A Good Ron Paul article...

C

Cypress

Well-known member
This is spot on, IMO. An excellent analysis of the effects and consequences of giving the power of governence over to people like Bush - to people who hate government. BushCo.'s intentions are not to competently manage government and make it effective on behalf of the public interest. Quite the opposite, actually. Competently managing government in the public interest is actually an anathema to their ideology and goals; e.g. they simple can't AFFORD to see a well-managed, cost-effective, and popular public program like SCHIP exanded to more working and middle class americans.

And, the natural reacton among some people horrified by this republican incompetence, is to swing wildly towards fringe ideologies (i.e., Ron Paul or Noam Chomsky, per this article) which appear to them, at the surface, to be a realistic alternative to the abuses of Bush conservatism:


Did W. Create Ron Paul?

Gordon Robison argues that his stance on the Iraq War almost single-handedly explains Rep. Ron Paul's amazing fundraising ability (which recently outstripped that of Sen. John McCain, the last unreconstructed hawk on the Iraq War.)

I'm not sure it is just Iraq that drives Ron Paul's popularity, though of course that is part of it. I suspect that it is in some important part the abuse of government by W. and his administration that has made rightwing anarchism so popular. (It has done wonders for leftwing anarchism too: witness the reemergence of Noam Chomsky as a major voice after he had been marginalized for decades).

Government is a set of bargains, a 'moral economy.' We let the government take a certain proportion of our money, and we expect it to organize services for us that would otherwise be difficult to arrange. Anyone who has studied any history and economics knows that the market is going to leave some people destitute, and you need government to correct for that imbalance. It is no accident that government was invented by irrigation-based societies like Egypt and Iraq, where if someone did not organize the peasants to do the irrigation work and keep it up, everybody would starve.

Bush has broken the US government. The US military was there to protect us. Bush has used it to fight a fascist-style aggressive war of choice.

FEMA is there for emergency aid. Bush did not deploy it effectively for New Orleans.

Social security lifted the elderly out of the poverty that had often been their fate before the 1930s. Bush declined to use Clinton's surplus to fix the system, and has essentially borrowed against the pensions of us all to pay for his wars.

Government is there to ensure our security. Bush has used it to spy on us, to prosecute patently innocent persons, to manipulate the media and instill us with lies and propaganda.

If government is to be conducted on Bushist principles, then who would not like to see the damn thing abolished?

I don't think Ron Paul would have run well in 2000, after Bill Clinton had demonstrated the ways in which government could contribute to our prosperity and well-being. Indeed, it was so important for the Right to destroy Clinton precisely because he did make government relatively effective and popular.

Ron Paul's popularity does not derive only from his opposition to the Iraq War. It derives from the sanity of the American people, who love liberty and reject Bushism. The opposite of fascism is not democracy but anarchy.

Given how horribly corporations like Walmart treat their employees, denying them the right to unionize and cleverly avoiding paying anything toward their health insurance, I have never understood why Libertarians think corporations would be nicer to us if we could not organize government protections from them. It is the government of the state of Maryland that protected workers from Walmart's exploitation of them. Libertarian faith in the utopia that comes from the withering of the state strikes me as just as impractical as the similar Marxist theory.

But after 7 years of Bush, I don't find it at all astonishing that large numbers of internet contributors would give Ron Paul money to campaign on getting rid of the Frankenstein's Monster of a government that George W. Bush has been constructing in his macabre basement of a mind.
Click to expand...


http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/world/10162304.html

http://www.juancole.com/
 
Last edited:
I would give this guy's opinion more credence if Libertarian beliefs came about this year because of Ron Paul but they didn't. Classical liberalism or today what we might call libertarism (sp) has been around for centuries.
 
Not to mention this author is just another liberal calling for more big government. Republican issues with Bush are not caused by a lack of him growing government enough.
 
cawacko said:
I would give this guy's opinion more credence if Libertarian beliefs came about this year because of Ron Paul but they didn't.
Click to expand...

That's not what the article said

Classical liberalism or today what we might call libertarism (sp) has been around for centuries.
Click to expand...


See my first comment.

The article has nothing to do with this.
 
Is your point that the failures of W are what's causing the momentous, gargantuan, awesome Ron Paul Revolution? Or are you merely trying, Cypress style, to show how Ron Paul is not worth talking about?
 
Beefy said:
Is your point that the failures of W are what's causing the momentous, gargantuan, awesome Ron Paul Revolution? Or are you merely trying, Cypress style, to show how Ron Paul is not worth talking about?
Click to expand...

beefy, I'm pretty sure the thesis was made crystal clear in the article and my blurb.

Some people are so fed up with Bushism, that they are seaching for something that is wildly anti-bush.

Other respected posters here have said virtually the exact same thing - that even some on the anti-war left are pondering supporting Ron Paul. I'm pretty sure you've read those comments before.


Which has a lot to do with Iraq, but at some level may have something to do with a natural reaction of some people to crave something that is truly, and radically "anti-bush"
 
Come on guys! this article is spot on.

Ron Paul has and is attracting disgruntled Republicans because the traditional R party is bent on destroying anything in our government which works well. If we had a guy like Ike running the country you would see vurtually no support for People like Ron Paul.

Clinton did a decent job and if the L party was going to succede merely on the basis of it philosphy then THAT would have been the time it would have taken off.
 
Last edited:
Cypress, I agree with you, this article is a good article.

Ron Paul is an act of political desperation, not just because of Bush, but also because of the absolute failure of both political parties to adequately address the most critical issues before us.

One thing the article didn't address is the type of politically unlearned people who are attracted to Paul's brand of bizzarro non-government.

The good news is that the curtain is falling on this dog and pony show and the reality that bizzarro non-government is never going to play well with mainstream America.
 
blackascoal said:
Cypress, I agree with you, this article is a good article.

Ron Paul is an act of political desperation, not just because of Bush, but also because of the absolute failure of both political parties to adequately address the most critical issues before us.

One thing the article didn't address is the type of politically unlearned people who are attracted to Paul's brand of bizzarro non-government.

The good news is that the curtain is falling on this dog and pony show and the reality that bizzarro non-government is never going to play well with mainstream America.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I thought the thesis was crystal clear. Desh got it, and gave some great insight.

You too. :cof1:
 
the funny thing is, that posters who said they couldn't figure out what I was talking about (you beefy! you warren!:)) are actually a perfect example of the thesis of this post: that the profound backlash against Bushism is causing some people to flirt with extreme ideologies that they would never consider voting for under normal cirucumstances.

Several conservatives on this board have said they would vote for either Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich (as their second choice). Huh??? When would that have ever happened, except in an age of backlash against Bushist incompetence? The answer: Never.

Because on a broad range of issues having to do with the role of government, economic justice, and corporate goverance, Kucinch normally would be an anathema to self-professed conservatives. YET, some will say Kucinich would be their second choice after Ron Paul. WTF? I think this article is correct, that the flirtation with candidates - those candidates one would normally never vote for - is a reflection of an extreme backlash against Bushism. And it may be largely about the war, but its also about other facets of Bush conservatism: wire tapping, torture, civil liberties, corruption, incompetence.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
I would never vote for Kucinich.
Click to expand...


I'm not suprised Damo. Kucinich is super liberal. Outside of his anti-Iraq war appeal, I can't imagine you have much in common with him.


I'm actually probably one of the few people on these boards, that have actually cast a vote for kucinich. :)
 
Obfuscate said:
Not that I don't believe you, just curious who?
Click to expand...

I know I've said that Kucinich would be my second choice. I know he has ideological differences, but like Paul he is a principled man and whether or not I disagree with him on an issue, I always know why he believes the way he does.
 
Democrats should be glad for Ron Paul. They should hope that he gets popular enough to, if not win the Republican nomination, decide to run as an Independent.

That would hurt the Republican candidate.
 
Cypress said:
I'm not suprised Damo. Kucinich is super liberal. Outside of his anti-Iraq war appeal, I can't imagine you have much in common with him.


I'm actually probably one of the few people on these boards, that have actually cast a vote for kucinich. :)
Click to expand...
Anybody supported so wholeheartedly, even to the point of looking past little "foibles" like receiving direction from aliens in Shirley McLaine's back yard, by an avowed socialist will never, ever, receive my vote.

Of course, it wouldn't have taken BAC or anybody else for that to happen, but it really cements it right on down to the core...

:D
 
Even if Paul were elected, he'd have have to moderate any minarchist tendencies, as Congress simply wouldn't stand for it. If he then resorted to Bush-style tactics, he'd damage his own credibility, Libertarian creadibility, and kick the dead horse of Republican credibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top