The Ron Paul craze, or cult

[IcarusAngel]

Since Ron Paul's appearance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peBGJwE9NXo&NR=1) in the first Presidential debate there has been a wave of support for him on the net, even among some so-called "progressives," and supposedly he is #1 in various online polls -- most likely "freeped" by Libertarian party members.

His ideology is supposedly right-wing "Libertarianism," but looking at his positions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul) on wiki he's also Pro-Life (he wants to overturn Roe V. Wade and voted yes Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003), he opposes open-borders, as well as gay marriage.

He wants to withdraw from the UN. The UN, however, has been able to break up several civil wars, restored some forms of democracy in some countries like in East Timor, and so on. What he do if a genocide started raging on in Indochina or in the Mid East? Nothing?

However, he also wants to completely end the "US empire" and its record of imperialism, as he said in his speech congressional speech titled "Neo-Conned" and in the video above. He opposes things like CAFTA etc. for being corporate managed free-trade agreements, as well as unconstitutional. He doesn't support the war in Iraq or any confrontation with Iran, and he believes the US should remove all troops from foreign lands, who are "policing" other countries. He thus any kind of US interventionism.

Now, I've always believed that the countries who could implement a socialist solution have been in the third world, specifically Latin America. Already, there have been socialist systems in Latin America, achieved either by parliamentary democracy (Chile) or revolution (Nicaragua in the 80s), or simply socialist guerrillas. Unfortunately, the good ones, the ones closest to Marxism, were all put down, with the help of the United States, of course, and so they never got a chance to implement Marx's theories to their full degree.

So maybe a "Ron Paul" or some other president is just what the doctor ordered in regards to allowing the people in the "Third World" to run their own countries -- and if they don't want to be a part of "world trade" or establish some kind of "socialism," so be it. His record does seem to support his non-interventionist beliefs. Furthermore, his kooky, Libertarian economic policies (the majority of which will hurt the poor, of course), as well as his social regressive policies, could be a kind of a sick punishment for Americans who clearly have much blood on their hands for doing absolutely nothing while the US was murdering millions of people in the Third World, as well as serving as a kind of "wake-up-call" about the problems of capitalism. Remember, in the US, capital itself was being questioned during the Laissez-Faire period than at any other time during American history, and in the 20s and 30s hundreds of socialists were even in congress, compared to now where there is only one or two here or there. This is the "give capitalists enough rope, and they'll hang themselves with it" theory. It's often said that FDR "saved" capitalism by establishing the middle class. Does anybody else feel that this might be the case? Certainly, this Bush imperialist, neo-con shit has got to go.

I'm posting this in here because I also what to hear the goon opinion of this guy.

[colonelguppy]

technically he opposes roe v. wade on a constitutional basis, same with gay marriage (he favors leaving it to the states). i plan on voting for him if he gets the nomination.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

On the one hand, he would probably improve the situation in the U.S. a bit for your average worker, which seems worthwhile pending a full revolution.

On the other hand, to be devils advocate for a moment, it dampens revolutionary fervour and conceals the problems of capitalism a little.

I think I'd probably vote for him pragmatically, since no decent leftists have a hope in hell of getting any power.

-Alex

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by STJ+May 15, 2007 01:40 pm--> (STJ @ May 15, 2007 01:40 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 06:09 pm
i plan on voting for him if he gets the nomination.
Why doesn't that surprise me. [/b]
because i have libertarian leanings much like ron paul?

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+May 15, 2007 06:09 pm--> (colonelguppy @ May 15, 2007 06:09 pm)technically he opposes roe v. wade on a constitutional basis, same with gay marriage (he favors leaving it to the states). i plan on voting for him if he gets the nomination.[/b]

He thinks Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional. If that's the case, the federal ban on "partial birth abortions" is just as unconstitutional -- so yes he's a hypocrite.


Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 06:53 pm
On the one hand, he would probably improve the situation in the U.S. a bit for your average worker, which seems worthwhile pending a full revolution.

I think his libertarian-capitalist ideology would hurt the average worker. This is the guy who wants to end overtime benefits, minimum wage laws, social welfare, social security, and most other labor rights workers in America (included socialists) struggled for.


[email protected] 15, 2007 06:53 pm
On the other hand, to be devils advocate for a moment, it dampens revolutionary fervour and conceals the problems of capitalism a little.

That's actually what I was arguing lol.

The Democrats are spineless and gutless. They can't even tell you what they believe in.

Democrats should just come out and say: Here's what I believe, if you like it, vote for me, if you don't, vote for dummy (Bush or whoever). Instead they're way too poll driven, while at the same time coming up with solutions that tries to please everybody, like more funding for the war, but a time withdrawal, etc.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by IcarusAngel+May 15, 2007 02:43 pm--> (IcarusAngel @ May 15, 2007 02:43 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2007 06:09 pm
technically he opposes roe v. wade on a constitutional basis, same with gay marriage (he favors leaving it to the states). i plan on voting for him if he gets the nomination.

He thinks Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional. If that's the case, the federal ban on "partial birth abortions" is just as unconstitutional -- so yes he's a hypocrite. [/b]
yeah can't really defend that. overall, though i think he's a good candidate

[BurnTheOliveTree]

I think his libertarian-capitalist ideology would hurt the average worker. This is the guy who wants to end overtime benefits, minimum wage laws, social welfare, social security, and most other labor rights workers in America (included socialists) struggled for.

Ah. Point conceded then.

-Alex

[colonelguppy]

it's not like most states don't ahve their own laws, which are often more strict than federal standards. ron paul opposes mainly the federal abuse of the commerce clause.

[Fodman]

i think his popularity on the internet may have some link withe the anti-war movement, and (at the risk of sounding crazy) to conspiracy theorists - I've seen a few theorists on the internet that said they'd vote for him, to crush the 'military industrial complex', and think that everything will just be A-okay once America becomes isolated

in my view, isolation is bad, yet so is imperialism - can't america get something in between the two?

[IcarusAngel]

It's not crazy or a conspiracy theory to note that Dr. Paul is indeed supported by crazy conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and Pat Buchanan (who's also a racist and most likely anti-semitic, he's also said Hitler was an "honorable man"). But to say Paul is bad because he's supported by a lot of libertarian-survivalists and extremists is to commit the fallacy of Guild by Association. He himself doesn't seem that extreme (in terms of extreme libertarianism), and the left has its share of crazies and lunatics as well. (I know nobody said this btw... I'm just saying nobody should say it.)

I do agree that he's riding the popularity of the opposition to this brutal and inhumane war -- remove the libertarian-economics, and he sounds like a typical anarchist anti-war activist.

So maybe he's not so bad. At least he supports internet freedom and opposes ID cards (which I don't see how they would help the leftists), and I'd be more than willing to take some hits if it means a non-interventionist foreign policy. Not all leftists oppose imperialism, but all leftists do oppose imperialism that is capitalistic. As for his economics, let him get in there and fuck things up, and maybe people will finally start to wake up.

Apathy is a big enemy of leftism, and it is very prominent in the US, where the two party duopoly is mostly an exercise in repetitiveness, mendacity, and timidity come election year. Another enemy of leftism is "reformism." Look at Britain, the Labour Party promised so much but then became a tool of international trade and even free-markets, and Blair whole-heartedly supported Bush's unprecedented imperialism (unprecedented even for the US). Even though at least 70% of the British always had opposed it, they elected him again anyway.

To his credit, Paul is a soft-spoken guy who happens to take a principled stance and defend it. While most Republicans are engaging in the same old, same old (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liXVWd4JvCs), going back on their own statements (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEoqwDK0ItE&mode=related&search=), etc., Paul will at least defend himself (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2fxzliDhSk) and his stances (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo6KIusCBoU).

I agree with him on that last video btw... Why do we need a CIA? The CIA has done nothing other than to assassinate, murder, remove etc. leftist leaders and train and fund right-wing death squads in the third world. They make the KGB look moderate by comparison, and he turned the tables on Maher by using leftist rhetoric.

He is making things interesting for American politics, and it would speak volumes about the sad state of the democrats if the Republicans nominate Paul while the democrats nominate Hillary Clinton or Obama over somebody like Kucinich.

[IcarusAngel]

(CNN) -- Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani was declared the winner of Tuesday's Republican presidential debate in South Carolina, largely for his smack down of Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who suggested that America's foreign policy contributed to the destruction on September 11, 2001.

Paul, who is more of a libertarian than a Republican, was trying to offer some perspective on the pitfalls of an interventionist policy by the American government in the affairs of the Middle East and other countries.

"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," he said.

That set Giuliani off.

"That's really an extraordinary statement," said Giuliani. "As someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq; I don't think I've ever heard that before and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11."

As the crowd applauded wildly, Giuliani demanded that Paul retract his statements.

Paul tried to explain the process known as "blowback" -- which is the result of someone else's action coming back to afflict you -- but the audience drowned him out as the other candidates tried to pounce on him.

After watching all the network pundits laud Giuliani, it struck me that they must be the most clueless folks in the world.

First, Giuliani must be an idiot to not have heard Paul's rationale before. That issue has been raised countless times in the last six years by any number of experts.

Second, when we finish with our emotional response, it would behoove us to actually think about what Paul said and make the effort to understand his rationale.

Granted, Americans were severely damaged by the hijacking of U.S. planes, and it has resulted in a worldwide fight against terror. Was it proper for the United States to respond to the attack? Of course! But should we, as a matter of policy, and moral decency, learn to think and comprehend that our actions in one part of the world could very well come back to hurt us, or, as Paul would say, blow back in our face? Absolutely. His real problem wasn't his analysis, but how it came out of his mouth.

What has been overlooked is that Paul based his position on the effects of the 1953 ouster by the CIA of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.

...

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/18/martin/index.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDND5tcUFoI

[colonelguppy]

i like how fox declaed guliani the winner despite him getitng third in the polls. his call out on paul wasn't even really a point at all.

[Fodman]

lol nothing makes me laugh more than when someone like Giuliani says "they attacked us because of our freedom"

[Publius]

Well, it IS a well-known fact that terrorists, like Nazis and you guys, hate freedom.

So there's an obvious connection.

[CrazyMode]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:29 am
i think his popularity on the internet may have some link withe the anti-war movement, and (at the risk of sounding crazy) to conspiracy theorists - I've seen a few theorists on the internet that said they'd vote for him, to crush the 'military industrial complex', and think that everything will just be A-okay once America becomes isolated

in my view, isolation is bad, yet so is imperialism - can't america get something in between the two?
Would you support international peacekeeping- or peacemaking missions in places like Darfur today and Rwanda 10+ years ago? In both of these cases the west could prevent genocide, but doing so involves a militaristic commitment.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by CrazyMode+May 24, 2007 03:00 am--> (CrazyMode @ May 24, 2007 03:00 am)
[email protected] 16, 2007 11:29 am
i think his popularity on the internet may have some link withe the anti-war movement, and (at the risk of sounding crazy) to conspiracy theorists - I've seen a few theorists on the internet that said they'd vote for him, to crush the 'military industrial complex', and think that everything will just be A-okay once America becomes isolated

in my view, isolation is bad, yet so is imperialism - can't america get something in between the two?
Would you support international peacekeeping- or peacemaking missions in places like Darfur today and Rwanda 10+ years ago? In both of these cases the west could prevent genocide, but doing so involves a militaristic commitment. [/b]
Well, a poignant point on RevLeft; a first.

The UN as well has been able to prevent many genocides in addition to the US, and has built up democracy in a few countries. What say the pseudo-revolutionaries and isolationists on this one? A completely non-interventionist foreign policy might be as detrimental to the third world as an imperialist one.

[Publius]

The UN as well has been able to prevent many genocides in addition to the US, and has built up democracy in a few countries. What say the pseudo-revolutionaries and isolationists on this one? A completely non-interventionist foreign policy might be as detrimental to the third world as an imperialist one.

Holy shit! You said something that makes sense!

I don't know if this is cause for celebration or concern...

[CrazyMode]

Also I agree with you on the point of the Ron Paul cult. I think the internet is full of "common sense" political thinkers, who really are quite anti-social and therefore quite individualistic. This combined with a lot of semi Republicans who want to fit in by saying "screw the government" while also holding onto their capitalist notions.

The latter statement particularly applies to many people who opposed the war after the fact. A lot of these people simply oppose the war because it has been run so poorly. If the American war machine was killing people more efficiently these people would be all for it.

[colonelguppy]

yes conservatives oppose the war because they haven't killed enough people

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 03:04 am
Also I agree with you on the point of the Ron Paul cult. I think the internet is full of "common sense" political thinkers, who really are quite anti-social and therefore quite individualistic. This combined with a lot of semi Republicans who want to fit in by saying "screw the government" while also holding onto their capitalist notions.

The latter statement particularly applies to many people who opposed the war after the fact. A lot of these people simply oppose the war because it has been run so poorly. If the American war machine was killing people more efficiently these people would be all for it.

Capitalism is necessarily backed by the government, I agree. In the US, historically the Republican Party has been the party of big government: Hoover, Lincoln, Nixon, and even supposed "small government" republicans like Reagan and Coolidge engaged in imperialism, corporatism (the worst act of corporate welfare happened under Reagan), protectionism, and so on.. Coolidge destroyed Nicaragua the first time around, then Reagan did. The Republican Party is also probably the most corrupt party in political history; bribes, political favoritism, election rigging, etc.

That's why Paul's rhetoric is a little off: Nixon wasn't elected to end the Vietnam war -- in fact, he was brought in to stabilize it over the "weak" candidate. In fact, Nixon originally expanded the Vietnam war to Cambodia and Laos -- he did not originally work to end it quickly. When it became obvious that the Vietnam war was "lost" he finally pulled out due to public pressure and so on (the left was more effective then too in their protests and getting out information, not to mention the media was also better). He later said he "regretted" this decision in an some article he published.

Paul is also incorrect to say that any involvement with the UN is unconstitutional. However, the US constitution does provide a means to enter into international agreements: Article VI is quite clear that when United States enters into a treaty or international obligation, it must uphold them . This is the "supreme law of the land."

However, his overall analysis is correct, so he gets a pass. Just like a libertarian proclaimed to want "liberty" -- their goals are correct, it's just the details, and thus solutions, that they have wrong.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 03:59 am
yes conservatives oppose the war because they haven't killed enough people
Conservatives do not have a problem with killing people. The "Third World Wars" are evidence of that, where millions died due to conflicts initiated by conservative, and millions more have died due to the massive inequality that exists down there.

Vietnam was the typical example of where most Conservatives supported the war as another "put down some third worlders" action and would have rather had chaos in the region than a stable pseudo-socialist government. Conservatives love war when there is any kind of a benefit to America or American nationalism.

Many Libertarians liked war in South America for the same reasons: functioning socialist or even capitalist democracies are detrimental to the "free-market" ideology, so they were glad to see Allende et al. destroyed and Pinochet, Videla, Ríos Montt, etc. put in power. A good example of democracy is bad for their arguments. This is the type of "analysis" you have when you base your politics on selfishness.

It's hard for me to get inside the "mind" of a conservative, but most likely the "traditional" and old-fashioned conservatives oppose this war because they see no benefit for America. They don't care that Saddam was removed and replaced with an Islamic government. They don't see America controlling the oil yet, so they're worried what benefit it will have. Not to mention the failure to find WMDs may be the beginning of the end for the American empire: it's now far harder for conservatives to make up lies and overthrow governments than it used to be. If this was the Nixon or even the Reagan years, Chavez would be long gone by now and most likely they would have brought in WMDs from somewhere else and made up that they found them.

Other than this "opposition," most "conservatives" have no problem with war, and even Paul has said he may have supported it had it gotten the proper authorization according to him. The other reason why many conservatives still support this war is more sinister: They only care about the interests of their party, not America as a whole. That's probably why a majority of Republican Party members still support this war: they still see a benefit and are obedient to state interests and the interests of their party.

[CrazyMode]

On the issue of "constitutionality," well honestly I think it is a non-issue. Too many people follow the Constitution as if it were the only source of truth. It suffers from the same human flaws as any other piece of legislation, law or theory. Arguing something is wrong simply because it goes against the constitution is a massive logical fallacy- it is an appeal to authority, and in my opinion this authority is just about two hundred years behind.

[Fodman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:54 am
Well, it IS a well-known fact that terrorists, like Nazis and you guys, hate freedom.
oh! that pesky freedom! I wish we all lived in one big cage! [/sarcasm]

so do you agree with Giuliani that the Towers were hit because you have 'freedom'?

[Fodman]

Originally posted by CrazyMode+May 24, 2007 03:00 am--> (CrazyMode @ May 24, 2007 03:00 am)
[email protected] 16, 2007 11:29 am
i think his popularity on the internet may have some link withe the anti-war movement, and (at the risk of sounding crazy) to conspiracy theorists - I've seen a few theorists on the internet that said they'd vote for him, to crush the 'military industrial complex', and think that everything will just be A-okay once America becomes isolated

in my view, isolation is bad, yet so is imperialism - can't america get something in between the two?
Would you support international peacekeeping- or peacemaking missions in places like Darfur today and Rwanda 10+ years ago? In both of these cases the west could prevent genocide, but doing so involves a militaristic commitment. [/b]
yes i would support it, of course

i said isolation is bad - meaning i don't want countries to shut themselves away from each other

[Fodman]

Originally posted by IcarusAngel+May 25, 2007 02:36 am--> (IcarusAngel @ May 25, 2007 02:36 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:00 am

[email protected] 16, 2007 11:29 am
i think his popularity on the internet may have some link withe the anti-war movement, and (at the risk of sounding crazy) to conspiracy theorists - I've seen a few theorists on the internet that said they'd vote for him, to crush the 'military industrial complex', and think that everything will just be A-okay once America becomes isolated

in my view, isolation is bad, yet so is imperialism - can't america get something in between the two?
Would you support international peacekeeping- or peacemaking missions in places like Darfur today and Rwanda 10+ years ago? In both of these cases the west could prevent genocide, but doing so involves a militaristic commitment.
Well, a poignant point on RevLeft; a first.

The UN as well has been able to prevent many genocides in addition to the US, and has built up democracy in a few countries. What say the pseudo-revolutionaries and isolationists on this one? A completely non-interventionist foreign policy might be as detrimental to the third world as an imperialist one. [/b]
i fully agree

[Publius]

oh! that pesky freedom! I wish we all lived in one big cage! [/sarcasm]

so do you agree with Giuliani that the Towers were hit because you have 'freedom'?

How ironic that you missed my sarcasm. That's just me being sardonic.

[IcarusAngel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 03:59 am
On the issue of "constitutionality," well honestly I think it is a non-issue. Too many people follow the Constitution as if it were the only source of truth. It suffers from the same human flaws as any other piece of legislation, law or theory. Arguing something is wrong simply because it goes against the constitution is a massive logical fallacy- it is an appeal to authority, and in my opinion this authority is just about two hundred years behind.
I didn't say that the constitution was infallible and I don't get my views from the constitution. I think the constitution can be "progressed" in several areas and this is a document that once protected the institution of slavery. However, if right-wingers are going to use it to justify their crazy beliefs, then they should be proven wrong if it can be done so. There can be no clearer cut case than this.

Libertarians have a long history of revision both in regards to the constitution and in regards to classical-liberalism, both of which they simplify and pervert to justify their radical capitalism:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/27/15718/5328

[Fodman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:52 pm


oh! that pesky freedom! I wish we all lived in one big cage! [/sarcasm]

so do you agree with Giuliani that the Towers were hit because you have 'freedom'?

How ironic that you missed my sarcasm. That's just me being sardonic.
:blush: woops, my bad :P

sorry i thought you were a Giuliani fan then