Ron Paul Antimatter

by: Matt Stoller

Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 18:29


I don't know why, but Ron Paul seems to compel a dramatic lack of nuance among mainstream liberal types.  He represents a pretty simple phenomenon, it seems to me.  Where Paul is sane (American empire is bad, war on drugs is bad), the Beltway gaggle is crazy.  Where the Beltway is sane (Lincoln was good, IRS is necessary), Paul is a lunatic.  It's like matter-antimatter. 
Matt Stoller :: Ron Paul Antimatter
Josh Marshall reprints this email making the point.

Thanks for the thoughtful post on Ron Paul, one of the more lucid pieces I've read on his candidacy. I think, though, what you may be missing is that certain major voices in the blogosphere have spoken admiringly about him (Greenwald) or have actually endorsed him in the GOP primary (Sullivan). This man is clearly beyond the valley of crazies and has advanced extremely racist views in the not-too-distant past and yet many of our more libertarian pundits seem willing to give him a pass. This is frustrating to many of us.

Glenn Greenwald has been very clear that he does not endorse Paul's views, but sees him as advancing a dialogue on some key issues left out by mainstream candidates.  Some of these problems include an American military presence in 144 countries, an excessively corporatized media, a war on drugs that imprisons some drug users while allowing others to become President, and a war economy that cannot be touched by the taxpayers who fund it.

And frankly, I don't see much of a difference, morally speaking, between Ron Paul's crazy leanings and the fairly widespread notion among Beltway elites that bombing and maiming millions of Iraqis is a reasonable and serious foreign policy. 

It is tragic that it takes a right-wing populist to say what needs to be said.

White House hopeful Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) said Sunday that the U.S. is moving toward fascism, stating that corporations are increasingly "running the show" and citizens are being deprived of their liberties.

Paul clarified that he did not refer to the type of fascism that Adolf Hitler practiced in Germany. "We're not moving toward Hitler-type fascism, but we're moving toward a softer fascism," Paul said on NBC's Meet the Press. "Loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business."

The lawmaker said the U.S. is moving toward "corporatism." He also lashed out at a system in which those are criticized as unpatriotic who do not support the war in Iraq or the Patriot Act.

That's a fairly useful topic to debate.  It's not fringe, or at least it shouldn't be.  Josh Marshall, in what I think is a joke, makes this point well when discussing the case of a conservative student fabricating an assault against his person by phantom sex fiends.

I take a pretty hard line against those crude online name-callers who say that conservatives are just a band of pathological liars constantly using this or that scam or felony to pump up their fantasies of victimization at the hands of the repressive liberal establishment. But the likes of Francisco Nava don't make my job any easier.

Marshall is kidding, sort of.  This really is a weird moment where the Republican Party and the conservative movement is run by psychotics, enabled by their weird Beltway hangers-on in the Democratic Party and the media establishment.  The decision-makers are sick, diseased, childish in their impulses and sadistic, and their opponents are impotent by their own design.  And everyone is addicted to war.

If you want to be frustrated at Glenn Greenwald for pointing out that Ron Paul is the only candidate effectively making the case against American military occupation of large swaths of the globe and the war on drugs, go for it.  But your energy is better directed towards Democratic Presidential candidates who think it's fringe to be outraged over our occupation of Iraq.  That's the only reason Paul has any space at all.  And that's the only reason Greenwald is elevating Paul's ideas, as he has repeatedly made clear, even if a variety of his critics can't seem to keep two thoughts in their head at the same time.


Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Ron Paul Antimatter | 24 comments
True Enough, But (0.00 / 0)
Glenn has been remarkably reticent to come clean about Paul's dark side.  As your comments up top make clear:

Where Paul is sane (American empire is bad, war on drugs is bad), the Beltway gaggle is crazy.  Where the Beltway is sane (Lincoln was good, IRS is necessary), Paul is a lunatic.  It's like matter-antimatter.

it's not that hard to do.  But Glenn hasn't managed to do it.  And that's a real shame.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


i don't get it... (4.00 / 5)
if paul had a chance in hell of being the R candidate, i'd agree with you. but that doesn't seem to be the case, so isn't it more useful to talk about his anti-imperial, anti-drug war ideas - since he's the only one doing it?

[ Parent ]
It Matters Because He's Movement Building (0.00 / 0)
White supremacists are flocking to his campaign as an organizing opportunity.

If they're smart enough to realize a chance to make hay, how can we be so stupid as to miss it?

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
different question (4.00 / 2)
not disagreeing with you exactly... asking if it's more important than the anti-imperial, anti-drug war messages?

and why the hell are we letting a bunch of white supremacists own those positions? doesn't that do more for their movement building than anything else we could do?


[ Parent ]
If the goal is to peacefully dismantle the American empire, (4.00 / 2)
I'd be willing to work with the white supremacists on that one.
More importantly, white supremacists/racists are the core of the Republican party, and if they are buying into this anti-militaristic rhetoric and organizing around it, then the neocons are fucked.

I really, truly hate white supremacists. They are the scum of the earth.
I would never vote for Ron Paul.

But I think his candidacy is, on balance, a positive thing.


[ Parent ]
The White Supremacist crowd is as blind to Paul's anti-imperialism (0.00 / 0)
as Glenn seems to be to his appeal to the supremacists themselves.

Which is t say, apparently, Paul's actually just a canvas on which are projected the fantasies of the viewers. That said, he seems to me to be the modern embodiment of Thomas Hobbes' darkest fears, promoting the perpetual conflict of all against all.

Me? I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul to suck runny dog poop through a flavo-straw, if that were a 'national' office.


[ Parent ]
not the core of the party (0.00 / 0)
You're conflating two seperate groups.  The overt white supremacists are not the core of the republican party.  I would agree the core of republicanism (as much as it is a coherent ideology) involves a great deal of racism, but it is covert racism, particularly to its practictioners.

Whenver you see Republicans taking absolute fainting-couch outrage about being accused of being a party of racists, realize the sentiment from them is genuine, because they are in denial.  They are obeying their personal racist demons, but don't want to acknowledge it.  Thus they are especially angry whenever this is pointed out to them. 

The White Supremacists are in a way more honest for being open about it, but they are not exactly dedicated to the Republican party.  They sometimes vote Republican if the Democrat seems particularly scary, but usually they'd rather vote for a 3rd party that is more open about being racist. 


[ Parent ]
Out of the woodwork (0.00 / 0)
" White supremacists are flocking to his campaign as an organizing opportunity."

Makes 'em easier to get a bead on.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
I agree. (4.00 / 2)
I'm not even close to a 'Ron Paul Supporter', but I LOVE to hear him talk about the American Empire during the REPUBLICAN DEBATE, and I love the fact that he has more money than any other candidate.

Greenwald's Paul posts usually focus on the best aspects of his message and how the media reacts to them. I don't understand why so many people take offense at Greenwald's lack of criticism. My guess is that it's the racism mixed with the anti-government message. I agree that Paul is odious on both counts, but I think the good outweighs the bad. I love seeing the corporate-cons on the receiving end of the nativist cudgel that they've been wielding for lo these many years.

To some, the racism is unforgivable (which it clearly is -- but I'd rather Paul benefit from it than Giulianni), I just don't see why writers like Greenwald have to stand and disavow him like its the inquisition or something.


[ Parent ]
Exactly. (4.00 / 1)
The things that i like about Ron Paul the establishment hates.  The things I don't like about him, the establishment loves.

Here we are in 2007 and drug use is still so controversial amongst people that a major campaign tries to tarnish a person with it (Hillary's campaign against Obama) and another candidate is known as a kook for sensibly arguing for pot decriminalization (Paul).

This country is so fucked-up with its holier-than-thou, finger-wagging, morality lecturing.

It's so stupid and is a big reason why I continue to loathe that bitch nancy Reagan for her hypocritical drug message bullshit.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.


I hate libertarians (0.00 / 0)
How much do I hate them?  I'd rather see Joe Lieberman as president than Ron Paul and any additional American troop casualties would be a price that I would happily pay.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

You'd "happily" sacrifice other people's lives (4.00 / 2)
just to satisfy your own hatred?

What gives you that right?

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."


[ Parent ]
corporatism (4.00 / 3)
I'm surprised Paul said that. It reminds me of left-wing anti-globalization stuff I used to read back in the 1990's. I'm glad he said it.


But, Of Course (4.00 / 4)
He wants to gut the federal government's ability to regulate the very same corporations he rails against, and withdraw from all international treaties and organizations, as well. This would leave them subject only to state and local regulation ("Grrr! Arrrgh!"), with nothing at all to stop them from exporting every possible job that's still left after 27 years business/conservative hegemony.

So you've got to take these sorts of things he says with a grain of salt, as well as a bong hit.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
True, but.... (0.00 / 0)
  ...he gets the anti-corporate meme out there from a source OTHER than the standard DFH's. That counts for something.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
not to get too theoretical (0.00 / 0)
and let me preface this by saying that i do not support ron paul by any measure, but...

if ron paul were to gut the federal regulatory bodies, and withdraw from the international ones, on the one hand, as you say, they would only be subject to state and local regulation, but on the other hand, the inter/national bodies are largely what allow corporations to be so big by acting as as liability shields, streamlining capital flows, standardizatinog of parts, allowing for more certainty, etc.  i think it is fair to say that ron paul's message, while one that i vehemently disagree with, is actually quite anti-corporate in its own right-wing way.

remember that teddy roosevelt created the icc not to protect the citizens from big, bad corporations, but to protect the corporations from a multitude of confusing and conflicting state based regulations in trade for a much friendlier, one size fits all, national regulation as they began to nationalize.

end the blurring--vote steve novick for u.s. senate in oregon


[ Parent ]
Yes, And Pigs Could Fly, If Only... (0.00 / 0)
My first involvement in organizing against corporate globalization came with the NAFTA fight during Bush I's first two years, so I do know and care something about the subject.  The US withdrawing unilaterally would not do much significant good.  We've already built the monster.  What's needed in continued engagement to reshape such institutions along genuinely progressive lines.  And that's the last thing on Ron Paul's mind.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"

[ Parent ]
no need to get touchy (0.00 / 0)
like i said, i don't support the man. your comment "Yes, And Pigs Could Fly, If Only..." is kind of describes the whole ron paul candidacy.

1) pigs will fly before ron paul is elected
2) if paul were magically elected pigs would fly before the federal regulatory liability limiting bodies are be removed because the corporations love them too much for liability shields, and their oligarchy enabling to trade that for "less regulation".
3) if paul were magically elected, and pigs actually flew and his agenda were enacted wholesale, we'd all be screwed, including many, many corporations.

i have no disillusions that ron paul actually wants things to get better--what he wants is to enforce his rigid, neo-confederate ideology onto the country. i still say that in his own wingnutty way, he has made an authentic anti-corporate argument (though it's also anti-democratic, among other things).

end the blurring--vote steve novick for u.s. senate in oregon


[ Parent ]
but (0.00 / 0)
I don't think he said that in the context of media, though, not at all.  Among Ron Paul supporters there is a substantial critique of corporate media, particularly in the context of "the corporate media is silencing Ron Paul," but I haven't heard the candidate say a word about media ownership or media consolidation.  I think Matt is guilty of the Rorschach primary.

Insert shameless blog promotion here.

[ Parent ]
racism is one kind of supremacist thinking. (4.00 / 2)
And frankly, I don't see much of a difference, morally speaking, between Ron Paul's crazy leanings and the fairly widespread notion among Beltway elites that bombing and maiming millions of Iraqis is a reasonable and serious foreign policy.

there's all kinds of supremacist thinking - there's ron paul's kind, which most people get is crazy... and then there is the widely accepted kind that justifies killing lots of iraqis for our "national interests" (whatever the hell that means)

right now, the supremacist thinking of the clintons' and the bushes' seems far more dangerous to me because 1) it is so widely accepted and 2) it results in hundreds of thousands of iraqis dead.

i don't understand how anyone can be outraged by paul's (apparent) kind of supremacist thinking and not be 10x more outraged by the socially acceptable american imperialism.


Yo! Dialogue is good... (0.00 / 0)
and anybody who gets in the face of the stupid assclowns who've been acting as 'interlocutor' of the 'debates' is worth having on the stage.

Me?

I'm for

Edward/Paul, Unity 08!

Heh....

Heh...heh...heh....

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.


I want Edwards vs. Huckabee (0.00 / 0)
  With Paul as a third party.

  Just to see the beltway media collectively take a trip to the Guyana jungles and quaff some choice vintage Jim Jones koolaid.

  It would be the most beautiful sight ever.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
McCain/Lieberman plus Paul/Kucinich (0.00 / 0)
would also be highly amusing, in its own way. I'm having trouble thinking of the right Democratic ticket to go with them, but I'm pretty sure Gravel is on it.

[ Parent ]
But Paul supporters don't seem to care too much about... (0.00 / 0)
The Paul-bots that generally swoop into these conversations rarely hold up Paul's anti-war stance as the main reason for their support.  They love his anti-IRS rhetoric and his other fiscal libertarian positions.  They certainly don't care about his completely non-libertarian positions socially, but then we all know Randian libertarians would be fine with the government installing cams to their genitals so long as they can make as much money as possible with no government oversite or taxes.
If he were pro-war they would still love him and run to him.

I suppose anything that begins to break up the GOP coalition can't be all bad, so perhaps one of their own calling out the GOP's rank corporatism shouldn't be shrugged off entirely.  I just wish everyone on the Democratic side would do the same.


Ron Paul Antimatter | 24 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search