Ron Paul from a liberal perspective.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by dblack, Dec 31, 2011.

  1. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    20,138
    Thanks Received:
    2,011
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,785
    This is really good read.

    Matt Stoller: Why Ron Paul Challenges Liberals « naked capitalism

    I found this really interesting in the way it shows how Paul operates so much differently that most in Congress.

     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2011
  2. theDoctorisIn
    Offline

    theDoctorisIn Senior Mod Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    30,025
    Thanks Received:
    5,799
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    East, but still West
    Ratings:
    +11,970
    I agree with Ron Paul on about 70% of things. I disagree with him so completely about the remaining 30% that I could never support him.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    20,138
    Thanks Received:
    2,011
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,785
    From another good essay, commenting on the previous one:

    Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies - Salon.com

     
  4. ladyliberal
    Offline

    ladyliberal Progressive Princess

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,253
    Thanks Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +291
    It's a historical fact that the financial arm of the government has often served as a mechanism for waging war, and that the desire to wage war has driven the development of this arm. However, the solution for those who want to make war more difficult is not to remove the government from the economy. It is, simply, to spend less money on armaments (and, increasingly, other intelligence and security measures).
     
  5. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    20,138
    Thanks Received:
    2,011
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,785
    Sure, if the only abuse you're worried about is needless warfare. If, on the other hand, you'd like to put the brakes on corporatism in general, you have to strike at the root.
     
  6. dblack
    Offline

    dblack Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    20,138
    Thanks Received:
    2,011
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,785
    On second look, the Greenwald article is actually better. Love to hear your response, if you have time to read it. It's fairly long.
     
  7. Dragon
    Offline

    Dragon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2011
    Messages:
    5,481
    Thanks Received:
    578
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +579
    Very good, and I agree completely. I would like for Paul to get the nomination (although I doubt if he will) because I want the President to be put on the defensive about all this crap. I want these issues discussed.

    I would of course not support Paul for the White House; as these articles rightly point out, on the whole and across the board there is good and legitimate reason for progressives to oppose his election. But I've made no secret of the fact that I'm not an Obama fan at this point.
     
  8. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,620
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,215
    Really? Historical fact?

    If we disbanded our armed forces completely we would never wage war. Of course everyone else and his brother would be walking over our corpses on the way to occupy Washington but the Left doesn't care about that.

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.
     
  9. ladyliberal
    Offline

    ladyliberal Progressive Princess

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,253
    Thanks Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +291
    I didn't say that one shouldn't wage war, I said that government financing and government war-making have been intimately related historically. In brief:

    During 1861, the opening year of the American Civil War, the expenses incurred by the Union Government far outstripped its limited revenues from taxation, and borrowing was the main vehicle for financing the war. (United States Note - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

    The budgetary expenses for the years 1941-1945 amounted to some $317 billion, of which $281 billion was directly related to the war effort; expenditures climbed from $9.6 billion in fiscal 1940 to nearly $100 billion in 1945. Of these outlays some 45 percent was covered by taxes and other non-borrowing sources. The deficit had to be covered by selling bonds.
    (Series E bond - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
     
  10. ladyliberal
    Offline

    ladyliberal Progressive Princess

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,253
    Thanks Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +291
    A few reactions to the article:

    - Greenwald's characterization of actions under Obama is often debatable and incendiary.

    - Greenwald seems to hold Obama entirely or almost entirely responsible for certain actions during his presidency, ignoring the possibility (in some cases, I would say certainty) that Obama acts as a progressive force only partially able to rein in other actors (military-industrial complex, civilian bureaucracy, Congress, American public).

    - Greenwald's hypothetical line of reasoning (beginning with "Yes, I'm willing...") ignores the fact that an individual voter can't choose Ron Paul, they can only vote (and volunteer for, donate to, etc.) for him. A strategic voter with moderate progressive values faced with a race between Obama, Romney, and Paul must vote for Obama even if they would prefer a Paul presidency.

    - Greenwald acknowledges troubling aspects of Ron Paul's history and positions (he refers to "horrible aspects of his belief system and past actions"), yet never seems to address them (other than to point out that Obama also holds non-progressive positions). I generally find belief systems and past actions to be terrific predictors of future actions, so I wouldn't support a candidate without seeing those things addressed.

    - Greenwald notes that Obama the president seems to be more conservative on a number of issues than Obama the candidate. It does not seem to occur to him that a President Paul (who would presumably have to have done something to win over the conservative base) would suffer the same transformation.

    - Greenwald writes, "Is it really hard to see why Democrats hate his candidacy and anyone who touts its benefits?" I don't have any polling numbers to back this up, but I suspect that Paul has fairly high approval among Democrats compared to his fellow Republican candidates. Greenwald might be conflating Paul's extreme views on certain issues (eg, taxes, health care) with his overall profile.



    In the end, Greenwald calls for "a candid assessment of all candidates". That's rather hard to argue with. He certainly doesn't suggest that progressives should support Paul's candidacy over Obama's, only that they should agree with Paul on certain issues and that they should be glad that he is running. That's certainly how I feel.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page