Glenn Greenwald: Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies

glenn greenwald writes well.

this article really reinforces the general trend i see, which is that paul supporters are required to not only endorse, but defend all of his policy positions while obama supporters get a free pass when they ignore, overlook and dismiss all the negative things obama has done.

paul isnt perfect, but on my key issues he spot-on while obama is way off. in fact, obamas positions on civil liberties alone would prevent me from ever supporting him, even if i agreed w/ him on everything else (which i dont).

 

You don't have to endorse or defend his positions if you don't support those positions or think Paul is wrong

And how many "obama supporters" are there in the DND that give obama a free pass on everything? The general trend to me seems to be one of disappointment. Only 2 that stick out to me as strong obama supporters are Major and mc mark (I don't read every post u guys have written here, so correct me if i'm wrong). Lots of discontent with obama in the DND for awhile now. Do you consider me an Obama supporter that dismisses the neg. things obama has done?

 

He gives me hope that there's still a place for rational, civil, critical, and honest political writing in American media.

As Spock would say, may he live long and prosper.

 

An excellent article.

Two parts I paricularly like. I agree that sadly it is a lesser of two evil decision when you are comparing Obama and Paul and for that matter Romney.
**********
1) . An honest line of reasoning in this regard would go as follows:

Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.

2) I wish there were someone who did not have Ron Paul’s substantial baggage to achieve this. Before Paul announced his candidacy, I expressed hope in an Out Magazine profile that Gary Johnson would run for President and be the standard-bearer for these views, in the process scrambling bipartisan stasis on these questions. I did that not because I was endorsing his candidacy (as some low-level Democratic Party operative dishonestly tried to claim), but because, as a popular two-term Governor of New Mexico free of Paul’s disturbing history and associations, he seemed to me well-suited to force these debates to be had

 

Even if I weren't a Democrat and someone who voted for Obama, I would be wondering if a second term would bring us an Obama who is an actual progressive, holding many liberal views that he actually works for while in office, instead of what appears to this liberal as a scattered "philosophy" attempting to please everyone, and not really pleasing anyone. He is far better than the alternative we were faced with in the last election, and better than who I'm seeing that's likely to run against him, but a disappointment in many ways from where I sit. So, again, would a second term "free" Barack Obama from his self-perceived need to be all things to all people, not really satisfying any of us?

 

I don't think there is any reason to hope this. However, why not hope if it makes it easier to vote for the lesser of two evils.

 

I truly hope that Paul wins the GOP nomination, and if not, runs on an independent ticket. Greenwald outlines the reasons for this much better than I can, but the thing I'd like to see is how his ideas play out when given the national stage and the type of exposure that comes from being a viable presidential candidate.

As much as the pro-Obama contingent lauded his ability to induce 'hope and change', the reality was that Obama's success was driven by his ability to work within the existing, acceptable political framework. He never challenged prevailing consensus on any issue of substance beyond rhetoric, and it's highly unlikely that another four years will be much more than an extension of his first term: another attempt at health care reform, another bailout, increased infringements on civil liberties, and the like. To be fair, I do believe he's done certain things that a GOP counterpart would have balked at, but those items are far and few between.

The bankruptcy of our political system is not only that we lack viable candidates, but that we have an environment that allows media factions to dictate whats important to us and two parties that are often indistinguishable on key issues that matter.

Amen

 

many here require that you do.

first of all, i didnt say "everything" - i said "all the negative things he has done". and the answer is quite alot, actually. and its really worse than giving him a free pass. some obama supporters fall into the foxnews/neocon tactic of attacking and questioning the motives of those who bring up the kind of issues greenwald mentions. ive been called "stupid" when i bring up obamas failures on civil liberties, for example. or been told that im just "b****ing". or told that nobody cares about these things...these are fundamental democrat/liberal/progressive issues, yet ive been told by obama supporters that nobody cares about them.

many are discontent. and many who are discontent will not support obama in 2012. but many who are discontent will still vote for him. and there are a multitude of obama apologists here who ignore, dismiss and criticize those who are critical of obama w/out offering any defense of his policies - yet they demand paul supporters endorse and defend all his proposals. there is a massive double standard there, which greenwald does a good job of articulating. as he says, "we hear only a dishonest one-sided argument that emphasizes Paul’s evils while ignoring Obama’s".

the irony is that if you went issue-by-issue down the list and tallied them up paul probably represents democrats/liberals/progressives on more issues than obama does. paul clearly stands to the left of obama on many, many issues that democrats have traditionally placed importance on.

i dont pay enough attention to your posts to say either way.

 

I am not a fan of Ron Paul's domestic policies, but I have to say Glenn Greenwald writes well, as usual.

 

I'm curious, who said that? Are you sure they are liberals? There are conservatives that don't like Paul too, and I suspect that the critics of Paul's foreign policy aren't as liberal as you think (I haven't posted on this topic but I would fall in that camp too).

agreed

there are certainly obama apologists on the board, some do a better job than others. But again, you don't have to endorse and defend all of Paul's proposals if you disagree with them. eg. No want demands that rhad defend obama on wiretapping because he obviously disagrees with it.

This style of argument certainly isn't limited to critics of Paul. People do it when attacking Obama and GOP candidates, and Paul defenders do it when defending Paul too. Take a look at the newsletter issue, many Paul defenders can't even accept the POSSIBILITY that Paul might be racist. It's one thing to support Paul in spite of the newsletters, but to defend Paul and absolve him of responsibility is doing exactly what greenwald is criticizing.

I agree with your 2nd statement, not sure about the first. But whether paul is to the left or right of obama isn't as important as how paul and obama stand in relation to the positions of individual posters. Sometimes, Paul being to the left of Obama is a bad thing.

 

For reference here are some of my views on Obama (and his selection of Kagan) which haven't changed.
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=187404
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5293811&postcount=33
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=5295178&postcount=85

 

i dont feel the need to call people out by name, especially when they are not even posting in this thread. but yes, there is one obama supporter in particular who has repeatedly called me "stupid" or said i was just "b****ing" when i criticized obama on his civil liberties positions. ive had back and forths w/ other posters where i bring up failures on obamas part and they straight-up say "im not discussing that", but demand that i defend everything paul advocates. thats basically what the greenwald article is about.

and of course critics of pauls foreign policy are probably not going to be liberals. i never suggested anything of the sort. on the contrary, ive pointed out over and over again that paul stands to the left of obama on foreign policy.

no offense, but i dont care enough about your views to spend time reading previous threads. its not relevant to this thread topic. if there is something particular you want me to read why dont you post it here...but even then, why are you wanting me to read your old posts?

 

My main point is, I don't see the double standard on this board. I'm an example of someone who sees obama as a "lesser evil", but that doesn't mean I'm not critical of obama. If you don't want to read what I wrote, look at the wiretapping thread. Are the liberals criticizing obama there ignoring the negative aspects of obama? 1 person who you won't name ≠ general trend. The other point is, just because Paul is to the left of obama on an issue, doesn't mean that someone who sees obama as a lesser evil prefers paul's position to obama's.

 

Ron Paul has many perspectives I agree with, but that doesn't mean all his perspectives are equal.

Ron Paul's free-marketeerism would destroy this country far more quickly and with much greater speed than the current run of corrupt civil-liberties damaging politicians have.

It doesn't matter if 99 of his 100 ideas is a good idea if that last 1 is so bewilderingly misguided that it would actually lead the the collapse of this country.

 

I'm not sure Paul is to the left of anyone. On the drug thing, sure, he's against the war on drugs. So what? He's not against the war on drugs because of morality or logic. He's only against the war on drugs because it's being run by the Feds. He would let the states do whatever they wanted, which is not really what most people who think they like his drug stance hear when he talks about it.

 

Likewise I'm not sure Ron Paul would be against frequent wars between private armies, just as long as it didn't involve a central government and taxation.

 

thats your perspective. wrt to the topic at hand i see it differently.

i never said you were not.

its not that i dont want to read what you wrote. its that i dont want to go digging through old threads to search for and read your posts for reasons that have nothing to do w/ this thread or the greenwald article. if you have something you feel i need to read then by all means, post it.

there are many liberals like rhad (whom you previously brought up) who are critical of obama on wiretapping, but rhad is not an obama supporter and will not be voting for him (which really makes your previous comparison irrelevant). there are also obama supporters who will call people names for trying to discuss issues like wiretapping or just straight up refuse to discuss them. again, ive been involved in back and forths where im told we will not discuss obamas negatives, but rather focus only on pauls. this is exactly what greenwald was talking about.

i never said 1 person = a general trend. and again, i dont feel the need to invoke other peoples names, especially when they are not involved in this discussion. what is point of this? you seem to be implying that im lying and you need proof of my claims...i related my experiences in the D&D wrt the greenwald article - believe me or dont...i dont care.

i never said otherwise. but as greenwald articulated, paul is a better representative than obama on a multitude of issues that have traditionally been very important to liberals/progressives/democrats.

 

yes he is. he has called the drug war ineffective, racist, immoral and a waste. he believes addicts need treatment, not prison. those are indeed opinions based on morals and logic.

im good with it!