Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Support Attracted by Ron Paul Sends Chills
One of the most bizarre things about the Republican presidential primary contest is the popularity of Ron Paul.
The Texas congressman has been a libertarian standard-bearer for more decades than that economic philosophy has been popular or tolerated, even in conservative circles.
Along the way, Mr. Paul has developed a reputation as a principled ideologue, especially when he is contrasted against chameleons like fellow front-runners Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Because Mr. Paul espouses social-political theories that young people in the first throes of infatuation with Ayn Rand's dreary melodramas take seriously, he is as close as many of them will ever get to the long-dead founder of Objectivism.
Mr. Paul has become an avatar of enlightened self-interest, even while maintaining a friendly, if not necessarily avuncular, demeanor. He's like a prickly old uncle who shows up at a family gathering after years in exile ready to pass on his version of the family's twisted history to the next generation. His outsider status in the family appeals to our sense of adventure and curiosity. The fact that he is feared adds to his charm.
Still, it is Mr. Paul's irascibility and impatience with Republican orthodoxies that accounts for much of his popularity with the young people canvassing rural Iowa for him.
Even liberals appreciate Mr. Paul's heretical gumption when he mocks the drug war, the Iraq war and our wasted decade in Afghanistan. When he rails against the assault on American civil liberties by a national security state-stoking paranoia, there are more than a few nods in his direction from the Democrats' amen corner. Even Jon Stewart keeps it friendly and superficial whenever Mr. Paul visits "The Daily Show."
For agreeing with liberals on the folly of foreign wars and for his advocacy of a return to the gold standard, cessation of aid to Israel and abolishing the Federal Reserve, the Republican establishment has rejected Ron Paul as a serious contender for the nomination, regardless of how well he does in Iowa. Still, he's poised to either win the first Republican contest of 2012 next week or place a strong second. That would create embarrassment for the GOP on many levels.
Mr. Paul's support among white nationalists, various militia movements, John Birch Society dead-enders, incorrigible anti-Semites and old-fashioned bigots trolling the Internet for a champion is finally becoming an issue. Media scrutiny of the newsletter he's published over the decades has prompted Mr. Paul to acknowledge that some of his support comes from the most unseemly and racist elements of society, but he insists he has never supported their causes in return.
"We understand that Paul is not a white nationalist, but most of our people support him because of his stand on issues," Donald Black of the racist website Stormfront told The New York Times. That endorsement should be damning enough, but one only needs to read what was published with Mr. Paul's blessings to see why extremists want him to be president.
"I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self-defense. For the animals are coming," said one anonymous piece in "The Ron Paul Survival Report," referring to "urban youth who play whites like pianos." Fear of a race war is a recurring theme in the newsletters, though Mr. Paul isn't known for resorting to racial invective to make his points. That doesn't mean he doesn't look the other way when others do it. He also claims not to know who wrote the most offensive pieces in his own newsletter.
One article referred to the holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. as "Hate Whitey Day." There were equally touching pieces over the years about AIDS victims and so-called "homosexual conspiracies."
Many of Ron Paul's newsletters purport to reveal plots to suspend the Constitution. They raise fears about a movement toward one world government and the machinations of the Israeli lobby. By any standard, Mr. Paul regularly wrote -- or published -- opinions and theories that disqualify him for consideration to any high or low federal office.
It isn't likely that many of Mr. Paul's more idealistic young supporters or admirers in liberal circles are aware of his unsavory history as a publisher or the fact that they are fellow travelers with some of the worst characters this country has ever produced. Mr. Paul can't bring himself to fully disavow the racists who support him because they've stuck with him longer than just about anyone.
233 Comments so far
Show All"Even Jon Stewart keeps it friendly and superficial whenever Mr. Paul visits 'The Daily Show' ". It certainly is heartwarming to see liberals such as Stewart ask the tough questions of a popular presidential candidate.
"Erroll"
Jon Stewart's popularity is (continues to be) based on delusions that he is some sort of liberal or progressive.
Stewart, like a good corporate tool, has the ability to appear to be many things to many people. As far as I could tell, years ago, when I stopped being manipulated by both him and Colbert, they are both most highly skilled at keeping people from straying beyond the status quo.
What this article says about Ron Paul seems accurate, but then that also means that Ron Paul is truly a reflection of the majority of people in this nation.
He is just as devious as any republican or democrat.
Bird:
This is either a grotesquely offered distortion, or psy-ops:
"What this article says about Ron Paul seems accurate, but then that also means that Ron Paul is truly a reflection of the majority of people in this nation."
To suggest that a majority in this nation expect a race war; and that a majority are anti-semites; or even that a majority wishes to see an end to the Fed (I do, on that one), or a cessation of foreign wars (I agree here, but as has been explained by some of the forum's more astute posters, Ron Paul is not anti-war... it's the $ aspect, and who's paying that's at issue to him) could represent YOUR wish list. By conflating Ron Paul's views (or those of his supporters) with an alleged majority, you are posting something that is dishonest as well as ugly.
I read on Truthout this morning that soldiers and those in uniform tend to support Ron Paul. That explains why there are so many endorsing him in this forum.
Once a serious right wing individual assumes power, all the fascist machinations already in place (some, still covert) will steam roll over us. Anyone who champions that cause might as well lick Hitler's boots. A Progressive stand that is not..
Ron Paul is not Hitler and his election will not lead to fascism. You are indulging in hysterical propaganda. Ron Paul is less of a threat to the people of the world than the neo-liberal US empire that he intends to dismantle.
When the chips are down, the cultural warriors will support Obama, candidate of neo-liberalism and empire, because although he is a heartless murderer, he supports abortion and gay rights.
The US worker may be less threatened by _government_ oppression under Ron Paul, but with your nick, I'm sure you are familiar with the history of privatized violence on disenters and labor organizers inflicted by Balwin Felts, Pinkertons, and modern-day Colombian death squads - murder and terror far worse than anything the government did. All of it was legal and constitutional as the mines and mill owners (and Coaca-Cola in Colombia) were just "protecting their privatate property". Ron Paul will bring us back to thise days.
Ron Paul's anti-labor positions are among his many troubling stands. My support for Paul is based on his anti-empire, anti-Pentagon stands.
Ending US wars overseas is my first priority. So I support Paul's candidacy on that basis. I also don't believe that he will be any more harmful to Labor than the other Republican candidates.
"Ending US wars overseas is my first priority" I totallyand wholeheartedly agree. Paul in 2012.
Ron Paul's "crime" is to challenge the status quo. That's why he's being attacked by the left and the right.
Mostly, he's being attacked by the MSM, the neo-liberals and the adherents of the bi-partisan national security consensus, that is the 95% of the politicians who support the MIC and the grotesque war budget.
iwonder,
Paul should be attacked by the left and the right! He didn't challenge the laws of his own state that had the highest prison executions in this country's history. And now, we're supposed to believe that he is THE GUY - he can't even handle an interview from a woman on CNN. One thing I don't like about the GOP, they can trash other people on a friendly cable outlet, but, when going to something other than FOX, they don't want to answer questions, in fact, they run. Then they go back to FOX for a sympathetic ear. As far as I'm concerned, he is one of the status quo - he's been in Congress for 22 years. Pull out his spectacular record from the 22 years the taxpayers have paid his salary!
Hi skinny, I didn't say he's the guy. I simply said he's being attacked because he's challenging the status quo. You say he can't even handle an interview from a woman. That taunt would seem more suited for a locker room or precinct house. Yes indeed we all are far from perfect including Mr Paul. The fact that US Americans put so much stock in the belief that the President is the prime force and mover in our economic political power structure, just shows how naive and misinformed the average US voter really is.
Iwonder,
Sorry I misinterpreted your comment about 'he's the guy!' And yes, I do agree with you on the misinformation about the average voter. Yet, as you can see from a lot of the comments posted, especially the supporters of Paul, they are like salespeople.
I think what some people need to do is start running for some of the senate/representative seats, as well as running in local elections. If the laws are still the same, the age requirement for congress is at least 25 years old. I think that people should be able to vote on all elected positions, instead of appointments. My reasoning for no more appointments, which ever party is in office tends to appoint people based on favors, and we saw what happened when Obama tried to appoint Elizabeth Warren. Not only that, when it is time that a SCOTUS judge is ready to retire, congress tend to really exert pressure on public using scare tactics, among other things in order to appoint the judges they want that are usually conservative, which takes away a balance of power from the people. Especially that the GOP always try to appoint judges that are pro-life, anti Roe vs. Wade, anti-LGBT...this is the type of judges that don't necessarily reflect the demographics of this country. But, again, I think people need to become more active in politics in order to make government run correctly and efficiently, instead of, again, blaming the president for everything - meanwhile, the president usually gets one or two terms (4-8 years), while, there are others that make a career out of politics, for instance, Paul, Pelosi, McConnell, McCain...have been in government for more than 10 years. Take Newt, he went from Congress to Lobbying - so, obviously the laws doesn't work, because they always find loopholes. The others, well, they become political analysis. Meanwhile, there are college grads that can't find a job and have lot's of debt, but, no matter how much some of the elected officials claim they want smaller government, they always seem to find a job in government, or advising about government.
That so many believe any of these clowns, including Ron Paul, have any intention or the ability, for that matter, to alter the course of events, domestically or internationally, is disheartening, to say the least. Is anyone paying attention?
How about the record of the current Don Corleone in the White House?
Oh, they are ending. They are becoming privatized. The libertarian ideal of privatization will most likely accelerate that privatization.
Those who like soldiery - killing and some freedoms from restraint in the rape, theft, and violent control departments - now have more opportunity than ever to continue without the severe restrictions imposed by their former government employers.
sojers are an increasingly job-secure commodity, with only one requirement, which the last two words of this comment will identify.
The word soldier, I remind you all, came from the word for a Roman coin, and maybe 300 years past came into Inglais use as a killer-for-pay.
Killing for pay will not end merely by fake withdrawals from nations blitzkrieged by your own. When Lockheed-Martin (which posted the largest government personnel gain/intrusion in the Bush administration cabinet) and other military weapons companies diversify to own one of the many security corporations, a very healthy vertical structure will be formed - healthy in the sense of persistent, long-lasting.
Libertarianism is all about privatizing and the release of business from restraints. These restraints are diminishing in US and some other government, and it's all the latest historical fad.
I wonder exactly how the libertarian soldier-candidates will market themselves Duty? Honor? Corporation? Imagine the time when your shopping loyalty to WalMart is mandated by the convincing method of a projectile weapon and invisible intrusion into your every electronic action, communication, statement. Your government lied to you about its reason for ordering you to engage in war only a decade ago. You obeyed unquestioningly.
You will continue to obey, thoughtlessly enslaving yourself with a few buzzwords, as will your children.
My own dreams have little in common with yours. They are far, far from libertarian dreams of, say getting Black Hills gold, taking redwood lands through fraud, freedom to net all the fish for sale you can, buying a Lamborghini with the excess from wise investing in opportunities sure to grow, killing humans and other animals from whom you can profit, or who merely reduce that profit or possibility.
but Smilodon - wasn't that an Eocene mammal which radiated into many present-day mammals? As evolution, other forces and events make it uncertain that libertarianism will triumph. While it's true that much of US history is libertarian in thrust (I often mention that the US army was posted to the plains with a mandate to enforce treaties, for instance excluding miners from entering the Black Hills, and instead protecting their illegal entry. So US soldiers have long consistently fought for the private financial gain of unscrupulous individuals.(Duty? Honor? Profit?)), large-scale corporate-anticorporate violence would have to play out, whether previous to such a fate, or following. Loyalties are congealing in most of you.
Blind loyalties.
.
Than you are clearly not a worker - probably a member of the comfortable liberal bourgeois, who probably doesn't even know what 'NLRB" stands for - who all the Republican candidates want to abolish with the budget pen.
No Wobbly or anarcho-syndicalist - to the extent that they would give a flying fuck about electoral politics, would ever vote for Ron Paul. So, I strongly suggest that you change your hypocrisy-laden nick.
My family is over seven generatioons of working class, including me.
I've joined unions, started a union local and worked as staff for a couple more. The NLRB is one of the few reasons to consider voting for Obomber, but even then he seems powerless to overcome the Republican obstructionism against all candidates for the vacancies on the NLRB. One more retirement from the NLRB and it will lack a quorum and, according to a recent federal court case, will be unable to render decisions in that case.
Actually I chose my screenname at a time when I was trying to build bridges between some union locals and anti-interventionist groups. I don't claim to compare to Joe Hill, but I reccomend that you try to dream about him and what he would be doing today.
kinda like a lefty anarcho WWJD. WWJHD?
I think he'd raise hellla ruckus bringing against empire and he'd unionize undocumented workers. One big union. One big world.
Watch as the corporate imperial syndicate crushes Ron Paul when, not if, he gets close to winning the Republiocan nod. He will win Iowa, but NH has electronic vote tallying that showed signs of tampering against Dean.
But if he does squeak out a win in NH, it will be a political event comparable in magnitude to Eugene McCarthy's win in NH in 1968. It will be a repudiation of the military industrial complex, no?
I'd much rather fight a capitalist state shorn of it's earth destroying military and vast web of secret and non-secret prisons/dungeons. Without ity's drug war and it's Patriot Act.
Would you rather have any of the other Republicans? O'bomber?
There's no one but Paul challenging the bi-partisan national security consensus in this election. None of the "professional left" chose to run against Oboma and anyaway, those folks have polled a whopping pile of nothing in presidential elections after WWII.
But assuming the likelihood that Ron Paul is accompanied by a republican-majority congress, what makes you thing he will be able to achieve any one of his foreign policy or military objectives?
But one thing WILL for sure, every one of his extremist positions of the worker, the poor and the environment will be swept through congress in a matter of days.
I would rather have NOBODY for president. The very concept of a powerful chef executive is undemocratic and in most republics, if they have a president at all, it is largely a symbolic position with little power. We need to abolish the whole failed mess and replace it with a new libertarian-socialist republic.
But barring that, there is Rocky Anderson.
https://www.voterocky.org/home
Now which anti-worker, anti-poor parts of Paul's program that will be "swept through Congress" are different than what will be swept through Congress under any Republican President?
Clearly Paul is a better choice than any of the other Republicans. Then it becomes a decision as to whether Obama is a better choice than Paul. That's the political reality.
Paul's philosophy is flawed but he will fight for it. Obama represents Company nihilism. It's absolutely clear that he has every intention of continuing his corportae imperialist ways.
I'm not saying Paul is great, but at least he shakes up the pro-corporate, pro-pentagon, pro-zionist "bi-partisan consensus."
What more do you expect from a candidate in this charade?
And BTW, if fair elections were held tomorrow, Paul would be swept into the White House.
Clearly Paul is NOT a better choice than any of the other Republicans. His extreme libertarianism means a devolution to anarchy or ultimately fascism. No regulations. Limited federal government. Various state and local police/militias in control. Many areas with limited policing would have gangs filling the power vacuum. Turf wars between state and local factions of lawful and unlawful groups. No societal help for the unfortunate except from the church. Too bad for agnostics, atheists, and non-church-goers. I won't even get in to the tiny-minded foolishness of his economic ideas that didn't work well a century ago, and now are simply ludicrous. What a putz!
No, I don't think so.
First most policing is determined at the state and local levels, and a President Paul would have no power over those. So your hysterical distopian fanatsy is just that, a fantasy.
Finally your overwrought fanatasy weighs little in comparison to Paul's anti-empire, anti-Pentagon, anti-drug war and anti-Fed Reserve positions.
The US is a fascist empire and a police state already. Support for Obama is the real support for empire and fascism.
The constitution is dead let's admit it and get on with the future. Nobody for president is a good start.
dreamjoehill, you say, "Ending US wars overseas is my first priority. So I support Paul's candidacy on that basis. I also don't believe that he will be any more harmful to Labor than the other Republican candidates."
It is not my intention to dismiss or criticize you personally, especially based on one comment, but regarding your support of Ron Paul based on his stand about war overseas...that seems akin to the opinions of a misguided few I encountered who supported Bush primarily on his pro gun-ownership stand...seemingly oblivious to the countless other equally or more destructive viewpoints and policies that would be included. The big picture is well worth taking more than a dismissive glance at.
The 'no more harmful' part...seems a typical, accepting of lesser-than-other-evils choice. In light of the fact that he has a long history of going against the flow of his Washington counterparts, which seems to be his most appealing trait, I ask you to consider something I wrote in response to a Ron Paul supporter elsewhere...
************************
This is my slightly edited response to yahoo news article, "Ex-Aide to Ron Paul Makes Stunning Claims About Old Boss..."
To all of you who have been propagandized into believing Ron Paul is our newest savior, try really hard to jog your memories into recalling the decades of campaign promises not kept.
As I have watched more and more people jump on Ron Paul's band wagon I did a little reading up on old Ronnie. While he may certainly be one of the few politicians who has consistently stood his ground, often loudly against the flow, if one digs past the lauded stands...stopping wars, ending big brother's homeland security measures, auditing and dissolving the Fed, ending the War on Drugs being a few of the most appealing...one ought to be more than a little skeptical.
I suspect that, if elected, Ron Paul might actually get some of his agenda implemented. Things like finishing off ALL government programs that help anyone (but his fellow isolationists and Empire-thinkers) by seeing to it that they become fully privatized. If anyone thinks THAT is a good idea, oh well...you'd likely change your mind when fruition of his extremist plans adversely effected YOUR life. As to Paul's rather clear isolationist tendencies...those strike me as more than a bit worrisome.
His aim and ability to stop wars?? Seems that if one used deductive reasoning, one could plainly see that with the US being the world's largest weapons manufacturer AND dealer, stopping US interest/participation in wars with our presidential vote is a pipe dream. Especially considering that a good many of ALL weapons being used for war anywhere on the planet, whether the US is directly involved in the fighting or not, have been made and supplied (directly or indirectly) by the US. The MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX is not a fiction. The US IS AND HAS BEEN for some time THE BIGGEST BULLY ON THE PLANET.
No one, not Ron Paul or any other presidential wanna-be will stop wars!!!! And, I'm to be encouraged that Ron Paul supposedly has greater financial support from soldiers and other military personnel than any other candidate!?
It will be the unwavering refusal, by WE THE PEOPLE all over the globe, to be drone-fighters and flag-waving supporters of war that will ever stop them...in conjunction with a universal effort by the masses to turn fear of 'different' into acceptance and appreciation.
As to the Federal Reserve?? THAT entity, with the intentionally misleading name, along with the IMF, the World Bank and a handful of other equally threatening institutions of elitist cronyism own the planet...lock, stock and barrel. You don't have to dig very deep to see the threads of coercion and intent that are being successfully manipulated to unravel all middle classes and to ultimately deny regular working folks of much else but 'worker bee' status......the very real progress towards which should be pretty easy to see.
How is it that otherwise reasonably intelligent people can be so easily led this way or that by politicians and pundits who all clearly serve an elite segment of the population whose members are often self-serving sociopaths who have little to no compassion or regard for ANYBODY not in their club? WAKE UP!! Realize that there will be NO CANDIDATE on the ballot of the next or any future presidential election (as long as they are influenced so completely by money and special interests) who will be able to single-handedly change what is so obviously being powerfully controlled and orchestrated from behind the soulless, greed-gilded curtain of the real terrorists.
How can so many people be convinced that any one or the other of the presidential hopefuls, currently being paraded about to steer or scare voters to the best corporate candidate, is THE ONE?
Perhaps, because they are unable to recall the last batch of un-kept presidential campaign promises or to see through the ever-expanding holes in the illusory veil of rosy promises repeatedly waved about by oppressive hands that proudly and self-righteously knock down any and all deemed unworthy of similar privilege, seemingly intent on keeping the vast majority of us from ever attaining an equal portion of the pie...or even just enough of a slice to comfortably and healthily sustain life!
*******************************
Sorry for the emotional rant, but I am being too adversely effected by the oppressive re-landscaping of our economy to be very cheerful...or anything but sickened by the facade of elective government we are repeatedly encouraged to participate in, and do....in spite of volumes of evidence that lead me to believe that to vote is and will remain nothing more than an exercise in futility until all new and completely fresh, untainted-by-money-and-corruption methods and candidates are in place.
Agreed: the MIC is firmly entrenched.
But I disagree in that I think a prominent anti-militarist, anti-empire President would be a huge victory. It's almost unthinkable.
Of course elections in the US are a mostly rigged affair, Still I'm glad to see Paul throwing his monkey wrench at the wheels of the empire.
He'll never be my hero, but right now I think his candidacy is the only glimmer in an otherwise dark Deathmarch 2012 tm :).
Dreamjoehill,
Aren't you concerned about the harm he will do to our citizens and America with his racist, anti-semetic and bigotry attitude? What is wrong with "liberals' who are willing to support a bigot and a man lacking compassion for the citizens in our country who are impoverished and in need of governmental assistance? Is this what "liberal" politics is all about today?
First I don'tthink Paul is anti-semitic. He is anti US aid and alliance with Israel. Not the same thing except in the mins of the zio-fascists.
Secondly, I am not a liberal. Mostly I despise liberalism as lukewarm hypocrisy. My politics are working class politics and despite liberal protestations, liberalism is no great ally of the workers and is pretty much a dead letter in the US anyway.
Domestic politics in the US occur in an imperial and militarist context. Domestic policy considerations are secondary to military and imperial requirements. All other Dems and repubs running bow down before the empire. Paul does not; so he gets my vote despite some horrific domestic policy ideas, but those horrific ideas are nothing compared to the ongoing imperial consensus that controls the US government and society.
What's wrong with liberals who will support our murderous Imperialist-in-chief Obama in order to defend anti-poverty programs that bartely work and are chock full of oppressive police state provisions. .
PJD, if you count on the government to defend workers from corporate violence, you are twisting everything we know about capitalist governments on its head. Government is here to protect the 1% from us, not the other way around.
GreenDragon,
In re "Government is here to protect the 1% from us, not the other way around." True dat, and that's why we have seen John Boehner break down and cry like a woman on television these past few years. (I'm a woman, and I don't cry as much as he does), but yeah, this should give you an idea of what's going on!
pjd412, I think you missed my request for information, earlier today, so I'm reposting it here, where you might see it. As you'll remember, you said:
"I'm sure Ron would fully support this and many other forms of "privatized oppression" - expanding on the present day insults of pre-employment peeing-in-a-jar and financial/social/political background checks - all in the name of protecting their "property rights" and "armed self defence" of their property."
It would help the discussion if you would provide links to what you have found in Ron Paul's actual record that would make you feel "sure" that he would be in favor of "privatized oppression" like death squads or Pinkertons. I haven't been able to find anything like that. Ron Paul seems to have been consistently against oppression of any kind, including government oppression.
If you have any real evidence to support what you say, please share it.
Spare me your fucking feigned ignorance of what a US -style "libertarian" stands for!
Ron Paul is a hyper-capitalist. He fully supports mandatory drug testing, he even supports racial discrimination - as long as it is done by a private individual pursuant to running a business. He considers all laws that affect a boss's prerogative to set wages, hire and fire for any reason or no reason at all. If the worker doesn like it, he can leave, start his own business, or starve. So of course he would support hiring mercenaries to put down striking workers who are interfering with a corporations private property rights.
So does he support the striking workers right to fire back?
Does he support the Governor calling in th National Guard?
Bullshit comments. Whether you are for or against Paul is irrelevant. Paul is a reactionary and if he runs, it will be on a Republican ticket. I'm a socialist. All the candidates in the running on the US's party list disgust me, whether they call themselves democrats, republicans, or libertarians. Paul is essentially more of the same myopic, solipsistic crap.
We need someone like Nader. We need someone who realizes that the world, and our part of it that is chosen by god, is headed for a cataclysmic crash against a resource, population, and environmental wall. Anything less means the same old shit. Anything less is about as effective as pissing into the wind.
Oh I agree that Paul wil not save the US, but neither will any of the other major party candidates
Still, he's the only one running that supports de-funding the empire. So he gets my vote, for what it's worth. Even Nader's stand on imperialism and militraism is less powerful than Paul's.
"He fully supports mandatory drug testing,'
-- You are simply spreading false information here, pal. Here is the proof.
http://www.issues2000.org/HouseVote/Party_1998-443.htm
He stated it is the right of private companies to do as they wish in regards to drug testing, but he voted NO on mandatory drug testing for gov't employees, or making it mandatory through gov't control. Also, it was the GOP who was pushing for mandatory drug testing for all welfare recipients. He opposed this too. Please stop spreading false information.
The cultural warrors are about as desperate as the MSM in their hysteria over Paul and their willingness to adavnce all manor of lies and smears against Paul.
What exactly do you mean by cultural warriors? I hope you're not meaning that ethnic minorities are going to vote for Obama because he supports gay and minority rights. First, that's not necessarily true across the board, second, I think rights of cultural expression, women's rights, and gay rights should be part of any agenda, and subsuming them under the rubric of class struggle, while a penchant of some white male heterosexual radicals, is rather alienating for those that are part of these groups. Paul's got it wrong on a lot of issues too, though he's right about a lot of the important stuff. Should elections turn on which candidate one dislike's the least though, or should we just not vote when there is not a candidate that represents what we want. I feel too often it is the former that results.
By cultural warriors, I refer to those liberals who's highest priorities are abortion rights and gay rights. I support both and disagree with Paul on these, but despite the fact that I am a member of the gay and bisexual community, defunding the empire is far more important to me than say, gay marriage.
I never understand why people who are anti-abortion and anti-gay rights get so worked up into a frenzy rather than just living and letting live. I think if Paul is a true blue libertarian, then live and let live should be the order of the day, at least as far as the state is concerned.
I agree on Paul. I don't think he's all that terrific on social issues but defunding of the empire is an issue that affects us all, gay, straight, brown, white, anti-abortion, pro-abortion, etc. At least Paul dares to broach the real issues rather than the rest of the fluff that is presented as political debate in the MSM.
Dreamjoehill --
Thank you for making some excellent points. You are going to see the corporate media go absolutely batshit if Paul threatens to win the GOP.
People don't seem to comprehend the actual powers of the President. Even on CD posters seem unaware of the distribution of powers within the U.S. government. Admittedly, the Executive Branch is acting more and more on the Führerprinzip so it is alarming & confusing.
Both Congress and the judicial branch have given carte blanche to the Executive branch on "security issues" -- which are ever expanding.
Paul has a long and distinguished record OPPOSING expansion of Executive branch powers, undeclared wars, etc.
Paul voted against the invasion of Iraq. He voted against the Patriot Act (one of only 3 Republicans). He voted against the expansion of military powers and attacks on civil liberties. He calls for an end to the sanctions against Cuba.
http://www.cfr.org/experts/world/ron-paul/b13303
The President does not make laws out of thin air; he does not write laws; he does not declare them null and void. That is why the controversy surrounding the use of signing statements --whereby the executive seems to be 'legislating'.
Paul cannot enter the White House and declare all labor laws null and void. He cannot declare abortion illegal, etc. He is not remotely 'progressive' on those issues, but he is not going to unilaterally wipe them off the books.
However, he would be Commander and Chief-- and one thing he does have total control over is wars, invasions, and occupations.
Technically, Congress is supposed to declare wars but they have given up their prerogatives to the Executive Branch. So now it is the President who starts and ends wars.
Evidently, Paul does generate a lot of support within the U.S. military.
http://blacksheepreport.com/u-s-military-men-women-welcome-to-the-political-fringe/
Siouxrose seems to think that must mean that Paul and the military are preparing a fascist coup d'etat. One of the reasons Paul is popular with the military is that he is the ONLY candidate advocating an end to the Forever wars throughout the Middle East and across the planet. Many people in the military are sick of the endless deployments in nations such as Afghanistan and Iraq. (With many more on the horizon.)
Paul is extremely conservative but shows very few of the classic symptoms of fascist thinking. Take a look at Britt's classic list of fascist traits:
http://www.operationawareness.com/whats_new_10.html
Paul is probably the candidate who explicates fascist principles the least -- and that includes the oily bomber.
I certainly hope he is the GOP candidate because at the very least he will raise important issues regarding the military Empire, the encroaching U.S. police state, the endless support of Israel, and the banking cartel/FED that runs our economy.
No other candidate -- outside of a Rocky Anderson or Jill Stein -- will touch these issues publicly.
I do not expect Paul to be the GOP candidate. Too threatening to the oligarchy.
Under NO circumstances will I support Obama -- one of the most destructive Presidents in U.S. history. (He has completely normalized the Bush-Cheney junta and all their policies. He has completely derailed Progressive change in a way that no Republican could have achieved.)
I'll be campaigning for either Rocky Anderson or Jill Stein but might consider Paul against Obama if he slips through the the GOP nose.
Uh... Ron Paul is the only one warning about the police state. He's a strict constitutionalist, not a fascist. You are simply delusional sir.
Actually Ron Pauls concern is a Police State wherein a Government in charge of the police.
His solution is to privatize Police forces allowing the Corporation those same powers which would operate without any restrictions by the Government. He has no problems with EXXON spying on its employees. He has a problem with the Government doing the same.
Remember that all those rights as enumerated by the Constitution are limits prescribed against the power of Government. None of them limit a Corporation. Under a Ron Paul, if a Corporation stated NO MUSLIM could have a job with their firm then That would be fine.
Under Ron Paul if the Corporation insisted on drug testing every employee or strip searching them as they entered their premises, then that would be their right and the Government would not interfere.
It is still tyranny he supports . Now some might argue that this "Tyranny of Wealth" already exists in the United States of America and these "Rights" little more then illusion anyways. This not due to the prescence oif Government. It is due to a Government that has been coopted by the very same people Ron Paul wishes to have yet more power.
Thank you, GW North! Besides PDJ, no one here has done other than salute Ron Paul. I was hoping someone with your intellectual wing-span would enter this snake pit and comment. Amen to that! True believers won't hear you. Their plugs and blinders are already on firmly. It's the neutral passersby who need to hear a different side to the Ron Paul cheerleading squad.
I'm with you too SR. Paul looks and sounds so good only because the rest of those in the contest are so bad - are such odious, self-serving promoters of corporate capitalism. Paul would have probably voted for Hindenberg in the German elections of 1932, but being a pragmatist, unlike the socialists, communists, or the likes of the followers of Rudolf Steiner or the Jehovah's Witnesses, would most likely have bowed to the German Workers Party when it took power a year later, rather than chance being sent of to a very unpleasant internment camp.
Am I judging him too harshly?
Am I judging him too harshly?
Yes, and on a very flimsy basis, your delusional ideas about what Paul would have done in the waning years of Weimar.
Another desperate and idiotic attack on Paul.
Actually GW North is wrong. At no point did Ron Paul suggest private police forces that operate unrestricted, which I'm assuming means outside constitutional authority. You want to talk corporate power and the corruption that could occur under Paul, fine. But don't make shit up, especially when this guy is the only one who would stop the real police state being set up right under your nose.
I suggest you read some of Ludwig von Mises who Ron Paul quotes extensively. Ron Paul has openly advocated the privatization of the bulk of Government operations, He has openly stated a Corporation should have no restrictions on who it hires and fires and the conditions under which the worker must labor.
His support for the Constitution are only for protections from GOVERNMENT. A private company can do as it pleases on its own property in a Ron Paul world.
I would use "freedom of speech" as an example as it is one of the easiest to demonstrate.
Under the existing laws the people have the right to gather in PUBLIC places to air their grievances against the Government. They can not do that on properties owned privately.(Unless of course they OWN that property) As example you can not go into Wal Mart and protest their labor practices. Ron paul has a problem with Government restricting the peoples Freedom of speech but FULLY SUPPORTS Private Corporations doing the same.
So let us use the argument of extremes to make this point.
In one World all property is Publicly owned and that Constitution is adhered to, In such a World the people will have the freedom to gather and state their minds/thoughts anywhere without fear of arrest.
In another world all that land is Owned by the Corporations and the same Constitution is in place and adhered to.
In that second World you do not have the Freedom to speak up anywhere as the Private owners of the property can demand you not speak on their property.
The Constitution is a protection against the excesses of Government. It becomes worthless if the Government is shrunk to the size to where it can be drowned in a bathtub. If all power is shifted from a Government elected by the people to people with MONEY then you have no rights at all unless a Constitution is drawn up to protect against those people with money. In Ron Pauls world this is "excessive regulation".
I can go to Burma and write up a document claiming that the people of Burma can not be spied on by Green Martians., That Green martians can not tax them without consent. That green Martians can not board soldiers in their home. That Green Martians can not tell them who they can worship. That Green Martians can not limit their freedom of speech on lands owned by Green Martians. That Green martians can not arrest them and hold them without cause .
That does not mean the people of Burma suddenly have rights.
I appreciate your lesson in political economy 101 and may have to re-use it.
Nonetheless, Paul is the only candidate who wants to dismantle most of the Pentagon, and most of the prisons. If you accept that as true then you need to show that the sum of the other negatives exceeds these tremendous positives.
I'm not about to sign up with the Libertarians and have been vocal in my opposition to that political philosophy, but politics makes strange bedfellows, so to speak.
They would be fully inside constitutional authority. The right to bear arms in defense of ones property is embodied in many state's "Castle Doctrine" laws. If a striking worker is blocking an entrance to a plant, after a fair warning to leave the property, the plant owner or his hired goon can legally shoot the worker dead. But the property of a capitalist includes the entirety of the operations books, including goodwill. So, with a small extension of the castle doctrine, even a striking worker off-the physical property can still be shot if the worker is destroying company property in the form of reputation and goodwill and perceived shareholder value. Do you think there is something unique Colombia, El-Salvador Guatemala or Honduras that they adopt such brutal policies - not at all! They are just star-pupils of the economic philosophy that Ron Paul adheres to.
My favorite Ron Paul position is his environmental position - he believe in abolishing the EPA, but believe that the environment will still be protected because any property owner who feels his has been "polluted-on" can simply sue the polluter. Sorry; a persons poisoned and cancerous lungs, liver, pancreas, breasts, brain, stomach, colon, etc. are not "property" so if you don't own "property' tough luck.
He also regards global warming as a hoax and would remove all barriers to oil drilling, coal mining and coal and nuclear power plants. No doubt he would do away with the NRC, per his "if you don't like a polluter, sue them" policy.
Here's the flaw in your NRC argument. As long as he also did away with federal insurance subsidies for nukes, it wouldn't matter if he did way with the NRC because the nukes would be uninsurable and therefore a bad investment,
End of story.
Yes, Paul has a lot of flaws, but he's still less than the current crop of neo-liberals and imperialist candidates.
There isn't a good candidate running. Paul is the nicest of the damned, and he is surely shaking up the status quo!