The Daily Background

I have a feeling that this is going to be a long, rambling post, and only longtime readers will probably be interested in it. And yes, I know because I’m talking about Ron Paul, a lot of his supporters will trickle in from Technorati and other blog search engines. I know I’m not going to change any minds that aren’t open.

Longtime readers know that I strongly dislike and disagree with Ron Paul about several things which I’ll discuss below. Let me introduce this post by quoting from a piece over at Firedoglake by David Neiwert which I think makes several great points:

What I didn’t expect [about Congressman Paul’s candidacy] was that his anti-war advocacy would attract as many evident admirers from the left as it seems to have, particularly those who are dissatisfied with Democrats’ apparent fumbling of the Iraq war issue. Certainly, the message boards at liberal outlets like Crooks and Liars who’ve carried factual counterinformation about Paul have been flooded with raging defenses of the man, as have some of our comments threads.

This phenomenon that Neiwert brings up, about progressives who are ill-educated about Paul’s actual positions on anything other than the war, is a one worth attention.

Let’s make an admission right now.

As progressives and people who are against the war in Iraq (especially those of us who have been against this war from before it began and remember when it was very unpopular to be against it) we like it when people come out against the war that we wouldn’t expect. Why does it make headlines in the liberal blogosphere when somebody like William F. Buckley, widely considered a founder of the conservative movement, repudiates President Bush’s policies? Not because we’d agree with Buckley on anything other than the fact that he dislikes Bush, but simply because he’s somebody we wouldn’t expect would criticize him.

For this reason, virtually any conservative bashing of this Administration gets ink in the blogosphere. I’ve taken part in this myself, sometimes writing things to the effect of “look, even this guy is against the war now.”

And a lot of people who are normally progressive/liberal/Democratic people are excited when they see conservatives attack Bush, like Ron Paul does often. But the truth is, a lot of these progressives/liberals/Democrats don’t know much about Congressman Paul, a Texas Republican who used to be a libertarian, other than the fact that he’s against the war and speaks out against Bush.

Would these same progressives/liberals/Democrats ever get so excited about Congressman Paul’s candidacy if they knew that Paul wants to get rid of Social Security and Medicare and doesn’t think that senior citizens necessarily are entitled to live their lives in dignity? Would these liberals still be excited about Congressman Paul if they knew that he wants to get rid of Medicaid, food-stamps and other programs that help poor people? Would these well-meaning but poorly-informed liberals still be excited about Congressman Paul if they knew that he wants to scrap anti-discrimination regulations like hate crimes laws and affirmative action?

Would liberals give credence to Paul’s views if they knew that he doesn’t think every American has the right to health care? That is– the right not to die from easily cured diseases? Would these liberals heap praise on Paul if they knew that he, like other libertarians and conservatives, believes that poor people are only poor because they’re lazy– not because they are not afforded the same educational and employmental opportunities, not because they are discriminated against in some ways, not because of sheer luck in some cases?

We are talking about a politician who talks about how he was inspired by Richard Nixon.

Yes, he doesn’t like the war in Iraq and talks about restoring the Constitution from the damaged state that the Bush Administration has put it in. But the enemy of your enemy isn’t always your friend.

Let’s go back to Neiwert’s column over at Firedoglake again. Neiwert writes:

[An] important point, though, that’s overlooked in all this is that Ron Paul has made a career out of transmitting extremist beliefs, particularly far-right conspiracy theories about a looming “New World Order,” into the mainstream of public discourse by reframing and repackaging them for wider consumption, mostly by studiously avoiding the more noxious and often racist elements of those beliefs. Along the way, he has built a long record of appearing before and lending the credibility of his office to a whole array of truly noxious organizations, and has a loyal following built in no small part on members of those groups.

And it’s equally important to understand that he hasn’t changed his beliefs appreciably in the interim. Most of his positions today — including his opposition to the Iraq war — are built on this same shoddy foundation of far-right conspiracism and extremist belief systems, particularly long-debunked theories about the “New World Order,” the Federal Reserve and our monetary system, the IRS, and the education system.

There’s lots of documentation of this stuff over at the column itself.

I recently was engaged in an at-times heated discussion of Paul on a liberal blog, The Blue State. I pointed out Congressman Paul’s draconian positions on issues other than Iraq and the constitution, and this is a sampling of the type of response I got:

[No politicians] are going to “do” any of what they promise. At least it’s a relief to hear someone tell the truth.

Just for the record, I am a liberal and will vote that way. However, Ron’s popularity is based on his honest way of speaking no matter how unpopular with his party.

Just for the record, I am a liberal and will vote that way. However, Ron’s popularity is based on his honest way of speaking no matter how unpopular with his party.

[Paul] inspired me. Not for a political view or an issue, but because he conveys what he thinks in an articulate, thoughtful, and consistent manner - something we saw none of in the other candidates last night, and something I wish we saw more of in our own candidates.

To the latter point, I responded:

To say that he is inspiring simply because he is consistent despite disagreeing with his beliefs– or because you think he’s consistent– is a weak argument. One could say they were inspired by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s consistency, or President Nixon’s consistency, despite disagreeing with his beliefs.

Do you really not find Democratic politicians who trying to ensure all Americans have health care, all children have decent schools, all elderly people are entitled to live in dignity and respect inspiring enough that you have to look to Republicans who don’t think poor people have the right to medical care, don’t think poor children have the right to go to good schools, and don’t think elderly people should have the right to live with basic human dignity for inspiration?

That person didn’t respond again. But here’s some more of the type of responses I was getting:

But, I still love Ron Paul, even though most his views are anathema to what I believe. I still stand by him for the Republicans, and over some Dems, but not all Dems.

Ron Paul is the real deal.

The point about Paul is that he proves that we progressives are not slave to any political ideology but to rational, honest and thoughtful debate of significant issues that affect the world, not just a small segment of the US population.

I dont know what Paul thinks about gays in the military and i dont know what he thinks about the religion but I dont care because I know he THINKS.

The latter comment was an admission of ignorance. For the record, Paul wouldn’t repeal the bigoted and discriminatory “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy which prevents gays and lesbians from serving honorably and openly in the military.

The comment about Paul being a progressive is just ludicrous. The person who wrote it, who apparently thinks Paul is a progressive, is just sorely uneducated. Progressivism is a political ideology. That’s all it is. Paul is not a progressive at all.

The point is, Paul is not a friend of progressives. He is against virtually everything we stand for, and frequently talks about how he thinks he’s “more conservative” and “more Republican” than the rest of his party is. He should be considered nothing more than an incidental ally on no other issue than the war in Iraq and returning constitutional liberties.

Filed under: Z-TDB Blog