The Ron Paul conundrum
Why are so many progressives flirting with one of the most conservative Republicans to ever seek the presidency? A Seattle blogger is trying to out Paul's extremism, but others claim he is smearing a principled libertarian. Meanwhile, Western Washington cash flows into Paul's campaign.
Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul has been raising money and winning straw polls in Washington state. Western Washington is one of his best source of funds outside of Texas, along with Chicago, Southern California, and the San Francisco Bay area. His campaign signs – many of them handmade – are all over Blue Seattle. Paul has mobilized online forces that make even the Daily Kos netroots left green with envy (and no, the donations aren't all in Ron Paul dollars).
But an interesting debate over Paul has broken out among liberals, with Seattle blogger and Crosscut contributor Dave Neiwert on one side and Salon's Glenn Greenwald on the other. The gist of the debate is this: Is Paul a principled libertarian or a far-right nut case whose supporters include racists like David Duke? Is Neiwert's pointing out the unsavory and fringe views of some of Paul's supporters a "smear" or an exercise in providing important context? Can Ron Paul's own words and actions be decoded to reveal a man with a more sinister agenda? And why are so many liberals enthralled with the guy?
Neiwert has been trying to provide background on Paul's politics on his Orcinius blog. He is an expert on tracking far-, far-right politics in this country and de-constructing extremist literature. It baffles him that Paul's views on fiscal and international policy (his dislike of the United Nations and the Federal Reserve, his support of the gold standard) aren't giving more people cause for pause. Writes Neiwert:
... Ron Paul has made a career out of transmitting extremist beliefs, particularly far-right conspiracy theories about a looming "New World Order," into the mainstream of public discourse by reframing and repackaging them for wider consumption, mostly by studiously avoiding the more noxious and often racist elements of those beliefs. Along the way, he has built a long record of appearing before and lending the credibility of his office to a whole array of truly noxious organizations, and has a loyal following built in no small part on members of those groups.
In short, Neiwert believes that Paul has whitewashed some of his ideas and stripped them of their historical (and often racist and anti-Semitic) language. He thinks that many Paul-enthralled progressives are suffering from a kind of "amnesia" about what these politics really mean and who traditionally espouses them (John Birchers, militiamen, neo-Confederates and neo-Nazis, etc.).
Greenwald, on the other hand, thinks that there's an attempt to distort Paul's views and convict him by association. Though not a Paul supporter himself, he also questions whether Paul's non-mainstream views should be marginalized:
This whole concept of singling out and labelling as "weirdos" and "fruitcakes" political figures because they espouse views that are held only by a small number of people is nothing more than an attempt to discredit someone without having to do the work to engage their arguments. It's actually a tactic right out of the seventh grade cafeteria. It's just a slothful mechanism for enforcing norms.
Despite Neiwert's reporting and analysis, many liberals are more than a little intrigued by Paul. Drawn by his anti-war, pro-civil-liberties positions, some hope for a grand alliance in the 2008 election – think of a unity government led by Ayn Rand and George McGovern.
Last week, far-left Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich's wife said that her husband might consider running on a ticket with Paul, and Kucinich himself has indicated that he "likes" Paul in the evasive language politicians use to indicate they're not ruling out an option. Kucinich has also said that a Kucinich-Paul ticket could "balance the energies in this country." I know that would have some supporters. At the Lou Dobbs appearance at Town Hall earlier this month, one questioner identified himself as a potential Kucinich-Paul supporter. Lee at Horsesass.org has a thoughtful post on the Paul (or, rather, the Neiwert-Greenwald) dilemma.
It's long been true that the far-far-right and far-far-left experience meetings of the minds on many issues (anti-WTO activism is one example, another is demonstrated by the support the American Civil Liberties Union gives to both communists and Nazis). I'll name another example in my personal experience: home schooling. When I became involved in the home schooling movement, those involved were mostly liberal baby boomers and Christian conservatives. The fact that '60s lefties and religious righties worked together to liberalize the state's home schooling rules was hardly an extremist conspiracy, merely a case of people out of the mainstream finding common cause. The whole point is that everyone gets to let their own indvidual freak flag fly no matter what they believe. And libertarians in particular are likely to find themselves in front of some pretty strange parades.
But does Paul's ideology represent something more sinister – or crazy? I think Neiwert is right to raise these issues and parse Paul's speeches and legislative record. And it's not the first time issues like this have been raised over an affable, principled, fringe conservative. The late Washington Rep. Jack Metcalf of Whidbey Island shared many of Paul's beliefs regarding the Federal Reserve, the UN, etc. Metcalf once demanded that his state legislative salary be paid in coin because paper money wasn't mentioned in the Constitution. Metcalf was also widely criticized for speaking to groups with racist and extremist agendas, and he had to answer for his father's onetime membership in the pro-fascist Silver Shirts, a group run by a fan of Adolph Hitler.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Thu, Nov 29, 8:28 a.m. inappropriate
Much ado about 1 percent: If you take Paul's 1 percent Republican support and link it with Kucinich's 1 percent Democratic support, you get 1 percent national support. That's not even Ralph Nader territory. Paul is an interesting eccentric, but his views are too random and goofy to appeal to more than the fringies. If he stays active, he could become the new LaRouche, but that's about it.
Posted Thu, Nov 29, 8:43 a.m. inappropriate
Paul not to be underestimated: Anyone who can raise $4.3 million in one day and who is set to raise the most out of all the Republicans in the 4th quarter cannot be called a fringie. Also, anyone who has supporters who raise $400,000 in one week to buy him the first presidential campaign blimp in history (this just happened) cannot be called a fringie. There is definitely something larger going on here. And the man's political skills cannot be discounted either--he has ousted the incumbent in 3 separate congressional elections, a record in itself.
The thing Niewart and a lot of people don't get is that Paul endorses freedom--he doesn't endorse what you do with it, which is fundamental to his libertarian philosophy. His entire platform is the Constitution--so you can't call him a Nazi because he is really the opposite of a fascist. He has far right supporters, but he also has Jewish and African American supporters, and he receives more money from the military than any other candidate.
I am a career Naval officer who has been politically neutral for my entire life, but I see voting for Dr. Paul as an opportunity to reaffirm my oath to defend the Constitution, because he is the only candidate who truly loves and respects it as I do.
Posted Thu, Nov 29, 8:45 a.m. inappropriate
more than 3%: Ron Paul has much more support than that!! Just keep on talking about him on the internet, while we go out everyday and spread his word of liberty and limited government. Our support is growing!! Ron is the only person on the GOP side worthy of running!!
Posted Thu, Nov 29, 8:47 a.m. inappropriate
Ron Paul has won half the straw polls nationwide: Horrible article, first he has won straw polls in Washington then has tiny support base? Not saying to much for Washington politics I guess.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/
"By land, by air and by sea, the disciples of Ron Paul converged on the debate hall here in St. Petersburg, Fla., in the hours before the debate here tonight. There were two planes circling overhead, one flying a Ron Paul banner, another with lights spelling out his name Goodyear Blimb-style. A ship circling in the bay just outside the hall was festooned with Ron Paul paraphernalia, blaring martial music. In the park, just beyond the security fences erected around The Mahaffey Theater, the Paulites outfitted a group that was decidedly young and decidedly loyal with shirts and stickers and other assorted Paul gear.
The outsized presence of Mr. Paul's supporters is not unusual. It seems that no matter which Republican candidate I am covering, the Paul people seem to find a way to their events. Sometimes it is a lone man with a sign, other times more organized. But come they do.~ NYTimes
"
Just like you will see with this article, you will see the RP support. The short of it is simple, ask him a question he gives you the direct unvarnished answer. Today that means more then anything any of the other candidates have to offer. Honesty.
Trying to get back to the simple founding principles of the Constitution as "Radical" is shameful to say the very least. The reason it reaches all sectors of the voting people because freedom isnt racist, it isnt just for the few, its for everyone. The left talks about civil liberties then put restraints on there own ideas with groups.
With a running platform of the US Constitution to bash Ron Paul is simply unamerican.
Posted Thu, Nov 29, 9:02 a.m. inappropriate
Thoughtful: Thanks for the thoughtful article. If Dr. Paul is tricky to figure, then try this: he's for maximum social, political and economic freedom of the individual. If you use freedom as your base criterion, apply it to any issue, you'l likely guess Dr. Paul's position.
I'm not with him on abortion, but his position on it is at least thoughtful too, unlike the dogmatic positions of the Christy righty's.
Posted Thu, Nov 29, 9:19 a.m. inappropriate
There is another way to look at the RP popularity...: I've always thought that both terms of GWB were less a Republican victory and more a Democratic loss. GWB in 2000 was not an invincible candidate, and yet through lack of discipline, principles, and an ever-inconsistent message the Democrats failed to convince enough voters that they were worthy of their vote. In other words, the Democrats did so poorly as a party, that people thought that Bush was the better candidate.
Ever since, the Democratic party has been an utter failure. They have been disorganized, lack vision, and can't even fight for their basic principles let alone set a bold vision for the future.
The story of the past seven or eight years has really been about the complete failure of the Democratic party. In the vaccuum of a strong opposition, Bush has run wild and the Republican Congress turned a blind eye.
If you look at the support Ron Paul gets in this context, the real story isn't about whether or not political commentators smear RP or overlook RP's faults.
The real story is that the failure of the Democratic party has CONTINUED to erode to the point that people are abandoning the party and are looking to anyone--even a Republican from Texas--for an opportunity to have at least SOME of their principles defended.
That Ron Paul would be a staunch defender of Civil Liberties but also anti government entitlements might seem to be less ideal, but with a Democratic congress that gives blank checks for war and is actually CONSIDERING blanket immunity for telecos makes Ron Paul seem like the best option.
I am not arguing that the Democratic party is going to all convert to Ron Paul, but enough are toying with the idea to generate press coverage.
I think the Democratic party should learn something from Howard Dean, Kucinich, and Ron Paul. Those who ran the party into the ground (DLC) have proven that their vision for the party is completely bankrupt. The question is, will the party recognize this and adjust, or will they continue to fail to rebuild the party and "stay the course"? If they do, not only could I see an RP-Kucinich ticket, but I could see it getting enough votes to affect the outcome of the next election.
Posted Thu, Nov 29, 11:12 a.m. inappropriate
RE: There is another way to look at the RP popularity...: It should be obvious by now that both parties are controlled. No matter who gets in office the borders are wide open, spending increases, the dollar devalues, jobs go overseas, civil liberties vanish, etc. The only thing the parties do is argue over emotional issues like gay marriage. We have been conned over the years and that is why people are flocking to Ron Paul. He is not controlled by the global elite that run the 2 party system and people recognize that he is our only choice for change.
Posted Thu, Nov 29, 11:55 a.m. inappropriate
RE: There is another way to look at the RP popularity...: Never ascribe to a conspiracy that which can be explained by simple ineptitude.
My main reservation about Ron Paul is the same one I have with most Capital-L Libertarians on the national stage. It's isolationism as a foreign policy. Like it or not, the US is the superpower in this world, and if we just ignore what's going on around the world other, less desirable actors will fill that power vacuum. There needs to be a "happy medium" between Bush and Paul in foreign policy. (And I'm a small-L libertarian.)
Posted Thu, Nov 29, 12:59 p.m. inappropriate
RE: There is another way to look at the RP popularity...: It would be interesting to see how a paul-kucinich ticket would address that. Such as ron paul would be big on domestic issues and kucinich could take a more international approach?
Posted Thu, Nov 29, 2:34 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Much ado about 1 percent: What Polls are you talking about? The Faux News Polls and other Media "Biased Polls"...We finally have a tool that can spread the word of peace and freedom, The Internet...You really think Ron Paul anticipated this? He ran for President in the 80's and mysteriously still preaches his same beliefs, ideolaogy and philosophy...He's not a flip-flopper like most of the candidates we have come to know...Wake up from the Matrix you live in...The Tube is not the truth...The people are the truth!!!
Just in case you didn't catch this I think Ron Paul got more than 1% national support.
Go to CNN and check their poll of who won last night from the American Public...
Posted Thu, Nov 29, 5:28 p.m. inappropriate
Ron Paul is amazingly easy to figure out: In order to understand Ron Paul politically, we have to think back to high-school history class (at least the parts we didn't sleep through). Every position Ron Paul espouses results from his attempts to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This oath is the same one the Constitution itself requires each incoming president to swear. A similar version is used for military and other governmental offices.
When examining Paul's political stances, that's all one needs to do. It's not really so much of a conundrum at that point.
When reviewing the other candidates in your mind, try to think of any of them that would be anywhere near as likely to mean it when being "sworn in". It helps to review the actual text of the document. I suggest paying special attention to Article 1, Section 8 and Amendments 10 and 14, but the entire document is an important read.
In order to understand Ron Paul philosophically, we have to examine his views on a different axis than "Progressive vs. Conservative" or "Left vs. Right" or "Democrat vs. Republican." Ron Paul is a Republican, to be sure, but from its Goldwater (a.k.a. libertarian) end. The axis most representative of Ron Paul's positions is one most Americans are not used to using: "Statism vs. Liberty". All candidates' platforms can also be plotted along this philosophical axis. Do their platforms offer solutions that add governmental control and personal irresponsibility (victimhood), or do their platforms offer solutions that rely on individual liberties and personal responsibility? Ron Paul's platform is far to the liberty/personal responsibility end of this axis.
Using this understanding, Ron Paul is as far from "a man with a more sinister agenda" as one can get. His stance is purely honest, and has been consistent to these principles for over three decades. His spectacularly consistent adherence to these ideals has made him a difficult man to debate with or undermine using the typical skeletons one sees in nearly every other candidate's closet. Since Paul's message, and Paul himself, provide precious few opportunities for rebuttal, opponents have focused on finding his most unpopular supporters. All candidates have these. The hope is that readers will simply wonder if there is some sort of sinister agenda.
It's very easy to read and gear what Ron Paul espouses. Google any place you like. The Ron Paul Library site is a good start. I heartily recommend you get your information from the source though. It's much more important to know what Ron Paul himself believes, rather than what his least popular supporters, his opponents, or his mailman thinks.
Posted Thu, Nov 29, 7:12 p.m. inappropriate
RE: There is another way to look at the RP popularity...: Isolationism includes trade and other contract. Ron Paul is advocating non-interventionalism. This simply means not toppling other governments and installing versions we prefer. It means eliminating CIA covert espionage. It does not mean congress would lose its power to declare war. It does not mean U.S. companies couldn't engage in trade around the world. It does not mean an end to U.S. diplomacy and travel. It simply means an end to nation building.
Regardless of the definitions involved, I'd make two other observations. The first would be that I haven't been able to find where the Constitution of the United States gives any branch of the federal government the power to establish democracies worldwide. The second would be that we couldn't afford to be that type of superpower even if the nation had an overwhelming will for it, and the constitution allowed for it. It will bankrupt us. It already has, actually.
Perhaps freedom survives best when it's bought by the people who want it for themselves. It sure worked for the United States.
Posted Fri, Nov 30, 1:08 a.m. inappropriate
Ron Paul does not speak to progressive women: With a 0% NARAL rating regarding access to safe & legal abortion, with "no" votes on funding head start programs, and so forth, Ron Paul has zero appeal to most progressive women.
I note an analysis with regard to gender has been completely missing regarding Ron Paul. Women's lives matter-- even if they are completely overlooked in discussions about this guy's candidacy.
Posted Fri, Nov 30, 11:49 a.m. inappropriate
RE: There is another way to look at the RP popularity...: How long is the US a going to be a superpower? We have no manufacturing anymore, we import everything. The dollar is in the toilet and when Iran, Saudia Arabia, Russia, etc. undo Bretton Woods it will be like the peso. Yes, Virginia there are conspiracies and they stare us right in the face. Look at the Federal Reserve (Creature from Jeykll Island) which is a foriegn private company which controls this country's currency, its a shell game that is going to bring down this superpower by stealth. The Federal Reserve did not happen because of ineptness but because a group of crooks got together and conspire to control us. Why aren't we in North Korea? Darfur? or any other places that need superpower intervention? Because it is not on the global agenda. 70% of Americans want us out of Iraq but they have built the largest embassy in history there (inept planning?).
2 time Medal of Honor Winner
Smedley Butler on Interventionism
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.
"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. "
Posted Fri, Nov 30, 11:51 p.m. inappropriate
Expect the unexpected with Ron Paul's campaign.: Speaking for myself as an Engineer, Army Infantry Veteran, a husband and father I will say:
Although I differ on many issues with Dr. Paul in general, I am compelled to support him because of his obviously apparent integrity.
It;s not so much that I like Ron Paul, but more that I trust him more than any other candidate in politics today.
I'll choose an honest man any day!
Posted Sat, Dec 1, 12:11 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Much ado about 1 percent: If I know nothing else about you sir, I see that you deliberately understated Ron Paul's popularity in the polls.
This kind of lack of honesty you show with your post above is exactly the reason why I'm supporting Ron Paul.
Everybody wants to win, but at what cost?
People willing to sacrifice the honesty of their words, this means their words have no substance.
If a candidate is willing to flip-flop and bend-the-truth to get elected, then they are already corrupt.
People, read between the lines.
Posted Wed, Dec 5, 4:41 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Much ado about 1 percent: If I know nothing about you sir, I see that you are a whiner and a dedicated Paul believer. On checking the latest New Hampshire poll I see that Paul is now at 8 percent support and has taken fifth place from Fred Thompson. Congratulations, I guess, but you're still in single digits.