Glenn Greenwald: Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies

That doesn't justify it. But by all means, keep arrogantly saying nothing.

 

And it's far more complex (and accurate) than your post that "everyone should just be free to associate only with those they choose" or whatever. It would appear you just belittled your own (presumably rhetorical) question?

 

the discussion that was had 50 yrs ago, and continually since then, absolutely justifies it. I can't quite twitter the full arguments around discrimination...but there has been a fair amount of thought leading to where we are now.

 

The principle may be absolute, but its application is not. Its rare that anything is absolute in every situation.

 

really?

You don't see an injustice in refusing housing, jobs or service based on race? All men created equal isn't just a little self evident? No dreams of being judged by the content of your character rather then the color of your skin?

Sad.

 

Right, but Ron Paul is often advocating exactly the absolute. That's the crux of the "moral idiocy" piece from salon.

 

I see it, I just don't want to give the gov unlimited power to try and "fix" it. Lesser of two evils, definitely.

 

I'm not Ron Paul.

 

I'd love to see a day where that happens, but we both know it won't/ No matter how many affirmative action laws or anti-discrimination laws we pass, that will never happen unless through the creation of a mixed race (interracial marriage would have to occur often enough that everybody can trace back to ancestors of almost every different race).

 

And now we come full circle - the same folks mocking "progressives" for supporting Obama despite his repeated fails are now advocating the same rationalization in regards to Ron Paul. Checkmate.

 

Boom goes the dynamite.

Just contemplate the difference between what Obama can attain of his promised goals and what Ron would be able to attain...

 

i just went in the bathroom, turned off all the lights, looked in the mirror and said "bloody rhad...bloody rhad...bloody rhad" - and then i saw this in the mirror...

<a href="http://s200.photobucket.com/albums/aa8/swinehammer/pop%20stuff/?action=view&amp;current=large-marge.gif" target="_blank"><img src="http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa8/swinehammer/pop%20stuff/large-marge.gif" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

 

I'm still better looking than Donny.

 

I understand that if Paul were President, most of what he advocates wouldn't be achieved, but at least I know that Paul would seriously scale back the military industrial complex and would protect civil liberties. I may not agree with Paul's unwaivering stance on some issues, but I can reconcile that by knowing that he wouldn't be in the pocket of corporate interests. Frankly, I'd like to know how you can reconcile Obama's terrible record in this regard, because it seems like progressives aren't getting anything they want from Obama.

 

What a white guy

 

This has been a stumbling block in any Ron Paul debate here for several years now - let me quote myself to save time:

There are very few things Obama has done that I am particularly pleased with. Much has been just plain revolting. Obama is not a progressive - he's just a democrat. Some folks are fine with that I guess, but not me. Of course, "moderate libertarians" (note: a definition-less term) will probably have the same issues with Paul and, as I notice with no small amount of chagrin, they're ignoring these problems much like progressives did with Obama. A lot of it's in the sale's pitch - so in that regard we should all be more vigilant (myself included).

 

I see what you're saying rhad, and agree fully- Paul's political platform, when viewed in its entirety, is problematic, and there's little denying that. That said, his divergence from mainstream political thought on critical issues -not ancillary, meaningless politicized topics- is what is leading many to support him for the time being (including myself). I dont expect him to win the presidency, or even the GOP nomination for that matter, but I hope that he continues to compete in GOP primaries and wins, because what it does is forces those same policies to be discussed in the public arena.

I cant remember the last time a politician took so many positions outside of the mainstream political orthodoxy and articulated them with the ferver that he has done these past few months. Even when Obama won the presidency, his rallying cry was a series of meaningless platitudes. He symbolized change, but there was nothing substantial politically that actually indicated a real change was coming....

At a time in which mainstream political orthodoxy remains unchallenged, it's important to show that it's not only acceptable, but can even be politically expedient to hold positions on issues that were previously considered to be unchallengable (national security, non-hawkish foreign policy, critical of Israel, etc.).

Beyond that, and I think this is where Greenwald is coming from, the idea that progressives and liberals have to remain loyal to Obama instead of exercising their political right to vote for a third party candidate or advocate for someone within the GOP more closely aligned to their views is absurd. I dont play for team Democrat and I doubt you do either, and although I may well end up voting for Obama, it wont be because I feel compelled to remain faithful to a president and party I simply dont identify with on a range of issues.

 

vaids:

Excellent post and I agree with the sentiment. What bothers me is when folks try to whitewash problematic policy positions with obfuscation or diversion. Also, as thadeus noted earlier, Ron Paul's stance on economic and social policies is absolutely critical, despite theorized congressional resistance.

I'll admit I got burned by Obama - in my defense, I don't think anyone could have predicted that Obama would be authorizing drone assassinations of US citizens, defending Bush-era civil liberties abuses, or making his administration far more secretive than any previous. I mean, those are things he ran against. In that regard Paul (and Hunstman) have a huge advantage in gaining my vote. I may not like all of it, but goddammit at least I know what "it" is. (Ancillary side note: that last bit is very well articulated by Jon Stewart in his recent Rolling Stone interview.)

In my further defense, I'm not blind to what he's been up to - I'm pissed off about it (as evidenced by my posts).

 

His economic and social policies are, as I said, problematic, and its understandable why you'd find whitewashing them disturbing.

I guess my point is that although Paul's supporters do have a tendancy to whitewash his social and economic positions with obfuscation or diversion, the democratic/liberal establishment tends to whitewash Obama's shortcomings, downplays their importance, or defends them simply out of loyalty to Team Democrat.

The key difference between the Paulites and their whitewashing of Pauls' views versus Obama's defenders is that Obama defenders are hardly perceived as 'crazies' (certainly not the same way Paul defenders are). Perhaps its the zealotry of Paul's followers, but I tend to view it as antagonistic elitism at its worst. Paul's dangerous and bizarre not only because of his problematic positions, but because of what he represents and how he does things. Obama's defenders are found in 'respectable' outlets like the NY Times, Wash Post, prime time television networks, and the like. Paul's absence of representation in these venues is why his views are often portrayed with the level of repugnance they are.

I'll take a look at the Rolling Stones piece and do understand that you're not representative of mainstream liberalism in that you have, on many occasions, articulated you're disagreements with Obama's policies.