Is there some kind of Peter Principle for Pundits or something?
Sorry, but Obama is a hawk compared to Paul. The claim was that Paul "has a clearer and more principled opposition to the Iraq Catastrofuck (TM The Daily Show) than most of the Democratic candidates..., not that he was more of a dove. He is more of an isolationist/dove than Obama. That's another point for Obama in my calculus. I note also that left have a kneejerk habit of denying the NAFTASuperhighway.. I don't think anyone denies that I-32 is a DOT project. What we tend to call batshit crazy is that this is some sort of conspiratorial attempt to dissolve the United States into a "North American Union", one step closer to the United Nations Bluehat Invasion Plan and the constant whir of black helicopters across the land.
I think one of Ron Paul's appealing characteristics is that he seems to be utterly ideologically consistent. In fact, his political persona appears to be exactly who he is in day-to-day life, a paleoconservative libertarian. This is often the case for candidates with more extreme political views -- Nader and Buchanan, for example, also seemed to be exactly the same in their personal life as they were on the campaign trail. As for Paul's popularity with some on the left, none of the Democratic candidates are offering defenses of the constitution and bill of rights like Paul is. It doesn't mean he should be elected, but it might mean he deserves some attention.
Dana does a lousy job of taking on Ron Paul because she spends her time spewing invectives and regurgitating rumors instead of simply citing his own speeches and writings and making a rational case against him. She convinces no one who doesn't agree with her from the start and alienates others who might be convinced by a better argument. There is certainly a solid case that progressives should not support Ron Paul. He's a small government conservative who would dismantle the social safety net and outlaw abortion. However, his position on abortion (Dana's pet peeve) is substantively no different than any of the other Republicans running. They'd all strip abortion rights, either procedure by procedure, or in one fell swoop. Why she finds Paul's views particularly egregious among those candidates is beyond me. If the question were which Republican would you choose if you knew the Republicans were going to win the next election, Ron Paul would be hands down the best in progressive terms. He alone believes in limits to executive authority, the primacy of rule of law, and an end to the doctrine of limitless war.
The irony is that Ron Paul and G. W. Bush are opposite sides of the same coin. They both hate the Federal government. Bush is trying to destroy it from within by promoting cronies and hacks to run the agencies, and then axe them through incompetence. IE appointing a failed Senator that tried to kill the Department of Energy to run the...Department of Energy. Or the horse show guy to run FEMA. The list goes on. The only thing different about Ron Paul and Bush is that one is overt about hating the government and one is covert. Also one is a hawk and one is a dove. Ha! Bush loves the federal government when it can be used to benefit his cronies.
"I think one of Ron Paul's appealing characteristics is that he seems to be utterly ideologically consistent." No, not really. Of course his press coverage, with its very narrow issue focus, is designed to make you think that, but it's not even close to true, and you don't need to look hard to find that out. Paul is, for example, utterly inconsistent on civil liberties, with no coherent basis for his positions. If it's a liberty he really likes (rare), then no one should be able to ban it; if it's a liberty he's ambivalent about then states should have free reign but the federal government should get out of the way (almost everything); if it's a liberty he actively opposes then the feds and the states should have a great big orgy of oppression (abortion). Consider his gold standard bug-up-his-ass and his professed libertarianism. What the gold standard amounts to in a modern economy is a government regulation on the price of gold through government hording of gold. Paul wants, in effect, to largely nationalize trade in gold and require, after partial nationalization, price controls. All this because he doesn't understand what money is in a modern economy, of course. Still, that's not an excuse: his push for the gold standard is antithetical to libertarianism and is as pure an example as you can get of a call to communism. Then consider his efforts to whitewash his associations with white supremacists. Paul ties himself into ideological knots in efforts to deny that he's a racist, even as he talks to their groups, takes their money, votes against civil and voting rights acts, is part of a NAFTA conspiracy cult that thinks Mexico is taking us over, and has a general fear of black helicopters. No, Paul is not ideologically honest or consistent. Even his supposed voting against federal spending takes a back seat to, for example, voting for money to finance abortion restrictions, showing apparent degrees of hypocrisy and anti-abortion extremism not seen in any other member of Congress. Paul is as ideologically pure as the slushy yellow snow.
"Paul ties himself into ideological knots in efforts to deny that he's a racist, even as he talks to their groups, takes their money, votes against civil and voting rights acts, is part of a NAFTA conspiracy cult that thinks Mexico is taking us over, and has a general fear of black helicopters." And liberals tie themselves into ideological knots in efforts to deny that they're racists, even as they demand racially discriminatory policies. Frankly, I think that's a bit better evidence of racism than who you're willing to talk to.
A lot of the attacks on Paul are insincere and delivered in bad faith. No one thinks Paul is a racist - no one who is being sincere. Did he refuse to deliever black babies when he was a doctor?
Jinchi writes: "However, his [Ron Paul] position on abortion (Dana's pet peeve) is substantively no different than any of the other Republicans running. They'd all strip abortion rights, either procedure by procedure, or in one fell swoop. Why she finds Paul's views particularly egregious among those candidates is beyond me. " Exactly the point - Dana may be sincere (and confused), but most people who bring up this topic with respect to Paul are insincere - Since Ron Paul has zero chance of affecting abortion policy in any way shape or form. Yet Dana and others express less concern for all the anti abortion candidates who are more likely to have a policy impact.
I'm a liberal respect Paul for speaking out against the war in the debates, but I think he is batshit insane for things like the gold standard. The Paulbots who claim that Milton Friedman was a gold standard supporter are mischaracterizing his position and I'm not really a fan of Chicago School economics. What Paul's support does is highlight that part of the Republican Party of Texas's platform - returning to the gold standard - that just shows how the most powerful state party within the Republican coalition is just loony. They also talk about taking back the Panama Canal. Paul is a bit of a fruitcake. Is the oil seeping into water in Texas or something? If you look up the voting on Congressional resolutions like "This Congress condemns the imprisonment of Christians in China for practicing their faith in their own homes," you will see the only person voting against is Ron Paul.
I suppose the Goldstein hit piece does was it was intended to do--give aloof anti-war Dem voters some ready excuses to vote for the war supporting Democrat if by some miracle Paul actually wins the GOP nomination. However, there's no getting around how petty and unfounded Goldstein's criticisms really are. So, Paul didn't (since most of Goldstein's examples are from 1985-95) hold mainstream liberal views on race relations or sexual harrassment. Yet like the many commentators for Goldstein's post, I see nothing in any of her examples that decreases my respect for Paul as a champion of integrity and liberty. Nor do I see any information that leads one to think Paul is not the candidate most likely to get us out of Iraq and restore accountable governance. If one prefers to vote on abortion or sexual harrassment issues, than I can certainly understand opposing Dr. Paul. But I find it seriously unfair to say Paul's worldview is "deranged" or "extremist" compared to the worldviews of the other major presidential candidates and their support for the Iraq occupation and the deception necessary to sustain it. Would Matt have the guts to say the same thing about John McCain or Mitt Rommney? Sorry Matt--but Sullivan and Greenwald are right and you are wrong. We may not agree with his views on monetary policy, but Ron Paul is a patriot who deserves serious consideration if he is on the ballot come November. On the issues where Paul is strongest--civil liberties, accountable government, and sane foreign policy--Paul as president would have a very positive impact. If the Democratic candidate will not pledge a speedy and responsible exit from Iraq, then here is one voter who would be interested in a Paul 3rd party run.
Comments closed January 04, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Careful, Matt. Did you see the comment thread in response to Dana's post? I expect you'll be getting some visitors soon...
Posted by Mike P | December 21, 2007 12:37 PM