What's with the Ron Paul love affair every 3 years?

[R_P_A_S]

I don't get it.. people who i consider smart about politics.. very left leaning.. maybe not hard core communist.. but very socialist.. always turn to the Ron Paul bandwagon because the guy drops a few cool lines talking shit about the IRS and the War in the middle east? I don't get it.. To the point they register republican.. wtf??

[electro_fan]

if they like ron paul, they're either very confused/ignorant or they're not really "socialist" at all. the guy is far right, look at the statements he's made bout jews and black people ... but hey he's cool because he supports legalising cannabis and wants to pull out of iraq and says some anti-authority things sometimes

[R_P_A_S]

are there any videos or stuff on the web that really takes it to this Ron Paul's guys politics.. from a true left wing perspective.. a true working class perspective??

[Sensible Socialist]

It says more about the Republican party and American politics in general than any individual person. When Ron Paul, an extreme worshipper of the free-market, an anti-choice bigot with racist and homophobic undertones, can gain the attention of socialists, opponents of capitalism, simply by using rhetoric about the Federal Reserve and wanting to end American military aid, wars, and the like (not because he doesn't want to see millions of people killed, mind you, it's because it costs the American taxpayer money. I'm sure he'd be fine with free slaughter).

With Ron Paul fans, keep hammering them with his love affair with capitalism. No self-respecting socialist sould affilitate with Ron Paul. His supporters are worth talking to, because they have good intentions (even with their buzzwords of liberty, freedom, and their blind allegience to the Constitution). But I'd rather vote for Bachmann to see his craziness in office than for Ron Paul.

[electro_fan]

i had some links saved a while back and ill try to dig those out, but if you search for ron paul and racism it brings up a lot of results, may have to go a few pages back though

[thesadmafioso]

He doesn't actually have much of a base of support, it's just that those lunatics who do back him are incredibly vocal with their idiocy.

Ron Paul is a cheap politician, he just likes to make a few pseudo populist remarks every now and then to gain a bit of attention and political capital with libertarian types. Occasionally some leftists will get caught up in the fervent nature of his quasi movement and selectively view such hollow comments, proceeding to form some weak conclusions of agreement in a hasty fashion.

[electro_fan]

to be honest i wouldn't view ron paul supporters as "smart about politics" at all tbh. he's certainly quite smart though, i think part of the following hes got with the semi-left is because of his involvement in the conspiracy theory section of the anti war movement, but anyone with any sense (and with a working class perspective) can see through that bullshit very quickly, especially when you examine his ideas further. most (probably all) of the conspiracy theorists' opposition to "capitalism" isn't really opposed to capitalism at all, it is a shallow critique just of the banks and fictitious capital, which actually comes about through a hatred of jews, who are linked to "capitalism" because they had a reputation for controlling the banks and have been a favourite scapegoat of conspiracy theorists through the years. If you look far enough in the conspiracy literature you will eventually find references to hateful writings such as the Protocols of the elders of zion etc. however, he favours free trade, he's actually a billionaire, etc etc ... but he made a few "libertarian" statements so a few idiots like him ...

also he really hasn't got much of a base, don't worry about it too much

[R_P_A_S]

I would actually like to read up more on his politics and how they are harmful to the working class. Because most of my friends who think he's awesome.. are working class, students and also pretty left leaning.
to socialism.

[Sensible Socialist]

I would actually like to read up more on his politics and how they are harmful to the working class. Because most of my friends who think he's awesome.. are working class, students and also pretty left leaning.
to socialism.
He supports capitalism and an unregulated free-market, which is directly at odds to the needs of the working class.

[electro_fan]

i would say they are probably quite young, and that the most likely is that they simply haven't read about his speeches and what he's said, re free trade etc - and also, the actual basis of his beliefs against war etc. it's fine to be against war, zionism, etc, on the basis that they are just morally wrong, or as marxists on the basis they divide the working class. however, his beliefs are based in far right ideology and a "conspiracy theory of history".

as for a critique, i've just found one here, it is obviously written from a liberal perspective, but the facts it reveals are pretty damning imo. I'll try and dig around for some others

http://emptv.com/p/ron-paul-doesnt-deserve-your-support

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

I have no idea why some jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon, my associate Brueno tried to talk with Mr. Paul but he was not very receptive. The thought of a Socialist, even if SocDem turning Republican is most troubling and confusing.

[electro_fan]

Some excerpts:


He opposes gay marriage. Paul says if he had been in Congress at the time, he would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act), which bans the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, and affirms that no state is required to recognize same-sex marriages. As with abortion, he believes the legislation of marriage should be left to the states, and his We the People Act also bans federal courts from hearing cases on same-sex marriage. He cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Protection_Act) in 2003 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:h3313:), which would prohibit federal courts from hearing any case pertaining to the Defense of Marriage Act. To reiterate, this would prevent federal courts from hearing claims regarding a federal law. Even though Paul believes federal courts shouldn't overrule state laws, why shouldn't federal courts have jurisdiction over federal laws?
Left to the states, gay marriage has become illegal in most of the nation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_status_in_the_United_States_by_state) . 40 states prohibit same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships. Four states allow domestic partnerships with fewer rights than marriage, five allow civil unions with all the rights of marriage, and only Massachusetts has legalized same-sex marriage. At Google's discussion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg), Paul said "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want". Unfortunately, this is not reflected in his voting record, nor in the consequences of his principles. It's interesting to note that states' rights, ardently supported by Paul, have historically been used to promote segregation laws and anti-miscegenation laws. In 1948, Strom Thurmond ran for president as part of the States' Rights Democratic Party, which opposed federal interference in states' segregation and anti-miscegenation laws. In 1967, the Supreme Court's decision in Loving v. Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia) overturned all racial restrictions on marriage. Ron Paul presumably would have opposed this interference of a federal court with state laws. Many of the arguments (http://hnn.us/articles/4708.html) used in opposition to interracial marriage are now being used by opponents of gay marriage, specifically:


Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman (of the same race), and a court should not redefine "traditional" marriage.
It's contrary to God's will.
It's unnatural.
It will lead to polygamy and bestiality.

The first argument is fallacious circular reasoning. The definition of marriage can indeed change, as shown by the repeal of anti-miscegenation laws, and the recognition of same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, Canada, Spain, Holland, Belgium, and South Africa. Ron Paul used this flawed argument during the Fox News Republican debate (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/us/politics/21debate-transcript.html?pagewanted=5&ei=5124&en=7204ed7742acebbd&ex=1350792000&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink):


Ron Paul on abortion:






Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

[Tim Cornelis]

Ron Paul is also against separation of state and church.

But I really really hope he wins, because then I won't have to have these tiresome discussions about how free market capitalism will fail. I can simply point out to the US: unemployment rose by 20%, wages dropped, 14 hour workday introduced.

Yeah, not really though.

[R_P_A_S]

Here's a good question:

The Ron Paul cheerleaders seem to love him because of him wanting to end all the wars abroad.. People love to hear this and claim that we would not spend money on these wars and it's money we can spend here at home.. OK.. maybe..

considering Ron Paul's politics.. What do you guys think he's government will do with the extra money American saves by not going to wars? does this automatically guarantee better lives for us here? I though that the fact that we are an empire is why we have "good lives"...??

[electro_fan]

Here's an article from the american SWP on Ron Paul:

http://www.isreview.org/issues/57/rep-ronpaul.shtml

(and yeah, i know it's the SWP, but it's one of the few critiques from the left that immediately came up, there is LOADS of stuff that is out there on his racism tho)

[Sensible Socialist]

Not to mention most of his ideas are just vague talking points: "End the Fed," "End the Wars," etc. It seems his utopia would be to take all restrictions off corporations and let them have at it, while minorities, gays, the poor, and all other marginalized groups smile for the glory that is capitalism.

[electro_fan]

And also look at his son ... the apple really doesnt fall far from the tree

[CHE with an AK]

If I had to sum up Ron Paul’s views, I would say that his worldview is encompassed of varying “theorists” from the anarcho-capitalist / libertarian right. His views on the economy are of the Hayek variety, his views on government out of Ayn Rand, his sympathy for conspiracy theories echoes Jesse Ventura, and his views on U.S. Imperialism and intervention are out of Murray Rothbard.

The last perspective (his 'anti-imperialist' view) I believe is what attracts many young people who might be predisposed to be on the left. He is literally the only 'mainstream' U.S. politician that you will see saying that America has become an empire and that they should close all their bases and bring troops home from the 100 + nations they are stationed in. This is because actual socialists, communists etc would never even be allowed on major cable tv. Thus, many young people who are quasi-left in the U.S. are drawn to this message and thus get inspired by the idea that the empire may be dismantled.

However, the caveat is that Ron Paul then wants to shrink government down to the point where it will literally only build some roads and vote on bills. Because of this he also has support with American right-leaning anarchists. He would like to eliminate nearly every facet of government from the FDA, dept of education, postal service, EPA, Medicare, Medicaid, social security, VA, etc. He only believes in negative rights, not positive rights or civil rights/human rights - i.e. what the government can't do, not what they have to do or protect for us the citizens.

His inherent distrust of all government leads him to basically hand over control of the entire country over to private corporations which because of his ideological blind spot he doesn’t think could be even worse than the government. He makes the mistake of not realizing that the inevitable result of his policies would be fascism in the long run.

I would say that 80 % of Ron Paul’s ideas are dead wrong, but because he occasionally gets some things right that literally no other politician with a news platform does (like his view that the U.S. should drop the Cuban embargo, remove sanctions from all countries, take troops out of Germany, S Korea etc) – he garners a fervent following amongst some left-leaning youth who are just longing for a real person who says what he believes. Since nearly all US politicians are hollow suits, Paul can be refreshing in the sense that he is honest, a "true-believer", and does not pander to the crowds (I’ve seen him defend Iran’s right to have nukes before groups of republicans and get nearly booed off the stage).

However his simplistic libertarian-right worldview when it comes to the domestic front is mostly just hollow slogans about preserving “liberty” and “freedom” i.e. the freedom to starve, be denied healthcare, public schooling etc - and the freedom to not have the government tell you can’t own a tank in your backyard or smoke pot. For a middle class American youth who gets most things paid for by their parents but likes pot and thinks tanks are awesome, his ideas and candidacy can be enticing.

[electro_fan]

here's another one

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/05/17/335831/-Ron-Paul:-The-Radical-Rights-Man-in-Washington

i really do feel strongly about this, i fucking loathe conspiracy theorists for their role in poisoning public perceptions of the left and in particular the anti-war movement and campaigns for the palestinians, for their role in helping shut down any discussion about REAL government cover-ups, and their fucking insidious anti-semitism and reactionary sentiments under the guise of them talking about "secret societies" etc, which only helps to spread suspicion against the wrong targets further and is little more than a smokescreen for the ideas of the far right

[electro_fan]

If I had to sum up Ron Paul’s views, I would say that his worldview is encompassed of varying “theorists” from the anarcho-capitalist / libertarian right. His views on the economy are of the Hayek variety, his views on government out of Ayn Rand, his sympathy for conspiracy theories echoes Jesse Ventura, and his views on U.S. Imperialism and intervention are out of Murray Rothbard.

The last perspective (his 'anti-imperialist' view) I believe is what attracts many young people who might be predisposed to be on the left. He is literally the only 'mainstream' U.S. politician that you will see saying that America has become an empire and that they should close all their bases and bring troops home from the 100 + nations they are stationed in. This is because actual socialists, communists etc would never even be allowed on major cable tv. Thus, many young people who are quasi-left in the U.S. are drawn to this message and thus get inspired by the idea that the empire may be dismantled.

However, the caveat is that Ron Paul then wants to shrink government down to the point where it will literally only build some roads and vote on bills. Because of this he also has support with American right-leaning anarchists. He would like to eliminate nearly every facet of government from the FDA, dept of education, postal service, EPA, Medicare, Medicaid, social security, VA, etc. He only believes in negative rights, not positive rights or civil rights/human rights - i.e. what the government can't do, not what they have to do or protect for us the citizens.

His inherent distrust of all government leads him to basically hand over control of the entire country over to private corporations which because of his ideological blind spot he doesn’t think could be even worse than the government. He makes the mistake of not realizing that the inevitable result of his policies would be fascism in the long run.

I would say that 80 % of Ron Paul’s ideas are dead wrong, but because he occasionally gets some things right that literally no other politician with a news platform does (like his view that the U.S. should drop the Cuban embargo, remove sanctions from all countries, take troops out of Germany, S Korea etc) – he garners a fervent following amongst some left-leaning youth who are just longing for a real person who says what he believes. Since nearly all US politicians are hollow suits, Paul can be refreshing in the sense that he is honest, a "true-believer", and does not pander to the crowds (I’ve seen him defend Iran’s right to have nukes before groups of republicans and get nearly booed off the stage).

However his simplistic libertarian-right worldview when it comes to the domestic front is mostly just hollow slogans about preserving “liberty” and “freedom” i.e. the freedom to starve, be denied healthcare, public schooling etc - and the freedom to not have the government tell you can’t own a tank in your backyard or smoke pot. For a middle class American youth who gets most things paid for by their parents but likes pot and thinks tanks are awesome, his ideas and candidacy can be enticing.

that's probably the most sensible thing you've posted lol

[CynicalIdealist]

*every 4 years

Because he ran for the Republican primary nomination 4 years ago and he's running again now.

[Fulanito de Tal]

I think that communism is only attainable if the values of a society allow it. We talk about the material situation, but I think that societal values also play a factor, aside from the influence they receive from the material situation. In the US, the culture is too individualistic and protestant for communism at the moment...among other things. So, for a while, I thought Ron Paul was the best candidate because of his anti-interventionist and anti-fed stance. That's cool if someone doesn't look into his stance more, but he also has some other stuff that's crap like his sexist and racist stance.


I used to like this video for a while

yPZoldXPl2A

[Susurrus]

I think that most of his supporters are drawn to him by his honesty and by the fact that he sticks to his guns. He thinks he is doing/will be doing a good thing for the American, and that enthusiasm and sincerity spreads to his supporters.

[Lobotomy]

I think some people think of him as a breath of fresh air because he isn't afraid to go against the dogma of the Republican party on some issues. I remember watching the 2008 Republican presidential "debate" and they were all mocking him for saying that perhaps Iraq was a mistake. Now, that is becoming more and more of a popular opinion, since Iraq was clearly such a dismal failure.

In other words, people are desperate. In the US, when we express dissatisfaction about something that the government is doing, we are first told to "Write to our Congressmen!" US citizens have been conditioned to think that we need to go through the bourgeoisie in order for any real change to happen, because they are the ones with the power, not us. It's quite disturbing really. Therefore, people are so willing to overlook the lunacy of someone like Ron Paul at this point because there's no one else. So what if he's a pro-life crackpot who would deregulate corporations? He said he would end the wars overseas and legalize marijuana!

[Cynic]

It always seemed to me that the appeal of Ron Paul to some leftists were his social libertarian social views. Legalize all drugs and let people do what they want as long as they don't infringe on others "rights". But what some fail to see is his very right wing Milton Friedman economic view of deregulating the government and let corporations do what they please.

[Klaatu]

I have no idea why Ron Paul identifies himself as Republican. He is against war and the Military-Industrial Complex, (and Republicans LOVE war,
in fact they have orgasms about it) and he is in favor of drug legalization (Something Republicans are rabidly against)

[Susurrus]

I have no idea why Ron Paul identifies himself as Republican. He is against war and the Military-Industrial Complex, (and Republicans LOVE war,
in fact they have orgasms about it) and he is in favor of drug legalization (Something Republicans are rabidly against)

He identifies as a traditional Republican, rather than a neo-conservative.

[Jose Gracchus]

Ron Paul, as far as I know, is not for drug legalization and regulation, but merely for a Jim Crow "states' right" devolution approach, with his de rigueur terror of post-1930s federal agencies.

[electro_fan]

actually legalising drugs fits perfectly in with his other views, if you think about it

[Blackburn]

I would actually like to read up more on his politics and how they are harmful to the working class. Because most of my friends who think he's awesome.. are working class, students and also pretty left leaning.
to socialism.

Well for one he is against Universal healthcare.

[R_P_A_S]

America does spend a lot on the wars it wages. The fact that he speaks against this appeals to some of my leftist friends. I get it... But America is America because of the wars it wages. Yes the little guy suffers while the rich and corporations gain a lot out of this.

My questions is... So lets say this dude is president. He manages to halt all wars... How does America sustain it self? what would be his idea since he's also a fan of deregulated free market/capitalism...

[Klaatu]

America does spend a lot on the wars it wages. The fact that he speaks against this appeals to some of my leftist friends. I get it... But America is America because of the wars it wages. Yes the little guy suffers while the rich and corporations gain a lot out of this.

My questions is... So lets say this dude is president. He manages to halt all wars... How does America sustain it self? what would be his idea since he's also a fan of deregulated free market/capitalism...

In 1961, President Eisenhower warned of "the military-industrial-complex" gaining control of the government spending (due to the vast profits to be made by private contractors) and I am thoroughly convinced that this is the primary reason that the U.S. gets into so many wars. Think of it: as soon as the 'cold war' (a BIG MONEYMAKER for private industry) was over, we found ourselves right in the middle of yet another foreign conflict: Desert Shield/Storm. And that happened RIGHT AFTER the the fall of the Soviet Union, in 1990. Coincidence? I think not. Especially when Halliburton and others (owned by the Cheneys) dove right in and started extracting oil profits from Iraq (another reason for the rampant imperialism: petroleum companies) and they lied through their teeth to justify the takeover (WMDs, torture, etc)

[R_P_A_S]

Hey guys.. I appreciate the links! I really do.. but does anyone have anything from 2010 on?

[CAleftist]

Ron Paul is basically a throwback to the "Bourbon Democrats" of the 1880s-1890s, who were obsessed with hard money (the gold standard), because that type of currency, it was believed, would severely restrain the ability of the federal government to spend any money on anything other than the "bare necessities" (national defense).

Paul is not only extremely hostile to any taxation of income, he is also very hostile to any federal government function that was developed after 1800 (literally). He seeks to eliminate a huge portion of the federal government not because he is concerned with "liberty" or "freedom", but because he happens to be a part of the bourgeoisie that absolutely refuses any state interference with "the market" (Of course, the fact that the state has always interfered with "the market" to prop up capital is lost on him).

He has a very "state-centric" interpretation of federalism; he routinely quotes the long-discredited Articles of Confederation. He is highly sympathetic to the Confederacy and the South in general, and a sizable part of his support comes from neo-Nazis, Klansmen, Birchers, and other types of right-wing extremists and "patriot" groups.

On foreign policy, he is a throwback to the isolationist "America First" crowd who sympathized with Nazi Germany. But don't call him a dove; he is very, very opposed to Communism, socialism, and anything he suspects of being "statist."

In short, he's a hyper-capitalist idealist who thinks Capitalism is the perfect system, and actually believes everything he says. At least he's consistent and occasionally, right.

[Klaatu]

Don'cha just love the way these "state's rights" and "state sovereignty" people like Ron Paul preach of hatred of the Federal Government, yet,
who would be the ones to defend Texas (Paul's state) from an invasion from a foreign power? The answer is The Other 49 States' wealth and bloodshed, that's what. In other words, The Federal Government!

[Property Is Robbery]

The one good thing about Paul is that he's not one of those libertarians who say even fascism would be better than socialism. He thinks Obama's corporatism is worse than if he was a self-described socialist

http://www.prisonplanet.com/socialism-vs-corporatism.html

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I used to like Ron Paul when I started to get away from conservative politics. Basically it was his stance on the wars and the whole "End the Fed" thing. Also he doesn't afraid of anything which made him look like a rebel and a outcast who stuck to his guns. Then I learned what libertarians(American ones) believed and found out he was one and any respect for him I lost.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

The one good thing about Paul is that he's not one of those libertarians who say even fascism would be better than socialism. He thinks Obama's corporatism is worse than if he was a self-described socialist

http://www.prisonplanet.com/socialism-vs-corporatism.html

That's interesting, at least he's not jumping on the "Obama's a socialist" wagon. Of course like the libertarian he is he has the whole situation flipped on it's head when it comes to corporatism. Corporations aren't controlled by governments, governments are controlled by corporations silly goose.

[Susurrus]

The one good thing about Paul is that he's not one of those libertarians who say even fascism would be better than socialism. He thinks Obama's corporatism is worse than if he was a self-described socialist

http://www.prisonplanet.com/socialism-vs-corporatism.html

Obama's not a corporativist either, and Paul is basically calling Obama a fascist(corporativism is the economic model used by fascists).

[CHE with an AK]

... I could live with Ron Paul as U.S. Secretary of Defense

(that's about all).

[apawllo]

I'd be interested in knowing how many Ron Paul supporters are just potheads who heard that he's for legalizing drugs, but don't understand that he's actually just for state's rights, so they assume marijuana would be legal if he were President.

[RedSunsZenith]

Actually, I've been wanting to start a campaign to get leftists to vote for Ron Paul. Imagine what would happen if his ideas were put into action. The abolition of minimum wage laws (and any laws that exist to "protect" the working class) would do much to elevate the class struggle. The abolition of welfare would do away with the industrial reserve army, thereby increasing the power of the workers while, at the same time, sharpening the conflict between worker and owner. The proletariat may finally realize itself -- revolution would be almost inevitable.

[RemoveYourChains]

While much is made by his "progressive"/liberal supporters of his supposed focus on "personal liberties", the truth is that Ron Paul is really a "states' rights" kind of guy. For whatever reason, that is blithely taken to be a species of civil-libertarianism - as if a state government would prove a better custodian of such matters. American history shows the opposite - on the balance, federalism went hand in hand with significant expansions of civil rights.

Ron Paul shouldn't be called a "right-libertarian." He's not REALLY even that.

He's a neo-confederate. His critiques of 19th century American history generally involve telling people why the Confederacy was right about most things that mattered, and taking jabs at the Union whenever possible. He doesn't care for the 14th Amendment which came out of the history of slavery. Ron Paul believes property owners should have such direct dominion over its disposition that privately owned establishments should have the right to discriminate and refuse service on whatever basis they deem fit.

The man's entire ideology is a cry to return to pre-civil war polity, where the states had great autonomy, to the point that many just ignored those sections of the national constitution that did not suit them.

This is why I don't think it's unfair for critics to point to the undertones of racism in Ron Paul's ideology, especially if one goes back to before he especially came to prominence during the 2008 campaign, and read stuff he wrote and published from as recently as the early 90's.

[RemoveYourChains]

The abolition of welfare would do away with the industrial reserve army, thereby increasing the power of the workers while, at the same time, sharpening the conflict between worker and owner. The proletariat may finally realize itself -- revolution would be almost inevitable.

The thought has occurred to me that the best thing for revolution would be for the hard right of capitalist management have their way and remove those things which makes capitalism in the first world bearable for the masses.

The "New Deal" and similar progressive programs have been life support for capitalism. We can also thank non-radical unions and reformist socialist platforms for being the cheer leaders for such a strategic victory for capital.

[redhotpoker]

The Amazing Atheist did a video about this;

xYaujnR_8NE

[Binh]

Ron Paul's popularity is one symptom of the bankruptcy of the U.S. left. I wrote an article when he announced his candidacy explaining why no progressive should back him:



Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul opposed the Wall Street bailouts, is against the (racist) war on drugs, and wants to dismantle the American empire by bringing all U.S. military personnel home from the 150 or so (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2009/12/02/Deployment-of-US-troops/UPI-93091259776903/) countries where they are deployed.
Sounds good right?

Sure, until those troops get home. Paul voted against providing housing assistance to very low-income veterans, against expanding education benefits for returning troops, and against improving how the Department of Veterans Affairs is funded.

No wonder the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Paul a big fat F (http://iava.capwiz.com/bio/id/567&lvl=C&chamber=H) on their congressional scorecard.

Paul’s anti-veteran votes are the logical conclusion of his libertarian politics. Libertarians hate “Big Government,” by which they mean just about every federal law and program under the sun. That’s why Paul is against the minimum wage (http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=501&Itemid=60), Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the food stamp program (http://www.nolanchart.com/article7907.html), mandatory immunization (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-freedman/ron-paul-no-to-mandatory-_b_82765.html), and the 1964 Civil Rights Act (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html) that ended Jim Crow segregation.

Yet Paul’s principled opposition to “Big Government” ends when it comes to the issue of immigration. He supports denying (http://www.nolanchart.com/article7907.html) undocumented immigrants any form of legal status, repealing (http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm) the Constitution’s fourteenth amendment guaranteeing citizenship by birthright, militarizing the border, and forcing hospitals to report suspected undocumented immigrants. A consistent libertarian would oppose all immigration controls because they restrict an individual’s freedom to live where they please and interfere with the laws of supply and demand governing international labor markets.

As if Paul’s opposition to the law ending Jim Crow and his support for Big Brother’s anti-immigrant measures weren’t bad enough, there’s also the thorny issue of the racist newsletters (http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/) that appeared under his name in the 1980s.

How Paul has addressed this issue has evolved (http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d) (although he doesn’t believe in evolution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw)). In 1996, he said the racist newsletters merely expressed a “clear philosophical difference” between himself and the Democrat he was running against. It wasn’t until 2001 that he totally disavowed them and in 2008 he claimed he still had “no idea (http://articles.cnn.com/2008-01-10/politics/paul.newsletters_1_newsletters-blacks-whites?_s=PM:POLITICS)” who wrote them on his behalf.

Why hasn’t he bothered to find out who wrote them? Maybe he needs more time – another 20 years, perhaps?

In the end, Paul claimed that he didn’t write the newsletters, that they were the work of a ghostwriter, and took “moral responsibility” for the racist content. I believe him and he deserves credit for taking responsibility.

However, that doesn’t get Paul off the hook. Eric Dondero, a former volunteer and personal aide for Paul, said (http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter) “the wilder [the newsletters] got, the more bombastic they got with it, the more the checks came in. You think the newsletters were bad? The fundraising letters were just insane from that period.”

In other words, Paul’s campaign used racist rhetoric in its newsletters to generate cold hard cash. At that time the racist newsletters were published, his campaign was getting $1 million a year! That was an unheard-of amount of campaign cash for a relative nobody in a small Texas congressional district in the 1980s (it wasn’t until 2008 (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-white-house-and.html) that a House race cost $1 million).

So what’s more disgusting: being a racist, or pretending to be one to fill your campaign coffers?

That wasn’t the last time Paul fanned the flames of racism for political gain either. During the 2008 campaign, he released (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtDZZHrT8mY) an ad touting his vote to block student visas for those coming from “terrorist nations (http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/29/ron-pauls-disgraceful-ad/).” Since most of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, would that make Saudi Arabia a “terrorist nation (http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/12/29/ron-pauls-disgraceful-ad/)“? Does that mean that all nations with Arab and/or Muslim majorities are also “terrorist nations”? People who wish to study in the U.S. shouldn’t be given visas because of their nationality or race?

Although Ron Paul is probably not a racist, he has no problem promoting and exploiting racism for his own political and financial gain. That much is certain.

Keep all of this in mind the next time you hear a progressive toying (http://www.counterpunch.org/davis04282011.html) with the idea of backing Paul’s 2012 campaign. Just because we agree wholeheartedly with Paul on one, two, or three issues doesn’t mean we should back his presidential campaign, which means (critically) supporting a candidate’s overall platform and political agenda. Inviting him to speak at an anti-war rally is one thing; turning a blind eye his hostility to the interests of workers, veterans, the undocumented, the elderly, the poor, African Americans, Arabs, and Muslims is something else entirely, especially when all of these groups are under sustained attack.

Ron Paul makes Paul Ryan look like FDR and voted against Ryan’s Medicare-killing budget because it “didn’t do enough” to reduce the deficit. No wonder he’s known as the “Godfather of the Tea Party (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/13/ap/preswho/main20062833.shtml).” Given all this, it’s fitting that Paul announced his candidacy on Friday the thirteenth. His politics are horrific.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/05/don%E2%80%99t-fall-for-ron-paul/

[RED DAVE]

... I could live with Ron Paul as U.S. Secretary of Defense

(that's about all).Are you serious? If you are, that's about the most politically immature post I've seen in awhile.

RED DAVE

[Princess Luna]

Because he is the only mainstream politician who supports radical changes, granted 80% of the said changes are going in the wrong direction. But the idea of ending American imperialism almost makes up wholly for all the other negative aspects of Ron Paul. So in essence having Ron Paul be elected and carry out all his plans, would be disasterous for the American working class, but a godsend for the rest of the world. Of course the argument can be made, that even if American imperialism is ended, another country (most likely China) would simply fill its shoes.

[A Marxist Historian]

The thought has occurred to me that the best thing for revolution would be for the hard right of capitalist management have their way and remove those things which makes capitalism in the first world bearable for the masses.

The "New Deal" and similar progressive programs have been life support for capitalism. We can also thank non-radical unions and reformist socialist platforms for being the cheer leaders for such a strategic victory for capital.

There is a preceden for this kind of notion in the policies of the German Communist Party in the years before Hitler's victory. "Nach Hitler uns," us after Hitler, was the phrase they used. So they sometimes allied with Nazis vs. particularly nasty things done by the then German government, which was a coalition including the Social Democratic Party, which they called "social fascists."

This turned out to be an idea that didn't work well, to say the least. And then at least you had a German Communist Party with hundreds of thousands of members and the support of a considerable fraction of the German working class.

Now, this idea would work even less well, if that is even possible.

-M.H.-