Glenn Greenwald: Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I dont look at drone strikes as a 'marginal muddled issue' that has a 'relatively narrow level of direct impact on the populace as a whole,' especially when taking into consideration the number of policies, financial expenditures, lives lost in the war on terrorism. I cant think of anything thats had a bigger impact on the populace as a whole over the past decade than it.

We can debate the specific policies, but Ron Paul's entire foreign policy philosophy is significantly different than Obama's or any other candidate in the GOP. Avoiding a war with Iran and opening up diplomatically, getting rid of foreign aid, slashing the defense budget (~700 billion) substantially, etc.

 

i think a key difference is that when pressed on the specific application of their philosophies, Paul digs in, putting ideology over practicality. Obama allows himself some wiggle room to address the complexities of real life. Maybe he's too pragmatic...but I think it's a preferable trait then what I've seen from Paul.

But comparing Paul to Obama is a bit like comparing my jump shot to Kevin Martin's. Obama plays in the big leagues....Paul's just a spectator. Even if he's been allowed on the court for a bit while the real players warm up. (with apologies to Obama for the Martin comparison. V11.12 is just such a hard Rockets release to get excited about)...

 

Look the reason why it is so tough for moderates or liberals to get excited about Ron Paul is that he is very much about untested abstact libertarian utopian economics crap. Understandably many of his youthful followers want to emphasize drug wars and civil liberties and iimperialist adventures rather than his economics.

It is tough to decide whether you prefer executing folks by drone without due process (Obama) vs Jim Crowe (Ron Paul). What a choice, one Americans should not have to make. Again if these non-economic aspects of Ron Paulism are so important to Ron Paul and libertarians why do they support the GOP which except for Ron Paul, is clearly worse than even Obama, who I will not defend on these issues.

Not only this, but you have to consider that Paul's economics as actually practiced to date (Dickensian England-- and prior to the 20th century) , and for the last 30 years more and more in this country) would lead to whole sale death and suffering in America as folks died of malnutrition, suicide without access to their psych meds, death from spouse abuse as distraught husbands without unemployment insurance TAXES OMG! funded by employers, snap etc. etc. Let's see. Hundreds of thousands of say Iranians killed vs the death and suffering of many thousands of Americans, Again not a choice we in America should have to make and that is why except for the utopian zelaots or the uniformed Ron Paul has limited appeal.

I know voluntary charity from doctors and libertarians, yeah right!!. Ok, let's have some laughs. Libertarians show me an actual real world example of libertarianism taking care of folks with low or no income. I don't accept Ron Paul's laughable anecdotes about happy American all receiving nice charitable free health care from doctors in the 1950's.

 

Well said, glynch. As has been pointed out elsewhere, Ron Paul supporters tend to pick and choose the issue(s) they agree with, and support him based on those 2 or 3 or 4 issues, ignoring the rest of his agenda. Heck, I agree with some of his positions myself, but that is hardly enough for me to overlook Ron Paul and his issues in their totality, and the totality of Ron Paul I simply can't support. In fact, I actively support his Democratic opponent, despite serious disagreements with him on several issues. Why? Barack Obama, with all his faults, is a damn sight better option, that's why. His plusses outweigh the massive negatives of Ron Paul, or any of the other Republican candidates. In my opinion.

 

Your attempts at slander are extremely transparent.

He does not support the Jim Crow laws. You know that, yet you continue on with the blabbering. Obama and Democrats support the current statist Jim Crow laws known as The War on Drugs.

Oh yeah, the ACLU just graded Ron Paul higher than Obama on civil liberties. RP would have totally destroyed Obama in this area if the ACLU didn't fail to realize that separation of marriage and state if far superior to any liberal definition of marriage. They may understand that too one day thanks to Ron Paul.

http://www.aclulibertywatch.org/ALWCandidateReportCard.pdf

You can't believe a single thing a liberal says. They have been exposed. "Ron Paul will ruin America and send us back to the 1800s!!!!". It's nothing but lies to protect their thievery. The reason liberals don't like Ron Paul is simple. He shows how stealing / socialism is evil and how the state can not be trusted.

 

and as greenwald pointed out, obama supporters do the exact same thing. and as ive said, the issues that i agree w/ paul on are the issues i feel are the most critical for this country and our future.

this is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but i can simply switch paul and obama and you get my opinion.

Heck, I agree with some of his positions myself, but that is hardly enough for me to overlook Barack Obama and his issues in their totality, and the totality of Barack Obama I simply can't support. In fact, I actively support Ron Paul, despite serious disagreements with him on several issues. Why? Ron Paul, with all his faults, is a damn sight better option, that's why. His plusses outweigh the massive negatives of Barack Obama, or any of the other Republican candidates. In my opinion.

 

If I'm a Ron supporter and he does not get the GOP nod nor make a third party run, I would stay home on election day. Totally understandable.

It would be an abandonment of principles to vote for either of the statist slaves to corporate politics.

Maybe the Rockets will play that night.

 

Yeah, uh, even if you're able to move the goalposts to now retroactively charge Obama with responsibility for the entire Iraq/Afghan/war on terror since 2001 - it still doesn't make a sh-t when you compare it to Ron Paul's plan to remove the last 100 years of federal law & regulation to synchronize it with his OT-3 version of the constitution, and unless you are somebody who was injured in a drone strike it would affect you more, by any objective measure.

 

Look, you have a position on Obama in that you consider his shortcomings to be minor, I get that. Just accept that many, many people dont, and thats why they choose to support other candidates, including Ron Paul.

I didnt want to harp on drone attacks because I didnt want to get bogged down on a discussion of the issue, but there's lots of evidence to suggest that its not a 'marginal muddled issue' or 'relatively minor.'

Some estimates state that approximately 600 people have died in drone strikes in Pakistan, and the number of civilian casualties are significant, with one eyewitness saying, "For every 10 to 15 people killed, maybe they get one militant."

President Obama’s former Director of National Intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, wrote in a NY Times op-ed:

Later saying:

"Unless you were somebody injured in a drone strike" implies that it only impacts us if Americans die. This underscores a fundamental difference in what you consider minor and what others consider major, in that people can consider an attack major, even if Americans dont die. The rubric for something mattering is not whether or not an American civilian is impacted, and to re-quote Noam Chomsky when speaking about Anwar al-Awlaki:

And drone strikes are, as I said, one issue that people who support Ron Pauls foreign policy stances find objectionable with Obama (you may well think its smart policy, strategic, and worthwhile...just realize many dont). Legislation that undermines civil liberties (see: A Call to Courage: Reclaiming Our Liberties Ten Years After 9/11 by the ACLU), a reliance on secrecy and clandestine activities, pulling troops out of Afghanistan, consolidating bases throughout the world, substantially reducing a bloated defense budget, ending uncritical support for Israel, and cutting foreign aid are some others.

As I've said previously in this thread, Paul's entire platform is problematic, and I'm the last person to deny that. But I have no problem with people who say "despite his platforms shortcomings, I think foreign policy/national security is a large enough issue for me to support him," even if I'm not one of them.

 

When you put it that way it's even more marginal than ever.

600 people dead over a decade?

That's a drop in the bucket compared to the social cost that the rest of L. Ron's programs would wreak.

Listen I get that the casual T-shirt Paulistas came for the medical dank and are staying for the no wars and the quicker airport security, but in the end, you don't just get the free hotel weekend by itself - it's merely a sideshow as part of the time-share pitch towards re-firing the new gilded age, an encore performance of Ayn Rand's greatest hits, the destruction of the civil rights era, and the implementation of Plutocracy Now! version 2.0. They're duped by Paul, who in turn is duped by the establishment Kochsters and the like to their bidding and fight their battles in the name of small L-ibertarianism. It's all very meta-like standing in between two mirrors.

 

Scary to think that once all the other pubbies drop out, all of those billionaires will end up backing Romney.

Paul has little, if any, corporate backing. The Koch folks hate him, I imagine.

They love the Bachmann/Perry style (corporate nut-hugging) hijacked version of the tea party, though.

 

Not really. Sure, the President has control of foreign policy, but he is perfectly capable of wrecking the bureaucracy especially at the start of his term. Destroying all of the Departments? Paul can do that with no problem at all.

Secondly, vaids, you have any idea what the ACLU actually says about Ron Paul? They're clearly not whole-hearted supporters, as people like my friends and Hightop would never shut up about it if they did actively support the man. But in general, any idea about what they think of Paul?

 

He doesn't have to eliminate the department to marginalize it.

See FEMA vis-a-vis "Good job Brownie" as Exhibit A.

 

...and incomeptent people or people who share his desire to end a department running the ones he does not want.

Pretty simple.

Any enforcement agency, regulatory agency, or cabinet department, etc. is often only as good as the administrator who will set priorities and goals.

 

You caught it yourself. Could Paul actually formally eliminate the Department of Education? No. He is however, more than capable of weakening and marginalizing it to the point where it doesn't hold any real power.