Ron Paul Ain’t Good on Foreign Policy
Freddie De Boer gives us a heartfelt defense of Paul-curiosity:
I don’t know if that grave was one of the few to be opened and explored. Even now the Indonesian government broadly obstructs attempts to investigate the events of the Year. The “conservative estimate”– that is, the one that won’t get you laughed at by Very Reasonable People– is that 500,000 Indonesians were slaughtered, all under the considerable support of the United States. Some Indonesians I know find that estimate a laughable, inflammatory underestimation, but okay. Render unto Caesar. Half a million people, stuff underground or thrown into the sea. Lined up and shot in the back of the head, or hacked to death with machetes, after having been forced to dig their own graves and those of their families. You’ve heard it before. You’ve likely even heard that we supported it in every way conceivable, providing intelligence, arms, and funding to the new junta, including a literal hit list. If I know the average political mind today, many could read about these events with only eye rolls. They don’t deny the factual accuracy of the claims. They don’t even deny their horror. They just react as if talking about them is something gauche, uncool, boring. Few could deny their truth, at this point; the declassified CIA documentation is, as always, terribly frank. You’d be amazed at how many offer justifications to me. These people were commies, after all.
If you think that 1965 is ancient history, and that you are thus free from the burden of responsibility, I would remind you that the Clinton administration backed the Indonesian government in its atrocities against East Timor, where perhaps a third of the population was murdered; that Dennis Blair, former Obama intelligence official, had direct authority in our support of those war crimes; and that today, the Indonesian military is doing this to the people of West New Guinea.
I hardly need to tell you that our support of Indonesia and its military is ongoing. We are up to our elbows in the current regime, just like we were with the Suharto regime. (A Clinton apparatchik called him “our kind of guy.”) And in a democracy that makes it our responsibility. A foreign army that takes our money and our training and applies them to the harassment, oppression, and murder of its own people– that’s our responsibility. Yours and mine…
..What I insist, and what people like Glenn Greenwald keep insisting, is that Ron Paul’s endless failings shouldn’t and can’t exist as an excuse to look away from the dead bodies that we keep on piling up. What I have wanted is to grab a hold of mainstream progressivism and force it to look the dead in the face. But the effort to avoid exactly that is mighty, and what we have on our hands is an epidemic of not seeing.
Here are two assumptions embedded in this post:
1. The Indonesian government wouldn’t or couldn’t have carried out serial pogroms and violent state-building exercises without the support of the United States.
2. A President Paul, by withholding support and instigation, would have prevented these bad things from happening.
The first is a matter of historical debate. The CIA surely played a role in the fall of Sukarno and the murderous rise of Suharto; it’s far from clear, however, that CIA influence was determinative either in spurring the conflict or in producing a specific outcome. It’s also surely true that the United States maintained good relations with the Suharto regime for commercial and what it perceived to be strategic reasons, and that the US continued this support while Indonesia engaged in a variety of exceedingly violent statebuilding projects at various points in its periphery. The United States continued to sell Indonesia weapons during this period, took some steps to shield Indonesia from international scrutiny, and largely avoided using commercial ties as leverage over Indonesian behavior.
Again, we can debate as to how much this amounts to “piling up dead” for which the United States presumably holds responsibility. For my part, I think that lots of countries have brutal, bloody factional conflicts, and lots of countries engage in brutal statebuilding efforts without any assistance from the United States, so in general I’m inclined to think that US positive influence (making it happen) over these events is fairly minimal, with the real responsibility of the US in this case lying in its rejection of using any tools of negative influence (political or economic leverage, which was considerable) to moderate the behavior of the Indonesia government. Political leaders have terribly good reasons to kill other people for political effect; the United States rarely has to try very hard to convince them to do so, and often cannot convince them to refrain from doing so.
And so this brings us to assumption the second, which is that a President Paul would somehow have done something to make all those Indonesia people not dead. I suppose it’s possible that a President Paul would have refrained from supporting the Suharto coup, although it’s also certainly possible that Paul’s free market commitments would have made anti-communist activity attractive; I don’t know enough about Paul’s early career attitudes regarding the USSR, the Sandinistas, etc. I guarantee you, however, that President Paul would have lifted not a finger to assist all the Indonesians killed in the wake of the coup, or in the various statebuilding projects later engaged in by the Suharto and post-Suharto governments. President Paul might not have engaged in a direct military relationship with Indonesia, but he would not have prevented American private military firms from contracting with the Indonesians in training and advisory roles; he would not have prevented the Indonesian military from purchasing all the military equipment that it could afford from US defense corporations; he would not have prevented US corporations with interests in Indonesia from calling (publicly or privately) for violent defense of their extractive and labor interests; and he would not have supported any robust international action to condemn or isolate the Indonesian government.
Now you may say “but all that stuff happens anyway,” and that’s true to a point, although it’s also true that the United States finally did exercise some restraint on Indonesia with regards to East Timor, and played a not-completely-inconsequential role in the fall of Suharto. But that’s rather my point; for progressives, Ron Paul is less change than you want, and not at all the change you’re looking for. The world of a President Paul is not one in which the United States refrains from facilitating the murder of people in foreign countries; it’s a world in which the institutional structure of that facilitation is somewhat different, mostly in that it involves private actors undertaking direct policy rather than working through the US government. It’s also a world in which all of the multilateral institutions designed to alleviate human misery are undercut or actively destroyed by principled isolationist policy.
And this is my second point; De Boer compares Paul with Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich, arguing that they’re all dismissed by mainstream liberals as being ridiculous, etc. But this comparison rests on a basic falsehood, which is that the foreign policy of Ron Paul resembles that of Sanders or Kucinich in any meaningful way. Kucinich, for example, is an avid supporter of the United Nations, as well a host of other international institutions. He also supports robust foreign aid, and a variety of other positions that suggest a commitment to using US social and economic leverage in a non-violent way to improve international outcomes.
Bernie Sanders has a very similar record. Kucinich and Sanders are both firmly on the left side of the liberal internationalist consensus, while Paul rejects that consensus altogether. This means that they incidentally share a few positions, just as Kucinich and Sanders incidentally share a few positions with Jim Demint, but it doesn’t mean that they’re saying the same thing about foreign policy, or that progressives ought to think of them in the same way.
On this last issue, much of De Boer’s anger seems centered on the belief that Kucinich, Sanders, and Paul are being subjected to the same attacks from progressives for the same reasons, but I don’t think that this is true. What animates progressive rejection/derision of Sanders and Kucinich stems from the belief that their policy proposals, however sensible, are too far to the left to win, and that in any case both have a variety of personal characteristics that make a Presidential victory unlikely. What animates progressive hostility to Paul, on the other hand, is that he’s a paleo-conservative with horrific views on economic, social, and most foreign policy issues.
And so no, it’s not a tribal reluctance to come to grips with the failures of the Democratic Party on foreign policy that makes progressives inclined to reject Ron Paul out of hand. Rather, it’s a sensible, realistic appreciation of the totality of political character of Paul and the movement he represents. To my mind, this rejection is far more thoughtful and reflective than the decision to cherry pick a few of Paul’s views in isolation from the rest of his politics, then laud him as a figure worthy of consideration.
The United States continued to sell Indonesia weapons during this period,
I have what may be a stupid question. There are (at least) two differing ways that this could happen.
1) The US gov’t purchases weapons from Lockheed/Boeing/etc. The US gov’t then proceeds to sell these weapons to certain foreign gov’ts.
2) Lockheed/Boeing/etc directly sell to certain foreign gov’ts, indeed, it will sell to any gov’t that they are not prohibited from selling to.
I realize that I am assuming, without evidence, that much of what “the US” does is the former, not the latter. In any event, I can believe that Hypothetical Libertarian Fantasy President does less of 1, but that a whole lot more of 2 would be likely.
Am I wrong? And what, aside from complications about subsidies, am I missing?
It’s much more 2 than 1, although there are some cases of direct government-to-government transfer of weapons. But 2 is heavily regulated by political considerations, often supported by subsidies, loan guarantees, etc.
Thanks.
I’m pretty ignorant on the subject as well, but I thought it was mostly #2, but the money came from the US gov.
While I’m basically in agreement with everything you say, I’m not sure you actually address De Boer’s point, which is that, while he’s a terrible candidate, at least Paul is bringing up the issue of U.S. involvement in, and support of, brutal regimes. And he’s doing it in the context of a Republican campaign for President. We can agree that Paul would be a disastrous President while also agreeing that our government should stop aiding other countries’ wars against their own people, or starting those wars ourselves.
But that’s rather the point; Paul is doing nothing of the sort. It’s hard to see any way in which the story that De Boer tells about Indonesia is different with a Ron Paul as president. De Boer is projecting his views onto Paul, and then confusing his projection for the actual candidate.
Don’t feel like reading De Boer’s entire post, so you may be right; but based on the excerpt above, he seems to be saying that a candidate like Paul, whatever his motives, is bringing up inconvenient truths about things that most people would rather ignore or forget. If De Boer actually thinks we would be better off as a country with a Ron Paul as President, then he’s clearly out of his mind.
But this is my point; Paul isn’t actually bringing up uncomfortable or inconvenient truths in the sense that De Boer is talking about. The point of bringing up Something Bad That Went Down and then talking about Ron Paul is to suggest it might have been different if Paul had been around; De Boer fails utterly to make this case, instead using Paul as a stand in for his own (not completely clear) views on anti-imperialism.
Even if Paul might have been somehow marginally less awful in that context, his anti-interventionism is not limited military or similar activities, but includes virtually all foreign interaction and involvement, other than commercial activities by private enterprises. So while he would not have directly aided the Suharto (I do think he would have green lighted private arms sales for the reasons you indicate), neither would he have use US influence to stop him (or any other tyrant). As you say, it is likely that these events would have unfolded much as they did with or without US assistance.
“The point of bringing up Something Bad That Went Down and then talking about Ron Paul is to suggest it might have been different if Paul had been around;”
For all your supposedly clever-clever reasoning, this is incorrect.
What De Boer is suggesting is not that the situation in Indonesia would’ve been different if Ron Paul was president. Nowhere in the post does it say that. What De Boer is saying, repeatedly, is that it would be beneficial if this debate over US foreign policy was brought center stage more often, and that such a debate *might* reduce US engagement in support for odious regimes.
You clearly don’t want to read his post properly. While talking about projection, you also project. While moaning about assumptions, you also assume. Reflect.
But that’s not the debate that LGM wants to have. If they actually debated these issues on point, they’d seem less savvy.
The liberal class is bankrupt on many levels.
Agreed, you’re totally misreading the post. NOWHERE is anyone suggesting a Paul presidency, so stop pretending like anyone is talking about that, when clearly no one is. Damn is that so hard to understand? Paul IS bringing uncomfortable shit to the table that no one else does. The US is responsible both directly and I directly for the deaths of many humans. Period. Fact. Let’s talk about that shit. Paul is helping to start that conversation. It’s that simple.
Perhaps people are confused by all the Ron Paul ads appearing on LGM and other left of center blogs.
Wow! Now there is an intelligent argument. I’m won over.
As was discussed earlier, aside from the fact that Paul is far from reliable (AUMF provote, marque and reprisal proposal) even within his terrible ideology, Paul is a kook and kooks rarely make good messengers.
He’s also offensive to key progressive groups, personally. Doesn’t seem like that makes it easier to build up a progressive coalition wherein there’s more space for peaceniks. (It’s not like the Republican party is going to go peacey any time forseeable).
So, does this mean that you’ll start taking Kucinich seriously?
I would take a candidate with foreign policy views substantially similar to those of Kucinich seriously as a Presidential contender, to the extent that I believed that candidate capable of winning.
which explains quite a bit of why we will not have such a candidate for a long time. If people won’t support a candidate until a majority of others support such a candidate, the insider monied interests will keep choosing the candidates for us.
Thank you.
And let us not pretend that Kucinich is not frequently held up as an object of ridicule by those that should know better.
Exactly. And Sanders is not a Democrat, though if he did run as a third party candidate he would be attacked just as mercilessly for helping to elect the bad cop. However, the “I would support a truly electable left wing candidate” line, especially when mouthed by hippie-punching, Kucinich/Mumia deriders, is still pretty funny and does show how much the centrist status quoers want to appear to be on Greenwald’s side, even if he is naive and delusional regarding electoral politics and the implementation of progressive policy.
Yeah. You said it better.
There has never been a reason to make fun of Dennis Kucinich.
I believe in UFOs more than I believe in supply side economics and austerity leading to prosperity.
I gotta go with Wengler here. UFOs might exist. Prosperity arising from supply side economics and austerity programs? We already know that doesn’t exist.
Seeing unidentified flying objects is not as rare as one might think. Identifying UFOs as being alien in origin is an assumption unsupported by available evidence.
Seeing unidentified flying objects is not as rare as one might think. Identifying UFOs as being alien in origin is an assumption unsupported by available evidence.
And perhaps most relevant, we have already had a president who reported seeing one.
Was Jimmy Carter over at Shirley MacLaine’s house during his sighting?
I’d say that point is made more effectively with Bernie Sanders, who looks and sounds more like a typical US politician. Kucinich is abrasive and weird, and he comes across as a prematurely-middle-aged-but-oddly-underdevoloped high school tattletale (coach sure isn’t going to like it when he hears about this keg party). I say this is as someone who cast a symbolic primary vote for him in 2004.
Well, you have a point there.
Dennis Kucinich is not weird; he is homely. In our world of televised unreality homely or obese will not win a national election.
Of course this principle applies to Paul, too. The man has no chance of winning anything. Why does he deserve more of your time than, e.g., Kucinich (who, despite his lackluster performances in presidential primaries, still attracted more actual progresssive support than Ron Paul ever has)?
Because I find Paul’s views on pretty much everything to be exceedingly dangerous even if he doesn’t win the Presidency, and I’m dismayed that some progressives see value in espousing them. Thus, worthy of more devotion of time than Dennis Kucinich, who I’ve never spent any time either supporting or attacking.
And I am grateful too for the voices on the left that speak out against endless war and civil liberties violations.
I agree with Greenwald when he speaks of the ever shifting definition of terror. Do you think this war on terror cannot be used against labor activists worldwide?
The terror of unrestricted private profiteering is already used against labor activists worldwide. Ron Paul might conceivably say that such a thing is bad, but putting some sort of restriction on Coca Cola seems out of place, doesn’t it?
I understand your point and it is well taken, but I don’t think they need assistance from our government.
No, Coca-Cola/their subcontractor just buys the local government and/or paramilitary, as in Colombia.
If Coca Cola is proven to influence the killing a labor activists in foreign nations it should be prosecuted for it.
It should also be illegal for any American corporation to wage war against a government or rebellion in a foreign nation. If it is legal for corporations to initiate armed intervention in foreign nations there should be legislation to prosecute it. Corporations should not be able to draw the U.S. into wars for profit or to protect corporate interests.
Armed contractors should only be allowed to act defensively. If contractors carry out aggressive or belligerent acts they are mercenaries or murderers subject to U.S. laws. Immunity for contractors should only apply to defensive acts.
I’m still not sure that this justifies all the attention.
The vast majority of progressives who you’re disagreeing with (who are, in turn, a minority of progressives) loudly and repeatedly say they don’t support Ron Paul. Many of them say they don’t even support Ron Paul on these issues. What most of them do say is that it’s good that Ron Paul is speaking out on these issues and is getting attention for doing so.
I remain unconvinced that the view that “at least Paul is willing to raise these issues” is a threat to anyone. It doesn’t constitute an endorsement of Paul’s platform. It doesn’t constitute an endorsement of Paul. Neither Paul nor his platform or in any danger of being adopted.
I do, however, find myself in somewhat paradoxical tactical sympathy with Scott and Robert–and against Greenwald and De Boer.
Although it in effect amounts to a heckler’s veto, posts such as this one by Robert essentially refute even the very mild defense of Paul’s role in our political life offered by some progressives. In short: Paul’s speaking out on these issues does not help progressives at all.
As I say elsewhere on this thread, Paul’s views are at best a distraction; at worst, they help discredit actually progressive views on civil liberties and war and peace. And since the actual (very limited) progressive praise of Paul has to do with not his positions, but his effect on the political discourse, especially among Democrats and other progressives, we need to be honest with ourselves what his effect is on the discourse among Democrats and other progressives: internecine warfare and endless discussions of Ron Paul. Actual discussions of the War on Terror and the War on (Certain Classes of People Who Use Certain) Drugs? Not so much.
Just as Hitler’s vegetarianism is not much help to non-Nazi vegetarians, Paul’s opposition to the drug war and the war on terror is not much help to non-paleocon opponents of these things.
Paul offers no hope whatsoever, even tactically. Progressives should return to our first impulse when it comes evaluating the state of our public discussions of war & peace and civil liberties: full-on despair.
Agreed. And it’s really worse than that. Paul curiosity replays New Left tropes that treated key progressive groups like dirt.
That’s a reason not to be silent about Paul, esp. about ridiculous comparisons between Paul and Obama (more Greenwald’s schtick, of course).
But I do appreciate the Hitler’s vegetarianism revival!
You say “Paul’s speaking out on these issues does not help progressives at all.” However, that depends on what you mean by “help”. If you mean “help Obama get re-elected”, then maybe not. However, if you mean “help the Democratic party become Democrats again, instead of pre-evangelical Republicans”, then it is very helpful indeed.
Look at Greenwald’s list of things that Bush did that Obama either adopted or topped:
1) Assassination of U.S. citizens
2) Indefinite detention
3) Arbitrary justice
4) Warrantless searches
5) Secret evidence
6) War crimes
7) Secret court
8) Immunity from judicial review
9) Continual monitoring of citizens
10) Extraordinary renditions
These are all liberally accepted facts (at least when Bush was President). Now add his war on whistleblowers (although that could be what Greenwald was referencing with #4) and his utter failure to have “the most transparent administration in history”, which both have ended up worse than the Bush term. Heck, OBAMA was the one to add Social Security cuts to the recent budget deal, not the GOP. Frankly, the Democratic party could USE some internecine warfare.
My state’s Democratic Party is chaired by a DINO. Yes, he was elected, but only by using the underhanded political tactics normally associated with republicans, (character assassination falsehoods, manipulation of emotions with phony issues.) The D.C. dems may has well have appointed him. While his elections was not a corruption of the process; it was a disregard for ethics that should have disqualified him.
Wow! This is quite a lesson in logic. So views urging the end to war for pleasure should not be espoused at all if the only person left to espouse them is someone with whom you disagree.
Are you able to separate the ideas from the candidates, or does your entire political career rest on the premise that your job is merely to analyze the horse race. Did you go into politics to do deep analysis of policy or do your exist merely to be the political version of an ESPN sports writer? I ask this not to attack, but to reflect on the level of triviality in your analysis. The writer you criticize went to careful, eloquent lengths to establish his position as anything but an endorsement of Paul. In fact, while you were careful to quote him, you were even more careful to leave out the part where he says he could never vote for Paul.
His goal is neither to endorse Paul or propose the next political actor that should star in the telenovella you enjoy contributing to. His goal was just to highlight that Paul is the only candidate talking about our foreign policy in terms other than if we should kill 500,000 this 4 years or a million. Not to say he shares pauls individual view, but that Paul should be used as a pretext to discuss foreign policy same as Mitt Romney for discussing tax breaks and debt.
His argument is that people like you intrinsically switch the focus to the candidate, because you want to propagandize the rest of us into only seeing candidates, and the two parties, and not the larger array of ideologies and ideas that are out there to solve our problems.
You should be ashamed to use your platform to so erroneously misrepresent his careful analysis. You should hold yourself to higher standards than that.
No one is judging you if you place party loyalty above ideology. Just state so, and don’t try and manipulate your readers into giving noble reasons to partisan opportunism.
Brilliant reposte. Could not agree more. A first year college student would have received a pretty bad grade for this very poor argument.
The reply would be, if De Boer actually believes what his headline says: “It’s not about Ron Paul, it’s about you,” then there’s not need for his post ot be about Ron Paul. At all. You can rail against ‘progressives’ (a bad word in De Boers universe – the one he uses when talking about liberal/progressives when he’s unhappy with them; he uses ‘liberal’ in the piece to represent his ideal) without mentioning Paul, but once you do, then you’ve made it about Paul at least in part. And the argument is that, whatever you think of Paul’s “adding to the dialogue,” you don’t get to have just the part of Ron Paul you want – he’s just one dude.
Dennis Kucinich is not someone you want to bring up in a discussion of American political leaders intervening on behalf of dictators.
So, this is the basic approach that mainstream progressivism seems to be settling on to silence criticism of Obama and the Democratic Party on issues of war or civil libertarianism, right?
“Oh, no, I’m totally against war and for civil liberties. But you can’t make that argument with reference to Ron Paul, because he’s the devil. And you can’t make that argument with reference to Dennis Kucinich, because he allegedly was concerned that the Libyan resistance movement was connected with Al Qaida.
“And you can’t make that argument with any other actual person. And you can’t make that argument without referencing an actual politician, because how am I supposed to make an anti-war vote without an anti-war candidate?
“But the very moment that an absolutely perfect candidate who agrees with me on every other issue comes along and is electable and who doesn’t threaten any other priority I have who is also anti-war, then I’ll totally vote for him.
“Because, you see I’m very serious about my anti-war position.”
to silence criticism of Obama and the Democratic Party
Oh get over yourself. Who’s keeping you from making any argument you want to make about anything? Even here in LGM, the beating heart of mainstream progressivism?
I don’t understand why your Obama criticism has to be with reference to any alternative.
What’s wrong, “Obama is the best viable candidate, but, of course, that’s where Mitt Romney is the least sociopathic (perhaps) alternative candidate. Unfortunately, Obama is far from ideal on [insert your list].”
Seems pretty easy and commonly done.
And draws a lot of fire. And results in a lot of heat directed at the person making the statement.
I fail to see what that has to do with the possibility of making it. All adding Paul into the mix does is add extra nastiness.
And I don’t see it so much. I see a lot of heat for “OBAMA THE BETRAYER” and “OBAMA AS BAD OR WORSE THAN BUSH”, which, frankly, seem ridiculous to me as well. “HILLARY WOULD HAVE BEEN SO MUCH BETTER” is also risible (though I would argue that Clinton would have been about as good/bad as Obama). But that’s not because they are critical of Obama, but because they are pretty stupid.
The rest is arguing about constraints and counterfactuals. Which I agree can be reasonable, but if you start with the counterfactuals, “Obama with a more progressive congress (esp. senate) would have the same ACA and ARRA and etc.” then I think you’ve started from a hopelessly wrong position.
People disagree with you on the internets?! O.M.G.!11!1!1!
Sure. I think that in general, if you say, “I have concerns about the war record of the present Administration and the Democratic party,” but quickly follow it up with, “But of course I don’t believe that it is physically possible for anyone to have a better policy on war than the present Administration or the Democratic Party, and I will be out there volunteering to get out the vote for Obama in 2012 and wouldn’t dream of holding anyone accountable for my dissatisfaction,” then hardly any progressive voices will publicly call you a racist.
What gets people like joe or our delightful host to tar your character isn’t expressing an entirely toothless meaningless handwave in the direction of, say, a foreign policy not based on indiscriminate war. It’s actually having a policy preference. It’s suggesting that you might be able to prefer a real person to Obama — even though that person is, inevitably, flawed in some way — because to you, the person’s strength in foreign policy outweighs his or her flaws in some other area.
Eh…This isn’t particularly convincing.
We had Paul arguing that the Osama kill was illegal.
I’ve claimed against Rob that Afghanistan was illegal and unwise. We disagree.
Joe and Rob disagreed very strongly about Libya (and see Juan Cole).
Pretty much everyone dislikes the civil liberties record.
I don’t think having policy preferences, themselves, are a problem.
I don’t think having policy preferences that lead to preferring some real person to some other real person is a problem. But if you claim that the problem with e.g., Obama is that he’s not progressive enough in action and that Clinton would have been way more progressive both in her own action and her effect, well, I think you have a hell of an IOU to discharge explaining how that would be so.
Similarly, if you think that Fantasy President Paul would be a net gain even in foreign policy alone, you’ve a huge row to plow. If you couple that preference with “AND YOU BETRAY DEAD IRANIAN BABIES BECAUSE YOU’RE IN THE LICKSPITTLE PARTISEN TANK” well then, you’re going to get crap.
BTW, to characterize Paul as “Flawed in some way” rather than “WTF awful, where not remarkably kooky” really understates the case.
It doesn’t take a lot of digging to find plenty o’ Paul that suggests that his foreign policy stance might not be as antiwar as one might think. (Now, if he’d sided with Lee on AUMF, it might be a bit more interesting.) Similarly, I would like to note his interesting views on modern dollar bills. Etc. etc.
(And note, that if you compare Greenwaldian flamebaiting with e.g., Ampersand lament, I think you’ll see a difference in response. But also note this.)
Umm, both Romney and Obama are sociopaths.
Too funny.
Even here in LGM, the beating heart of mainstream progressivism?
Even funnier, Hogan.
Or maybe there are people – not you, obviously, but other people – who are actually, genuinely offended by political figures who run interference for dictators as they are slaughtering their opponents.
I don’t know what’s more hypocritical – your casual embrace of the “skeery al-Qaeda Mooslems!” slur to discredit Arab Spring, or your abandonment of even the pretense of supporting local democratic reformers around the world.
Ah, yes, the utter lack of criticism of Obama and the Democratic Party that so characterizes our age.
Poor critics, having to hide in attics and basements like that. Not a word to be heard!
Brilliant. LMAO.
Dennis Kucinich’s request for information about the rebels in Libya was consistent with the foreign policy position he espouses. The question was not which side to support, but whether the U.S. should intervene in the politics of sovereign nations.
Very strong and thoughtful response, Robert. I would throw out one consideration though.
“But that’s rather my point; for progressives, Ron Paul is less change than you want, and not at all the change you’re looking for.”
I think “want” and “looking for” are doing something interesting in this sentence–I read them as implicitly attributing to folks like Glenn Greenwald and Freddie an electoral significance which I’m pretty sure they don’t, in fact, have. Freddie stated explicitly that he’d never vote for Paul, for a thousand different reasons. They don’t want him to be president. I don’t want him to be president. Neither he nor I are “looking for” a Paul candidacy to go anywhere near the White House. So what is the point of, as you very aptly put it, “Paul-curiosity”? Because he is a presidential candidate that is actually showing up on major television networks and attracting enough attention to embarrass GOP operatives who try to spin away his performance in the polls and the primaries while making actual anti-imperialist noises. Very likely those noises are both 1) not anything that could ever be effectual and 2) not anything that would actually make the kind of differences the left would like to see happen. But given the options that are actually available on television, night after night? As a leftist who actually thinks that Paul is productively screwing with libertarians’ heads, I don’t at all mind calls for people to pay attention to parts of his message.
And part of my point is that the “while making actual anti-imperialist noises” is actually wishful thinking on the part of De Boer, Greenwald, and yourself; that the example De Boer gives for illustrating why Paul should be paid attention doesn’t actually tell us what he thinks it does, it’s an indication that he’s missing the point.
Hippy punching to protect the Blue Dog types (who are the ones that would vote for Paul) is a well established center phenomenon
Lyndon LaRouche hated George W. Bush, and occasionally said things about Bush’s awfulness that were even true. Was it good for Bush’s opponents that LaRouche agreed with them?
Might have swayed a vote or two, yes.
We spend enough time talking to like-minded people. Having a fringe character affecting the behavior of the fringe can be useful.
This argument – that Ron Paul spreads the gospel of anti-militarism to conservatives – is quite a bit different from, and has much more merit than, the Greenwaldian claim about Paul compelling liberals to face anti-militarist arguments.
There actually is, in the absence of Ron Paul, a shortage of anti-militarist voices on the right. Unlike on the left, where we need Ron Paul to stimulate debate over foreign policy about as much as Jermaine O’Neil needs elevator shoes.
Though, polling indicates that he’s not so successful there.
I agree that the this argument is way more sensible. Unfortunately, a good chunk of the antimilitarist right that ends up visible are kooks (Buchanan, Paul). Strengthening Lesser Evil Bush style Republicans seems more likely to do overall good (albeit nearly as impossible).
Defending Paul on the grounds that he brings credibility to valuable and neglected policy positions is not a lot better than defending him as a candidate. Newt Gingrich has already done more good this primary season than Paul by pointing out that the kind of vulture private equity operation that Romney participated in is not a great feature of capitalism. And that’s mostly because Newt is a more credible candidate who knows how to frame an issue in a coherent and credible manner.
Newt Gingrich has already done more good this primary season than Paul by pointing out that the kind of vulture private equity operation that Romney participated in is not a great feature of capitalism.
This is a good example. Even though Gingrich happens to have spoken the truth on one issue, no progressives are “Gingrich-curious,” because we correctly realize that Gingrich is both insane and evil. Why Paul gets a differing standard than Gingrich baffles me, given that Paul is probably more insane, and possibly more evil, than Gingrich.
Paul’s never had the power to be a threat. I think that has a lot to do with it. He also reads as more libertarian than paleo, for a variety of reasons, and (some) libertarians are, in fact, fairly systematically antiwar/anti-drug war and, indeed, friends with leftists. Which makes Paul seem safer.
(No progressive is interested in Buchanan afaict. But his platform has been wider and he’s had more real or pseudo-real power.)
Indeed.
Glenn Greenwald only stated that Ron Paul was the only presidential candidate opposed to the interventionist perpetual war concept that dominates Washington politics. Ron Paul’s statements indicate a desire to end involvement in Middle East wars, but it is not for progressive reasons.
Or basically, what commie atheist just said.
You said it much better.
…What I insist, and what people like Glenn Greenwald keep insisting, is that Ron Paul’s endless failings shouldn’t and can’t exist as an excuse to look away from the dead bodies that we keep on piling up.
This is it. Why does this have to be so complicated? I have no plans to support Paul, but for chrissakes– he’s right. The bodies continue to pile up and isn’t it a good thing someone is speaking up about the lunacy of our war on terror? Or is this a quiet room discussion too? It is bankrupting us in more ways than one.
Another undemonstrated pretense is that no one besides Ron Paul is speaking up about the lunacy of our war on terror. Try looking around.
Please point me to the other presidential candidates that are speaking out against the war on terror.
I know of Rocky Anderson but I am not certain who the others are. I certainly don’t know of the ones that are walking into a Republican debate and doing so.
People other than presidential candidates are known, in some cases, to be able to voice relevant opinions over certain topics. Ron Paul’s increased profile allows him to reach a slightly larger audience with a variety of his horrific (and occasionally not so horrific) views; it’s unclear to me why progressives need to discuss in depth the political opinions of the not-even-least-bad GOP presidential nomination contender.
The argument I usually see is that at least he’s bringing these things up in Republican primary debates. But Paul’s discussion of foreign policy issues and relative dovishness usually elicits booing from general Republican audiences. Is there any evidence that he’s causing even a minor shift in Republicans’ foreign policy attitudes, rather than simply drawing people already inclined to agree with him temporarily into the GOP fold?
No, I don’t think there is but I do think his point that we should see things from the view of others is useful. Usually, non interventionism from the right consists of nonsense such as “Iraq isn’t even grateful for all we’ve done for them.”
Nobody minds facing a war winter when a nation’s infrastructure has been destroyed and the people have to learn to survive in a modern stone age until they can rebuild it. The war is not over for Iraq’s people.
Another deliberate misreading of your opponent’s argument. Another strawman. You should have been taught in PHIL 101 to listen to another’s argument with a generous ear – ie at least trying to put aside your own views for the few moments that it takes to consider the merit of the other’s argument.
If Ron Paul were to come out strongly and publicly in favor of a position I held dearly, I certainly wouldn’t want to advertise that fact. Specifically because of his other positions, I’d find it embarrassing. Especially if he was the most prominent individual advocating for that position, I’d be afraid that the issue itself would be tarnished by being equated with someone like him.
So, I don’t really see how the observation that he’s prominent helps the pragmatic case for siding with him in the debate.
That’s just silly.
People are dying, we have people in the administration talking up austerity so that we can remain prepared to fight the war on terror, there is saber rattling over Iran and you’re worried about being embarrassed?
I’m worried about the issue being embarrassed, discredited.
The fact that you find this issue so very important (People are dying!) means you have more a responsibility to think about whether something is effective, not less. You presumably want people to talk about the Paulite foreign policy views you agree with as something desirable, not something that a kooky old racist would say.
This is not about feelings. This is about influence and effectiveness. You want to hitch your cause to Ron Paul? Good luck with that.
Well, I suppose if I was a member of congress and wished to prevent passage of yet another “free” trade agreement I would have no trouble aligning with Paul even if his distaste for such agreements stems from a nutty fear of a one world government (I do think he is correct to assert that there is nothing free about these agreements though). And, if I was a worker affected by such an agreement I would accept the support of Paul.
But you’re not looking for votes in this case. You’re looking for positive publicity.
Seriously, this isn’t that hard to understand. I think there is definitely some green lantern thinking going on with this issue. If we just wish Paul’s candidacy to have a positive effect, it can do so. In reality, not.
Yes, I see what you’re saying about them being two different things.
And now a request..can we fucking stop it with the Green Lantern stuff? Can we retire that term? Is is it time yet?
It will not be time to retire the term until you and your friends understand why it is used, and what’s wrong with the kind of thinking the term lables.
Green Lanternism is on the flip side of the powerlessness of the president on domestic policy/bully pulpit rhetoric is utterly useless record. You can’t dance to either one, and they both make you want to scream.
But the Paul-curious liberals aren’t talking about his utility as one extra vote. They’re talking about his utility as a spokesman for the cause, and a framer of ideas.
Paul’s “Nay” vote would be just as good regardless of his racism and goldbuggery and whatnot. His value as a poster boy, a messenger, on the other hand…
Paul’s “Nay” vote would be just as good regardless of his racism and goldbuggery and whatnot. His value as a poster boy, a messenger, on the other hand…
This.
Using Ron Paul as any kind of poster boy is like taking betting advice from the schizophrenic homeless guy begging on the corner because he wears a tattered cap from your favorite sports team. Calling Paul to the left of progressives is like doubling down on the crazy by proclaiming that the schizophrenic homeless guy offering betting advice is really an unparalleled financial genius, again with no more evidence than the cap on his head.
You take Ron Paul’s vote and smile when his vote aligns with your interests, just like you give the homeless guy a dollar or a sandwich and smile when he tips his cap to you.
The vast majority of the US electorate neither knows nor cares about Paul’s racism or goldbuggery. They do know that they heard someone actually talk about stopping our wars on the TV, and that they almost never hear that from national politicians.
Once again, talking to ourselves does no good.
If the cause at hand is peace and consistent justice, then it already is embarrassed and discredited and I don’t think Paul can do it any harm. All Republicans mock it. Some Democrats campaign on it and then ignore it and rant at people who take it seriously the moment they become inconvenient; others mock it as thoroughly as any Republican; others find it childish but don’t quite need to pile on the contempt.
There are zero (0) members of the executive and legislature for whom this is actually true: “I’d like to be a consistent voice and vote for peace and consistent justice, but I’m too ashamed to speak up thanks for fear of associating with Ron Paul.”
But the argument for Ron Paul’s wonderful contribution to our politics has nothing to do with members of the executive and legislative branch, but with the general population and the diffusion of ideas.
Unfortunately, Paul is a direputable enough figure with warped enough views that the fact that he’s the one speaking up against the war on terror basically is a net gain for the war on terror.
This blog’s reaction is a great example of the Paul Effect: many posts excoriating progressive who explicitly say they don’t support Paul for being insufficiently anti-Paul; no increase in the number of posts opposing the War on Terror (and this from a blog not particularly supportive of the War on Terror).
Whether or not he should or could be, in fact, Paul is no help whatsoever in framing opposition to the War on Teror. In fact, he’s a huge distraction, at best. And at worst, in the hands of the sort of “sensible leftists” who actually support the War on Terror (i.e. not this blog), he’s an excuse to tar all opponents of that war.
Here’s the bottom line on Paul: in addition to being a reactionary and a racist, he has no chance of winning anything at all. He’s irrelevant.
Let’s stop talking about him and return to talking about the positions of people with actual shots at power.
Here’s the bottom line on Paul: in addition to being a reactionary and a racist, he has no chance of winning anything at all. He’s irrelevant.
Let’s stop talking about him and return to talking about the positions of people with actual shots at power.
Ha! Now you know how I felt when people wanted to discuss Palin, Perry, Bachmann…
Why? Because he’s embarrassing?
I was quoting the above poster.
My bad.
You know, it’s odd that the only president called down by name in the article is Clinton, even though: (1) the massacre of leftists in Indonesia proper took place in 1965, and (2) the bloody invasion of East Timor–and most of the killing in East Timor–took place in the early ’70s. Clinton was the first president to back off our previously unconditional support for the government of Indonesia on these issues, but apparently didn’t move fast enough for the author.
I was thinking the same thing. The names one should immediately think of when it comes to American support for Indonesian mass-murder are “Kissinger” and “Ford.”
And Carter and Holbrooke. The latter two if you want to talk about the period when the killing was at its peak.
Yes, Democrats. How unfortunate.
I happen to like Carter too, and would like to think he was misled by his advisors, though that doesn’t make him look too good either.
Carter inherited the situation, as he did with so much else of our Cold War alliance system. He did a lot to push back against it, especially in Latin America.
You can’t judge a President separate from the situation as he walked into it. Isn’t that why we honor that white supremacist, Abe Lincoln?
He inherited the situation and made it worse. Again, I like the guy–I give money regularly to the Carter Center, think he is the greatest ex-President we ever had and was unfairly tarred while in office (though he did have obvious flaws). I hope he was misled by his underlings (perhaps Holbrooke). But his Administration helped arm Indonesia when the killing was at its peak.
Made it worse? As in, his actions caused the situation to become worse?
Or, it got worse while he was President? Because those are two very different things.
This doesn’t actually demonstrate that he made the situation worse. “Helped arm,” how? The Indonesian government didn’t suppress East Timorian independence with, for example, F-4s.
The question of whether we’re too friendly with a bad regime isn’t the same as the question of whether our actions are furthering their bad actions.
Also too, Obama did not move quickly enough to repeal DADT and drop the defense of DOMA, and refuses to publicly support same-sex marriage, so he is the most anti-Gay President in history.
Exactly.
Remember:
Obama may not agree with you philosophically, and his policies may be half measures, but he is taking some steps in the right direction, so he deserves our praise.
Contrarywise, Paul may advocate some steps in the right direction, but he does not agree with you philosophically, and his policies would be half-measures, so he deserves nothing but scorn.
You forgot the part where the ratio of steps in the wrong direction Paul advocates is both remarkably high in an absolute sense AND in a comparative sense with Obama.
His policies would be half-measures in a couple of areas and great big giant disasters in many others, right up until he got impeached.
And that is why I won’t be supporting Paul in any fashion; Taken as a whole he’s as bad as everybody else in the race.
That said, a lot of criticism of the Paul-curious involves things like saying “But that’s rather my point; for progressives, Ron Paul is less change than you want, and not at all the change you’re looking for.”
This happens also to be true of Obama, and, say, the ACA, but in the case of Pauline foreign policy, the takeaway is that we need to vigorously oppose it until somebody more ideologically pure gets to the national stage, whereas with the ACA we need to be willing to compromise and deal with what we can actually expect from an American president in the here and now.
Farley’s best, and I think his only remotely convincing response to de Boer’s article is the argument that, while in certain narrow places Paul’s foreign policy might be better, the net effect would be very bad for foreigners. I do sort of wish he would have supported it with better arguments than “Did you know he doesn’t even like the UN?”
Some slight attempt to make an actual accounting of things rather than just assuming as a condition of being a progressive that US foreign policy is a net good would be much appreciated.
Whaaat? ACA is a good chunk of the change I want, if less than I wanted. And it had one entirely party hell bent against it.
I don’t want someone who is merely “more ideologically pure” I want someone who’s not a batshit kook. (There’s no sense of compromising to with an American president, because Paul ain’t gonna be an American president. This is compromising with someone with no power and is a kook and is loathsome. No upside.)
And somebody who isn’t a hawk on Iran is a good chunk of the change I want, so I think it’s a good thing that Paul’s arguing the non-hawk position.
The fact that Paul is awful is why I won’t support him, but I don’t think it’s bad that he’s bringing the issue up just because he happens to be appalling in other ways.
Why does Ron Paul have to be accepted or rejected as a package deal, while it’s still perfectly acceptable to assert that Obama’s good on health care despite the fact that he’s also crazy enough to claim he has the authority to assassinate his own citizens?
? You want someone who isn’t a hawk on Iran? That’s me! I’m, in fact, Iranian-American, and I didn’t vote for AUMF. Nor, afaik, am I a kook. I’m the perfect messenger!
But you’d be sorely mistaken to support me as the messenger as no one listens to me. You are doubly mistaken to support Paul qua messager as people only listen to him to laugh him or because they are either similarly kooky and racist or they are doubly mistaken.
If you think his raising the issue 1) raises more “good” awareness than it tarnishes them and 2) strengthens the antiwar agenda more than it marginalizes it with the overall progressive coalition, then great. I’m pretty skeptical.
I basically do, but that’s an issue that can’t really be settled through argumentation.
The other thing that bugs me is that Obama’s non-progressive tendencies do nothing to tarnish his occasional progressive actions, but Paul’s non-progressive tendencies obviate all of his occasional agreements with progressives.
I don’t really understand what the logic is there, to be frank.
Christopher, Obama is criticized from the left all the time. People who actually care about things like making war for no good reason criticize him quite frequently. If you can’t see that, wake up already and take off the blindfold.
Criticizing Obama from the left is no excuse for being a Paul apologist. Paul’s occasional non-horrific votes aren’t forgiven because they’re motivated by Paul being a racist xenophobic crank. Racist xenophobic cranks may be less likely to commit to war than your typical Democrat or Republican, but they’re still racist xenophobic cranks whose opposition to war is based on nothing capable of producing good policy.
I’m not so sure about that, at least if you are willing to provide evidence. I did some trolling through poll results and found little evidence that Paul’s actual supporters were antiwar, even though there is clearly a cross over (and a libertarian) phenomenon. It’s pretty clear that no other Republican is targeting Paul antiwar voters (crank economic theory moves, otoh). Do you think that Obama has Paul remotely on the radar and is tacking antiwar as a result even a little bit?
The only think left is some change in the general populace. But what’s the composition of the debate audiences? I see there’s some mainstream news coverage, but the secondary coverage seems to be as much castigating progressives as it is pimping antiwar.
Is it reasonable for other people to find that bad? I mean, we might be empirically wrong that his other aspects tarnish his message, but does that mean we are “scared” of his message or blindly partisen? (A common implication.)
Most people that I see are arguing that Obama is the better package deal or perhaps that Paul is the worse one. A lot of people note that there’s a hell of a lot of projection onto, rather than realistic assessment of, Paul. It reminds me of some (perhaps post-facto) unrealistic assessments of Obama, hence the “Why are you surprised that Obama governs as a cautious, moderate liberal facing a jacked up Republican party?”
I think Obama is spending a fair amount of effort to avoid being DADTed on foreign policy. Hence the cautious moves on some things (including DADT repeal). He has made drone wars his own, but again, not too terribly surprising. It’s unclear to me that Paul wouldn’t end up in a similar place. (Remember he introduced a bill for granting letters of marque and reprisal against terrorists.)
“the bloody invasion of East Timor–and most of the killing in East Timor–took place in the early ’70s. ”
Wrong. The invasion was in 1975, and yes, Ford and Kissinger were the initial American villains. The worst period of killing came later, during the Carter Administration, with Richard Holbrooke as the State Department guy in charge of US policy there.
Ah how I love the sweet stench of partisanship ….
First of all, I know of no progressive in the U.S who has dismissed or mocked Bernie Sanders. Progressives might not consider him a viable candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination (mostly because he’s not actually a member of the Democratic Party), but he’s hugely respected.
To the extent that Kucinich gets dismissed as a candidate, that’s much more to do with his personal characteristics (believes in UFOs, etc.) and some of his rather new ages positions on some issues (department of peace, for example), rather than a disagreement over ideology.
Yeah, the accusation of Sanders-bashing by unnamed establishment figures seems impressively non-factual, even by de boer’s standards. I’m sure it’s happened somewhere on the internets at some time but I read my fair share of political commentary from centrist Democratic-establishment figures and sources, and I can’t recall a single hippie-punching episode that featured Sanders prominently, which is actually mildly (and pleasantly) surprising now that I think about it..
This is what I was going to say. I don’t dismiss Sanders – he seems like an excellent legislator and spokesman for the beliefs of the progressive left. So far as I can tell, this is the attitude of most mainstream liberals towards him. He obviously wouldn’t be a viable presidential candidate, and it’s to his credit that he realizes this, and focuses on areas where he can actually do good, rather than grandstanding.
People do make fun of Kucinich, but he’s a comical narcissistic crank. Whether his heart was in the right place or not, he made a mess during his only executive experience. He also seems to be a totally mediocre legislator, who’s never gotten anything passed and can’t seem to build good working relationships with his own colleagues. On top of this, he for some unclear reason thinks that he would be a good president.
I could agree with Dennis Kucinich on every single policy issue and still think he would make an awful president. In fact, every time I took one of those “what candidate should you vote for?” quizzes in 2004 and 2008, it told me I should vote for Kucinich. I don’t doubt that Kucinich was closer to my ideal policy preferences than the other candidates. But I still think that, putting all considerations of electability aside, he would be an utter disaster as president. It’s not illegitimate to think that personality and temperament matters in a president, and there’s few candidates who are less suited for the presidency than Kucinich.
Exactly. Being a plausible presidential candidate is about a lot more than ideology and policy positions. Neither Bernie Sanders nor Dennis Kucinich comes across as “presidential.” Unlike Kucinich, Sanders seems to recognize this.
Of course, if the left of the party were able to identify someone who really did seem presidential, it’s entirely possible that he or she could contend seriously for the nomination (though I suspect that he or she would ultimately be spent into oblivion by the Democratic Party’s financial base).
At any rate, the fact that Kucinich comes across as a total nebbish is much more harmful to his presidential ambitions than his policy positions are.
though I suspect that he or she would ultimately be spent into oblivion by the Democratic Party’s financial base).
Rather mild understatement.
It’s not even just about Kucinich not coming across as presidential. It’s that being president is about a lot more than having the write positions on policies. It’s about working with congress to get your priorities actually passed into law, appointing and getting the Senate to approve good and competent people who are in tune with your values to fill executive and judicial vacancies, working with the leaders of other countries to pursue goals of common interest, and being able to respond swiftly, effectively, and wisely in moments of crisis. All the evidence suggests Kucinich would be pretty bad at all these things – certainly worse than Obama.
I do think that it would be very difficult to find plausible people with presidential ambitions on the left of the party, due to the very factor you mention – the financial base of the Democratic Party isn’t interested in such a candidate. As such, all the plausible politicians of that sort either position themselves to the right in order to be “electable” or else they give up their presidential ambitions. This is a problem, but it’s not one that taking someone like Dennis Kucinich seriously is going to solve.
Kucinich seems like he would be about as unsuccessful as Obama. Unlike Obama, it’s unlikely he would cave at the drop of a hat.
The vast majority of voters don’t care about a President’s relationship with Congress. This isn’t the reason DK will never win. The reason is that Americans want blood and fear DK won’t give it to them.
Dennis Kucinich would pass the largest body of legislation of any President in two generations?
I tend to disagree. Obama actually had a record, going back to the Illinois State Senate, of actually being able to get legislation passed.
Dennis Kucinich would have foreign policy achievements comparable to the clean, final end of the Iraq War and the annihilation of al Qaeda’s top ranks?
Again, I tend to disagree. Kucinich’s record as an executive doesn’t provide much evidence for this optimism.
Dennis Kucinich would never get close enough to his legislative goals that a small-scale concession could push them over the line.
Entirely hypothetical.
Since DK won’t be President it can’t be tested.
Yes it is a hypothetical but your opinion is still idiotic. This one is even remotely difficult to figure. Obama has accomplished quite a lot legislatively and is at least a competent executive. Based on DK’s career and public persona, I am quite confident that his presidency would be an utter disaster, both legislatively and through severe mismanagement of the executive. As said earlier, it’s not just about being presidential. It’s also about knowing how to do a certain kind of job which is about quite a bit more than just possessing the right policy preferences.
Your hypothetical about Kucinich’s performance can never be tested, either.
Yes, and Obama’s greatest legislative achievement seems to have been to push for Austerity Lite instead of dismantling the federal government.
Look, I like Obama in a lot of ways, but unlike him I don’t think the moderate position is always the best.
And if you really want to have a fight about Kucinich as mayor of Cleveland it will be rather tedious. He was young and got fucked over by the banks. If you want to call that severe mismanagement, than you and I have will just have to disagree how much policy preferences are in fact part of being a competent executive. DK lost his job and Cleveland kept its power plants.
Wow.
ACA? ARRA? New START? Dodd-Frank?
Hello?
You know, there’s this habit that some people have called “giving the devil his due.” We all understand that you have problems with Obama ideologically, but that’s really no reason to write something this silly about the scope of his legislative accomplishments.
If you want to argue point by point then OK:
The ACA bought the current private insurance system 10-20 years. When fully implemented last year it will get rid of the some of the worst insurance abuses, but it won’t stem the rising cost of healthcare(because it purposefully catered to bigPharma), and it has and will be further proposed that it become a replacement system for Medicare as it spikes up.
ARRA was too small. Full stop.
Obama’s focus on arms control is very commendable. It seems to be one of the things he has a genuine interest in. Treaties are much more in the domain of the executive but he did a good job in getting some idiot Senators to not play politics with nuclear weapons.
Dodd-Frank appears to be a step in the right direction, but it didn’t include many of the restrictions on banks that I wanted to see(taxes on trades, the bisection of commercial and investment banks). The Too Big to Fail banks have just gotten bigger and their power over government is even more pervasive with unlimited Super PAC spending.
So there you go.
So, Wengler, you pass off DK’s performance as mayor of Cleveland as a Youthful Indiscretion?
Nope, just saying he was over his head. To his credit he did the right thing and got fired for it.
Thank you, Wengler.
Being in over his head as a young mayor is not that much different than being in over his head as a much older president. The job is a whole lot harder. DK is just not a guy I can take seriously. He has insane views on fringe subjects. It is suggestive of a bizarre personality (which is also supported by a variety of considerations) that would have simply no chance of working effective at the top of the enormous bureaucratic machine that is the federal executive. Most candidates that win have demonstrated a substantial level of effectiveness as congress members or state governors. That’s why gross incompetence is usually not a problem, although with GWB it was at least part of the problem. And, guess what? The Texas governor’s job is an extremely weak position compared to you average state governor’s office.
Wengler, your opinion on the merits of Obama’s legislative victories as measured against your own ideal policies tells us absolutely nothing about Obama’s efficacy in passing a legislative agenda.
That is properly measured by the level of the resistance it faced, and the scale of the change it introduced.
By either measure, Obama has been one of the three or four most accomplished legislating Presidents of the past century.
I didn’t say that Kucinich’s likely inability to work with congress as president is why will never win. I said it’s one of the reasons that I will not take him seriously as a candidate.
The fact that Obama won the 2008 primaries against Clinton largely because he opposed the Iraq War also suggests that Kucinich’s opposition to wars isn’t really what’s keeping him from getting more than a couple of percentage points in any Democratic primary.
Then why is Obama the President? His record in the Senate was crap. I think more than anything, the whole “presidential” or “electable” thing is about being tall and good looking and not sounding like a retard on tv (although that didn’t stop GWB). FWIW, Kucinich is nutter.
It’s been 64 years since Henry A. Wallace ran for President. Unlike people here, I am not as selective in the aesthetics of leftwing candidate. Under the current electoral system, none will ever win anyways.
Unlike people here, I am not as selective in the aesthetics of leftwing candidate.
In that respect you are also unlike most voters in presidential elections. Which is the main reason people here care about it.
Yes, but I don’t think the argument that someone who has Kucinich’s policies but looks like George Washington is very convincing either.
The corporate media controls the game. In their eyes, Kucinich is a dangerous radical and Dick Cheney is a revered statesman. Having a more media friendly face isn’t going to get you any closer in the current climate.
Fair enough. But we don’t have to make it easy for them.
Actually, I think that’s probably going too far on Sanders. Personality wise, Sanders strikes me as a pretty typical, serious, responsible office holder. He’s just (sadly) persona non grata when it comes to getting a bigger role in national politics because he’s labeled himself a socialist. But, paradoxically, the fact that he’s self-aware enough to realize this and restrained enough to merely do the best job he can within his limitations would make a pretty good case for his fitness for the Presidency itself.
Kucinich, on the other hand, is basically everything John said he is. God love him, but he is a crank, and like all cranks he’s both impossible to work with and is generally animated by a constant belief in his own rightness, which are characteristics I find to be worthy of knee-jerk mistrust in a Presidential candidate.
I’m thankful that we’ll never get a chance to find out what a Paul Foreign Policy will ever look like.
Or, a Domestic Policy either.
Ok, maybe I’ll miss the Paul Pot Policy part.
As long as no one messes with the vowels and leaves you with a Pol Pot Policy instead.
You might get to see what a Romney foreign policy looks like.
Under which Farley would be well-advised to change his number of airstrikes on Iran for 2013.
I wonder.
Mitt Romney says he’d be Mr. Super Hawk on Iran…but so what? When Mitt Romney says something that is politically attractive to a group of voters whose votes he wants, and there is no record from his career on the subject, I think it’s a coin toss whether he means it or not.
Mitt Romney is going to bring back the Bush crew to do his foreign policy work. And without an army in Iraq the US is in a much better position politically than they were before.
I remember reading the Republican candidates’ foreign policy priorities back in one of the foreign policy journals back in 2008. Romney’s was one of the most fucked up.
We all gotta remembered this guy already made hundreds of millions of dollars from destroying things.
Foreign policy was the one set of issues in which Romney didn’t have a record, and he worked very hard to use an uber-hawkish foreign policy to try to ingratiate himself with Republican primary voters.
Maybe he meant it; maybe he was just pandering. I find it notable that the one set of issues on which he staked out the most conservative positions happens to be the one that he had no record on, and could thus paint himself as a conservative without fear of the flip-flop charge.
Then again, he could well an uber-hawk. We just don’t know.
Considering he’s a sociopathic empty suit, I think we can probably guess his foreign policy isn’t going to be flowers and puppies.
Poppy Bush’s foreign policy wasn’t flowers and puppies, either, but it was miles better than his son’s.
Did you ever get hit by a puppy dropped from a B1 bomber? THEN DON’T UNDERESTIMATE IT
But he’s SOOOOO good at it!
It’s what the old boy does best.
There has been talk of an alliance between Old Right and New Left for a long time. It was a pet project of Rothbard, Paul’s guru, before he decided on the redneck turn that is causing all the embarrassment now. It has often been met with enthusiasm on the anti-imperialist left. The most thorough attempt at a synthesis is from Gore Vidal.
I think Rob is missing the point of where the “anti-imperialist” left is coming from. This is not about choosing the best policy option to improve human rights in Indonesia. That’s what Samantha Power is into. This is about the conviction that the US is originally sinful in foreign affairs, as Noam Chomsky “proved” by combing through Cold War conflicts without the context of the Cold War.
The anti-imperialist left doesn’t want to try to use US power to improve things, since that would — they think — legitimate the power.
I see a lot of similarities between the arguments advanced by left-anti-interventionists in the field of foreign policy and those advanced by small government conservatives in the field of domestic policy.
The “Everything the US government touches turns to shit” argument.
The inherent immorality of government force argument.
I actually see leftists make the statement, “There isn’t anything in _______ that is worth the life of one American soldier.” How is that not a flat-out racist statement?
The argument that American foreign policy should only be used to defend American vital interests. How is that anything but “Screw you, I got mine” on an international scale? Since when to liberals and leftists believe that one’s own interests are the highest consideration?
So there’s a lot of room for overlap.
You’re mistaking joint efforts from actors outside the system for policy coordination when they are inside the system.
If Ron Paul were seen to be representing the interests of the plutocrats(with which he has a number of similar policies), he would lose much of his soft support as a Republican candidate from leftists.
The main argument a lot of these authors are making when they’re puffing up Paul is that a large number of US governmental policy is a)fucked up b)geared to the rich and violent and c) does nothing for the vast majority of Americans.
Kucinich and Sanders are both firmly on the left side of the liberal internationalist consensus, while Paul rejects that consensus altogether.
But the “liberal internationalist consensus” is precisely the problem! It was rotten from the start, always nothing but a thinly-veiled excuse for US imperialism.
It’s time to try isolationism again. Better for American workers, better for American taxpayers, ultimately better for the people in other countries who don’t get blown up by American bombs and drones.
yes, these people are not quite so privileged as to be able to debate ideology.
If that consensus includes trade under the WTO and NAFTA, then neither Kucinich or Sanders can be considered a part of it.
See, I don’t think that’s true.
Farley says:
People are still going to get blown up by stooges for the rich, whether the U.S. government does it or they have to hire the stooges directly.
I agree with impulse that I’m sick of underwriting drone raids on weddings and I’d like it to stop, but if it still happens, just not in my name, they’ll still be just as dead.
It’s almost like you guys don’t know how our supposedly isolationist 19th Century republic was able to prop up all those banana republics?
Interventions in Latin America do not conflict with or undermine a policy of isolationism….those little countries are our property.
See Smedley Butler for more.
ultimately better for the people in other countries who don’t get blown up by American bombs and drones.
Yes, it’s so much better for them to be shot by authentically Libyan servants of a tyrant, instead.
Violence is a problematic tool, for sure. And other methods such as diplomacy or economic incentives should be preferred when feasible (of course many of those other methods aren’t isolationist either).
But there genuinely are situations where the status quo that will continue under non-intervention is worse. Deciding which situations fit that description can only be done case-by-case by engaging with the details.
That’s the real problem with isolationism — a prescription that doesn’t change depending on the patient’s symptoms. That’s the number one sign of a quack.
Drones were used in Libya to strike artillery and rocket arrays that were shelling cities full of civilians. That is what this complaint is about here – that force was used to save civilian lives.
You know, I didn’t think Freddie’s essay was about Paul-curiosity at all. To me, it read like a lament: for the horrible things done in our names; for the seemingly inevitable continuation of those crimes; for the ridicule of many of those who care – or profess to care- about them. Mostly about Freddie, really. I don’t mean that in a snarky way. It just seems more an essay about personal grief than President Ron Paul.
I agree, and I think Robert misses the mark by saying that DeBoer’s assumption “is that a President Paul would somehow have done something to make all those Indonesia people not dead.” It looked to me rather that DeBoer was implying that perhaps President Paul wouldn’t stain our moral honor as a nation the way that a pretty-much unbroken string of previous administrations have done.
And to anticipate some likely objections, I don’t think that being only a relatively secondary participant in the process of mass-murder is not a stain on a country’s moral honor. I don’t think that a concern for that kind of moral honor is just self-indulgent posturing either. (I think you would basically have to practice completely undiluted utilitarianism to make that judgment.)
Under President Paul there would have been a lot more dead Indonesians because private arms sales to the Indonesian government would have been completely unregulated. U.S. arms manufacturers would have made a fortune selling directly to the Indonesian government.
The idea that inaction resulting directly in the death of millions is less of a stain on moral honor than action that takes the form of expressing a lack of antagonism towards the oppressive regime doing the killing is the province solely of moral midgets.
Under President Paul there would have been a lot more dead Indonesians because private arms sales to the Indonesian government would have been completely unregulated. U.S. arms manufacturers would have made a fortune selling directly to the Indonesian government.
The Indonesian government stopped killing its opponents because it ran out of guns?
No, Coca-Cola/their subcontractor just buys the local government and/or paramilitary, as in Colombia.
Yes, I’m sure the military training for Colombia provided by the US has always served the purpose of supporting human rights.
again, forgot the block quote. Top quote not mine.
Sure, it’s not like the Colombian military would have the slightest idea how to violate human rights if they didn’t have us to teach them.
This is well taken, on both points.
I should say that I’ve always felt too close to Indonesia to really be perfectly rational about it, although who knows what perfect rationality is, anyway.
Wait, so your essay was about Paul-curiosity? I thought Farley was misreading a kind of lovely, poignant piece on sadness and grief and political despair; but no? Paul-curiosity?
I’m not Paul curious; as my post says, I could never support Ron Paul. Rather, I may let my anger over our current foreign policy cloud me into thinking that a Ron Paul presidency would have greater impacts on our foreign policy than the apparatus of our military, economy, and government would allow.
Don’t worry. I would never and could never support Ron Paul.
Well, you made that crystal clear, the non-support of Ron Paul. To me, your essay was not at all suggesting that Ron Paul as President would have saved Indonesians, but rather that these atrocities that you have a personal connection to are akin to the atrocities we’ve committed (are committing) elsewhere, and that you personally feel a sense of guilt and helplessness. Particularly because liberals like to ignore/distract from the fact that we are killing people and those in power who say they want to stop are mostly ridiculed and ostracized. Because they get distracted with how terrible Ron Paul is. Like Farley did in this post. It just seems like his criticisms are not about your essay on empire and war but rather about some sort of ur-essay on Ron Paul and isolationism. So I got very confused by your thankful acceptance of his (unfounded) criticisms.
Yeah, that’s how I read it. Freddy, it seemed perfectly clear you weren’t praising Paul–you were sad and angry that there always seems to be a reason why American crimes overseas don’t really matter. And I was surprised to see Farley minimizing them with the argument that under a President Paul they would have happened anyway.
Maybe so, but that argument would seem more relevant if applied to someone who was supporting Paul for President.
Me too. Farley does not seem to have really read what you wrote.
I still think Ta-Neshi nailed it about both the despair driven impulse and it’s dangers.
The essay beautifully captures the despair of the Left over human rights violations and the frustration it feels when The Lesser Evil remains the only political choice and one which perpetuates these abominations. It would be irrational, if not inhumane, to cloak this outrage in uber-Realist resignation. That seems the point of Greenwald whenever he directs his readers to the personal stories behind these abuses – though to many the inevitable response remains: sad, yes, but Mittens will be even worse, which no doubt he will. “And so it goes,” replied the Tralfamadorians. Thanks for your perspective.
Indeed.
Mitt Romney is going to bring back the Bush crew to do his foreign policy work. And without an army in Iraq the US is in a much better position politically than they were before.
But most of the people who could be called “the Bush crew” were established Republican foreign policy hands who were carrying out the White House’s vision.
I could very easily imagine Colin Powell getting a high-level post in a Romney administration, but I doubt that would translate into Powell pushing George W. Bush’s foreign policy vision.
Yes, and we are safe in a government that has Colin Powell in high positions.
Powell amazes me in that he was at the absolute forefront of the marketing campaign for war in Iraq, but he gets absolutely none of the credit. He seemingly convinced many of the last holdouts of the elite that shooting Iraq’s border guards in the head and storming into that country, occupying it for eight years, losing 5,000 soldiers, killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and burning a trillion dollars was a good fucking deal.
Sanity will have returned to Washington under a Romney administration with Powell in it. I’m already getting excited.
Did you reply to the wrong comment?
You seem to be in the middle of a discussion with someone who wrote something favorable about Colin Powell.
Anyway, let me know if you have any thoughts on my comment about Colin Powell working to advance the ideas of his superiors in the Bush administration, as opposed to being a source of them.
And you seem to be rather assured that Romney foreign policy won’t be as fucked up as Bush foreign policy.
No, I’m not “assured” of anything one way or the other.
I’m just disagreeing with your unwarranted certainty.
I think there is a great deal of uncertainty about what Mitt Romney would do, but you seem to be very confident. Unduly so, in my opinion.
I am very confident that any foreign policy that comes out of the Republican Party circa 2012 is going to be very fucked up.
They have very little institutional incentive to be either competent or sane. Their voters don’t vote for it, their sponsors don’t pay for it, and their ideology certainly doesn’t value it.
The only hope I have there is that Romney, like most presidents, will probably look to foreign policy as a place where he can “get stuff done” and feel good about himself. Now, depending on whether he goes with Cheneyites or GHWBushites as his key advisors, that could mean something superduperawful or something moderately awful. I could see Romney finding the Cheneyites annoyingly pushy plus having a tendancy to generate a crap historical legacy.
Not a great hope, but a hope.
I certainly agree with that, but there is more than institutional momentum influencing a theoretical President Romney.
He’s going to want to be a successful President. Another term of George Bush’s foreign policy is likely to bring George Bush’s results, George Bush’s reputation, and George Bush’s popularity. Unless Romney is devoted neocon ideologue, he has to understand that by now.
George W. Bush got two terms. And while his supporters have been their best to ignore his legacy, they are quietly piecing together an argument to vindicate him, especially by pointing to security state continuity in the Obama administration.
Remember, they think that Bush failed because he wasn’t conservative enough.
Do you think Mitt Romney would be happy leaving office under circumstances similar to George Bush? Heck, do you think George Bush was happy about it?
George Bush actually believed in what he was doing. He was determined to stand up for the Iraq War and even launch the surge in 2006, when it is was incredibly unpopular. He knew it was dragging him down, but he was determined to see it through, because he thought it was the right thing to do, more important than his political standing.
Does that sound like Mitt Romney to you? Any of it? The devotion to an ideological vision? How about the elevation of doing the right thing over his own interests?
Yeah, but Powell is a high profile exception. Bush’s WH was full of neo-cons. Those guys have views that are toxic.
His White House was, absolutely. And his Dod.
His State Department, much less so.
There was a lot of variety among Bush’s foreign policy team, but they all fell in line to advance the vision that came from the top. People like Powell weren’t pushing neoconservative policies because they were neoconservatives, but because they were pursuing the policies that came out the White House.
Under Mitt Romney, those same people would fall into line to advance his agenda, even if it was quite different from Bush’s.
But Bush campaigned on being less reliant on the military than Clinton. Mittens is campaigning on a more aggressive foreign policy, and he has an advisory team more aggressive than Bush did. I mean, yes, I know Mittens lies, but what actual evidence do you have that he will not do at least some of the horrible, insane things he is running on?
I haven’t made any such claim.
I’ve taken exception with the claims of those who seem confident that they know what he would do.
I don’t think you do. I don’t think it’s possible to confidently predict the course of a Romney administration.
Maybe, but I know which way I would bet. And I’ll gladly go double-or-nothing on the bet I’m probably going to lose to Lemieux that Mittens will be dog-awful on both foreign and domestic policy, in such a way that real people will die as a result.
Easy bet: there hasn’t been a president whose policies both foreign and domestic didn’t end up killing people.
It’s more a question of which people, and how many of them.
I had meant that Mittens’ policies would kill more people than Obama’s.
Which is still an easy bet.
There’s an awful lot of room to be worse than Obama without getting into Dubya territory.
Clinton was worse than Obama. George HW Bush was worse than Obama. Ford was worse than Obama.
George W. Bush was another whole thing entirely.
Interestingly, while Collin Powell is not one of Mittens’ foreign policy advisors, Robert Kagan along with some other unsavory people) is.
You can read all about Mittens’ foreign policy there: Iraq:
Dude all but promises to go back into Iraq.
Gah. My kingdom for an edit button, to fix the block-quoting and other typos.
The statement you quote fits just as well into pre-neocon Republican foreign policy as neoconservatism. What it fits best, however, is a poll-tested message intended to appeal to Republican primary voters.
There are definitely some neocon ideologues on that list of names, but others who are not.
I can’t use any of that to distinguish between someone with Dubya’s foreign policy outlook and someone with Poppy Bush’s.
In his first 100 days, make clear that the military option is on the table by ordering the regular presence of an aircraft carrier task force in both the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region simultaneously. He will also begin talks with Israel to increase military coordination and assistance and enhance intelligence sharing.
Bush the Slightly Less Evil would not have run on doing either of these things.
Bush the Slightly Less Evil was facing a different primary electorate.
I don’t disagree with your observations about the platform Romney is running on. Then again, he became governor running on a platform that included gay rights and protection of a right to choose.
I just don’t find the things Mitt Romney says when attempting to win an election to be reliable indicators of his behavior in office.
Then again, he became governor running on a platform that included gay rights and protection of a right to choose.
I agree that, whenever given the chance, Mitt has been significantly worse, and more conservative, than what he has led people to believe. This does not give me optimism.
The strange thing about Romney is the way he seems to be trying to turn his lack of credibility into an asset with moderates. “Sure I’ve promised to do all these terrible, crazy wingnutty things, but you can’t believe a word I say!”
The first is a matter of historical debate. The CIA surely played a role in the fall of Sukarno and the murderous rise of Suharto; it’s far from clear, however, that CIA influence was determinative either in spurring the conflict or in producing a specific outcome.
That would be an interesting discussion, one that is sadly lacking at this place when it comes to assaying how “determinative” Ralph Nader and his few thousand misguided voters were in 2000.
I know. I just had to bring it up. The Godwin theorem with a different name….
Barack Obama is still for bombing brown people, saber-rattling with Iran and now China as well, doing nothing substantial to rein in the military-industrial complex, kow-towing to the Zionists, and interfering in other country’s affairs.
As a Canadian, all I can see is American becoming more and more militarised at all levels (witness military planes doing flyovers at NFL games, nothing more than your country’s equivalent of Soviet missile parades). Welcome to the Forever War…
kow-towing to the Zionists
That phrase lends much credence to your argument. Are the Zionists Occupying our Government?
Smearing Anti-Zionists as Anti-Semites: American Empire Propaganda 101. You learned well.
Mal is a Quaker pacifist, you knee-jerking jackass.
Joe, everything you write on this blog is a justification of American Imperialism and militarism with a kinder, gentler face. When fascism “wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross” does come to your country, you’ll be one of the “good Americans”, right there justifying your government and everything that comes with it until the bitter end as long as the Emperor has a “D” by his name.
…thus demonstrating that this line of bullshit is just something people like Ben drag out when their self-image needs to be propped up.
Caught out as a complete jackass blindly lashing out? Cry out “fascist!” and “imperialism!” in the highest register your voice is capable of producing.
You were the one who, rather than engaging my points about your country and its path towards militarism, “lashed out” by shouting “knee-jerking jackass” in the very first response you gave.
Um, champ? Here’s you:
I’m not going to “engage with” that bullshit. I’m going to call bullshit on it.
I didn’t point out that you’re a jackass because of your “points.” I called you a knee-jerking jackass because you have such appalling judgment, such pathetic understanding of politics, and such a general belligerent delusion that you ended up accusing a Quaker pacifist of being an apologist for American empire because he (correctly) noticed that you deal in ugly, old, familiar conspiracy theory tropes.
I didn’t accuse “him” of being an American Empire apologist, Joe. I merely pointed out that he was using Imperialist talking points.
I hope your IQ is high enough to understand the difference.
The above post is by me, in case anyone had any doubt.
Oh, FFS.
I didn’t accuse “him” of being an American Empire apologist, Joe. I merely pointed out that he was using Imperialist talking points.
And I did not accuse you of being an anti-Semite, but simply pointed out that you were using Stormfront’s talking points.
Yes, Joe, there is a difference, and using forced sarcasm like “Oh, FFS” means, translated, “I just got corrected”.
Why, there must be, because otherwise you’d be wrong about something. Therefore, accusing someone of using talking points of American Empire is entirely different from accusing him of being an apologist for American Empire.
Or maybe I actually hold you in contempt. Let’s see, here’s an easy test: did you actually correct me about anything? Why, no, you just wrote the equivalent of “nuh-uh.”
So, I think we should probably go with the contempt theory.
Yes, Joe, do you know what the difference is?
…
No?
…
Telling someone that they are USING the talking points of American and Zionist Imperialism is an objective statement of fact to be taken as a warning if the other person is not, in fact, an Imperialist, accusing someone of BEING an Imperialist is impugning their character.
Clear?
Yes.
Entirely semantic.
A meaningless distinction that one can point to pretend that one wasn’t actually making the accusation one made, when one finds oneself caught out uncomfortably.
Joe, don’t let the meanings of words bother you!
Indeed. It’s better to allow the meanings of sentences bother you, since words in sentences express thoughts together.
This is why we’re able to say the same thing in different words, and also, express similar thoughts through diverse grammatical and vocabulary choices.
And the moment you use the word Zionist, particularly on a thread about someone who
then you completely discredit the cause you allegedly serve.
Better anti-imperialists please. Bring back Zombie Mark Twain.
But your country didn’t go to war to “save the Jews”. You went to war because Germany declared war on you after your president baited Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor.
Spare me the American Exceptionalism about how you “saved the Jews”. The Soviets did the most in that war in any event.
… baited Japan into bombing Pearl Harbor?
I’ve encountered the “Roosevelt had actionable intelligence and didn’t move on it” argument before. But never that he BAITED the Japanese Empire into launching a massive attack on our Pacific holdings. This is a new and fascinating conspiracy theory and I’m interested in hearing more.
He was baiting the Japanese military, but with long-range patrols, incursions in to Japanese-controlled waters, that sort of thing.
Hoping to get a casus belli without losing major strategic assets, that sort of thing.
Well, his office did effectively start an oil embargo that fall by not approving any permits to sell them oil, thus effectively bypassing the legislature. Though that could have been Hull acting on his own. That point was never clear to me. War was probably inevitable regardless given the disposition of the Japanese gov, though.
Yes, and your pal Ron Paul, who also uses the word Zionist, thinks we fought WW2 to save Jews. Welcome to the bedfellows you are choosing.
I’ll ignore the conspiracy theories about FDR and Pearl Harbor.
Mal,
I hope you someday have the experience of being publicly insulted by someone as determined to destroy his own credibility through delusional ranting as Ben.
Hey, everyone, the guy who’s obsessed with Zionists and thinks FDR conspired to cause the attack on Pearl Harbor doesn’t like my political stances!
Ohnoes.
I never said FDR “conspired”. I basically said he undertook hostile actions towards the Japanese, baiting them into attacking. Though I do think he thought the attack would happen in the Philipines Colony, not in Hawaii.
Seriously? Have you READ this blog?
There are a ton of anti-Zionists here. I’m one myself. We typically try to avoid saying things that are shit stupid, and “Obama kow-tows to the Zionists” is shit stupid.
News flash; aggressive Zionism has a powerful constituency within the US Congress and the electorate at large. This is not due to anything more sinister than ideological agreement and aggressive lobbying, and there’s very little a President can do about it. Obama has gotten his hand burnt here a number of times, and because he’s not dumb he isn’t willing to touch that stove anymore without a potholder.
… I may have extended that metaphor too far.
I don’t think Ben is complaining so much about Zionists qua Zionists — even if Obama did follow their Top Seekrit Orders to pull the plug on Mubarak and Qaddafi (little-known fact!). I think he’s complaining about the kow-towing, because we all know that Obama bows in a servile fashion to foreign leaders.
Air Force planes have been flying over NFL games since Super Bowl Roman Numeral 2 in 1968.
So? Who says American militarism is a new tihng?
Still, it’s reached disturbing levels in the last ten years, and it’s even creepier when the same planes that fly over your football games are, at the same time, dropping bombs on civilians people in Afghanistan (or earlier in the year, Libya).
Perhaps if you had a better understanding of American culture than someone who thinks that overflights of the Superbowl are a recent development, you would have noted that the militarism you’re discussing peaked years ago, and has been ebbing since at least 2006.
Really? Peaked in 2006? Utterly laughable. Here’s an event from your Memorial Day in 2010:
http://jerichorendezvous.wordpress.com/2010/05/30/memorial-day-celebrating-militarism-and-the-weapons-of-war/
I guess that’s ancient history, though, right Joe?
It’s quite tame, compared to the 2001-2004 era. This is not a remotely controversial observation for anyone who has lived in this country – which you don’t, so perhaps you can drop the pretense of knowing what you’re talking about.
Let me give you a little head’s up: when someone who actually lives in a country tells you something about it, it’s probably not the best idea for your to pretend to know better because of something you found on the internet.
Finding a link that shows that American culture is more militaristic than you like doesn’t actually demonstrate, one way or the other, the trend.
Oh, please. Most of you are brainwashed from grade school with the myths of American Exceptionalism (not much different from the old German concept of the “volk”*, as far as I’m concerned) so it’s very likely that people from outside your country would be more objective, in the same way say, a French person was more objective about the USSR than a brainwashed Soviet party hack in the 1960s.
*No, this is not necessarily a Nazi reference. The Germans had the idea of the mythical “volk” taught to them for centuries before Nazism. Very, very similar to American Exceptionalism.
While you so very plainly trace your own brainwashing back to your first year at college, so that’s ok then.
It’s entirely possible for someone with some distance to be able to more objectively evaluate information than someone who is closer to it, sure, but you first need to have good information.
Things like public military displays and “Support the Troops” ribbon magnets and torture-porn television series have been becoming rarer in American culture than their peak in the fist Bush term.
This is not an interpretation. This is not an opinion. This is an objective, utterly-uncontroversial observation of fact, coming from a superior knowledge base. If you bestirred yourself to actually come to the country you flatter yourself that you understand so well, first in 2002 and again in 2011, you would have noticed that there has been a marked decline in militaristic cultural expressions.
Yes, militarism sure has declined, that’s why there were people shouting “USA! USA! USA!” and waving flags in front of the White House on May 2nd of last year, celebrating what amounted to a violation of a nation’s sovereignty (but Pakistan is full of brown people, so it doesn’t count) combined with the assassination of a man in his pajamas and his unarmed wife and kids. Yup. Militarism sure has declined down south.
You really don’t understand what the word “declined” means, do you?
Don’t they teach the concept of a “trend” in Pompous-ass-aslavia?
Declined, hmm? Tell me, were there any objections to mosques being built in America in 2002? Mufreesboro, TN, and NYC itself are two very recent examples where I can’t really think of any from 2002…hmmm…
BTW, what exactly would people have done differently if bin Laden had been assassinated in November, 2001 instead of May, 2011?
Why, are you tired of talking about militarism? Or have you just been throwing the term around without knowing what it means?
I would agree that Islamophobia has gotten worse over the past several years, but let’s try to maintain some degree of intellectual precision, and not simply lump all “bad stuff” under the heading “militarism.”
I can tell you exactly what would have been different and, please note, this difference goes directly to the concept of militarism (a term which you might considering googling, to make sure you’re using it correctly):
If Osama had gotten his just desserts in Nov. 2001, the celebrations would have been accompanied by frequent and explicit calls for the expansion of the war from the people celebrating. If Osama had been shot in Nov. 2001, the people who showed up at the White House would have been carrying signs reading “On to Saudi Arabia!” or “You’re next, Saddam!”
If you need further evidence, look at public opinion polling on the wars.
In 2003, support for the Iraq War reached landslide levels. Now, it’s tied with venereal disease.
The Af-Pak War? It’s not a net unpopular, a majority of the public want us out. As recently as three years ago, the majority of the public supported it.
The Libya operation was unpopular throughout. Think about that – the President engages in air-strikes against a well-known international bad guy, and the “militaristic” American public opposes it. There isn’t a ghost of a chance that that would have happened in 2003.
Really, joe? Then why did Leon Panetta shout that the Iraq War was “worth it” if its such political poison?
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/19/panetta_iraq_war_was_worth_it/
Best highlight from the article:
The chickens from your militarism are going to come home to roost.
Yes, really. Why are you using such oblique data as “Norman Panetta told soldiers their sacrifice wasn’t wasted in a speech” as evidence of public opinion, instead of looking at actual public opinion?
Oh, right – because the actual public opinion data proves you to be utterly, completely wrong.
I can’t help but notice that this “best highlight” doesn’t have even the most distant connection to your thesis about American public opinion.
Really? Where do you get your information from Joe? The BBC? NYT? Fox? CNN? You need to find out where they’re reporting fact not fiction.
As a Canadian, I am embarrassed to share a nationality with self-righteous nationalists like Ben.
As a homo sapien, I am embarrassed to share the same number of chromosomes.
Then again, there is at least one unexamined assumption in that statement.
Since neither of those assumptions is, in fact, embedded in Mr. De Boer’s post, I had a lot of trouble reading the rest of your arguments.
A says, “Yesterday I threw rocks at a woman who was being stoned to death.”
B says, “That’s barbaric!”
A responds, “Ah, but you are making two assumptions: First, you assume that had my rocks not hit her, the woman would have survived. Second, you assume that by withholding my rocks, I could have calmed the mob enough to save the woman.”
Is that the moral standard now? If something would have happened without you you can participate in it without culpability?
Christopher,
Agree. Neither of these “assumptions” are embedded in DeBoer’s little essay on American foreign policy guilt or the absolute failure of our politics to address it in any serious way.
As Freddie pointed out, first comes the assumption of self-evident ridiculousness, then the scorn.
Appears to be.
Rob isn’t denying the US’s culpability in Indonesia and elsewhere. He’s pointing out that a Ron Paul-style disengagement of the US from the rest of the world would not turn the rest of the world into Switzerland, especially not a Switzerland without the plutocrat-enabling banking system. There are plenty of private actors in the US and elsewhere who would be willing to support Indonesia-level atrocities, and Paul would have no problem with that. “It’s a great big hellhole, but at least our hands are officially clean” is not a moral argument.
And yet! Freddie’s essay was really not about advocating a Ron Paul style isolationism, or Ron Paul.
Take it up with Freddie, then.
I have, upthread. But that idea is not in the text of his essay. Just like, as Christopher and bobbyp point out, these two ‘embedded assumptions’ are not.
Yes!
“It’s a great big hellhole….” and yadda yadda…..
That is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the thrust of what DeBoer actually wrote.
Jinx! Except can it be jinx when you express it more eloquently?
I sort of don’t know how to respond to this without just repeating myself.
The fact that any given Ron Paul policy can’t produce a progressive utopia can’t possibly be any kind of argument against it, since this is true of all policies everywhere.
Not stoning the woman is still a morally superior position to stoning her, even if it might still be morally inferior to shielding her with your own body.
People who are dedicated pragmatists when it comes to Democrats seem to suddenly turn into ideological purists when it comes to Paul.
Now, if you want to argue that Paul’s isolationism is, on the whole, actually worse than Obama’s, that’s a whole other kettle of fish. But I don’t think Farley argued that very well here, and it most certainly has nothing to do with whether some bad things somewhere would still happen under Paul.
Sorry, what’s pragmatist about supporting Paul? I mean Paul, per se, (or Paul being the messenger) which is all we can actually do given that he won’t have any other affect.
If you want to ask what’s progressive about supporting a Paulesque full blown policy, then great: Articlate one shorn of kookiness and have at it.
“Compromising with Paul” doesn’t yield any plausible benefit and has a lot of negatives (re: messaging). Hence the pragmatic rejection.
I’ve realized that at this point nobody knows what we’re arguing about anymore.
No matter how explicitly you say that you aren’t going to support Paul in any way, shape or form beyond occasionally saying “Ron Paul said something I agree with, good for him” you still get people who ask “But what’s pragmatic about supporting Ron Paul?”
Let me explicitly articulate my claims:
If Ron Paul were not running for President, the race would be even stupider and more pointless than it already is.
He deserves credit for this, because it isn’t something you can say for many (Arguably all) of the Republican candidates, and the fact that there is room in the Republican party to say anything I agree with is a positive development.
And if we can grudgingly give credit where it’s due to scumbag members of our own tribe such as Obama without feeling the need to write a thousand words about all the things he’s done wrong, than we can give other people the benefit of doing the same for Paul.
That is the extent of my claims.
Actually, my second claim is that a lot of takedowns (But not all) of Paul, including Mr. Farley’s, are very poorly argued, to the point where I have to point it out just on principle.
Well, you said that “pragmatists about Obama” turned into “purists about Paul”. I’ve argued against Paul primarily on pragmatist grounds (though I think standing by your longtime allies is principled as well as pragmatic).
You made the claim; it’s up to you to back it up.
That’s in dispute, to say the least.
I think you lost control of syntax as well as sense, here.
Thank you! I could not think how to phrase this thought.
Not stoning the woman is still a morally superior position to stoning her, even if it might still be morally inferior to shielding her with your own body.
Or to finding nonviolent ways to keep women from being stoned. Which would be a progressive foreign policy vision, but not one Ron Paul would support.
Or to finding nonviolent ways to keep women from being stoned.
Unpossible.
Now, if you want to argue that Paul’s isolationism is, on the whole, actually worse than Obama’s, that’s a whole other kettle of fish.
What if you want to argue that Paul’s isolationism is an inherently tied up with an ideology that will, in almost all cases, lead to substantially worse outcomes both in the US and abroad?
“What if you want to argue…”
Well, I for one would not argue that point, since to me it is obvious. I do take exception to the assertion that being cognizant of the fact that R. Paul’s anti-interventionist foreign policy dovetails (however superficially) with that of the non-interventionist left, has not resulted in his being cast out by the GOP and pointing this out somehow makes one, ipso facto, a Ron Paul supporter.
Better jock straps, please!
You nailed it. He draws assumptions that don’t exists in the actual essay–known as weasel words–then proceeds to dismiss the essay based on his erroneous assumnptions. His type of logic would not meet the standards in the scientific community.
Agreed. Such an obvious strawman that it should be embarrassing for Farley.
Beyond the very good points brought up by Robert, another reason I beleive Paul is rejected and Obama is given a pass on foreign policy issues is I think a lot of liberal voters just aren’t paying attention to these issues right now. That’s not an excuse. I hate that they aren’t. I wish the public could focus their attention on every important issue like those of us who post on political blogs do.
But the sad fact is that they just don’t. And with the economy the way it is I’m not very confident these issues will take on the importance they should. In this sense I think De Boer and someone like Glenn Greenwald are right to discuss Ron Paul. But while we have that discussion let’s keep in mind that Robert is correct and we need to hold both Paul and Obama/liberals accountable for bad foreign policy ideas.
Ever since George McGovern got creamed in the 1972 election, Democrats have tried to appear tough on foreign policy while not alienating anti-war members of their base. And, once in office, Democratic presidents have pretty much governed like conflicted hawks or hawks with a conscience. Even Obama, who appeared to be an anti-war candidate when he ran for president, has continued Bush policies and run his foreign policy to the point that it will be hard for Romney to run to Obama’s right on foreign policy.
There’s no way that Kucinich, or someone like him, could get his party’s nomination for president, even if he was a more appealing person. George McGovern was a superior anti-war candidate to any potential modern-day liberal or progressive in large part because of his being a war hero in WWII. It gave him credibility. He wasn’t just a pacifist peacenik. But he still has a reputation as a total leftist who is out of the mainstream.
Maybe the critique of U.S. foreign policy must come from the right to be taken seriously – even though Ron Paul isn’t taken very seriously by a lot of people in his own party. As McGovern stated a few years ago, “Instead of listening to the foolishness of the neoconservative ideologues, the Cheney-Bush team might better heed the words of a real conservative, Edmund Burke: ‘A conscientious man would be cautious how he dealt in blood.’” Conservatism may be the natural home of the anti-war philosophy.
Plus, I’m convinced that Ron Paul is attracting support from people who might otherwise support Democrats, specifically because of his views on the economy and the debt. A lot of Ron Paul’s support is from young people. Maybe they don’t want to pay the bill for the massive state that exists today and looks to get bigger in the future.
Maybe former progressives are becoming conservatives because of the Democratic Party’s allegiance to government unions and increasing the size of the state. Corporations, Wall Street and the massive federal government are all taking their toll on people’s economic condition.
This is the first intelligent comment I’ve read on this board.
Welcome, Ron Paul nitwits!
“I used to be progressive, but ever since the Democratic party disappointed me I violently hate labor unions and think that the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional.”
Yeah, not buying it.
Maybe former progressives are becoming conservatives because of the Democratic Party’s allegiance to government unions and increasing the size of the state.
I used to be a liberal, but once I realized that firefighters got paid holidays, I now find the crackpot goldbuggery of the candidate endorsed by Stormfront to make a lot of sense.
LOL. Brilliant!
[...] liberal Rep. Dennis Kucinich, I should note Robert Farley’s argument on that point: “Ron Paul Ain’t Good on Foreign Policy.”This comparison rests on a basic falsehood, which is that the foreign policy of Ron Paul [...]
The claim is frequently made that Paul advocating good and rational things, like federal decriminalization of marijuana or cutting back on imperial adventures, will discredit these stands with rational people.
I would point out that much of the voting public seems to have no problem agreeing with positions advocated by drooling snake-handlers and other forms of lunatic. If you’re going to make the argument that the messenger is toxic to the message, you have to explain away a lot of what is currently popular among US voters.
I, for one, said nothing about “with rational people”, per se, though I believe it will affect rational groups in the progressive coalition.
But, ok, with what absurd group does Paul resonate with? Stormfront, slightly-less-glib-but-still-holier-than-thou libertarians, paleocons, and some antiwar Democrats (who are perhaps trying to ratfuck the primary or sincerely think Paul’s messaging is good).
(A good chunk of Paul’s support is no Republican…so…where’s the incentive to move to his views.)
I think right now that Paul is so kooky as to be ineffective at anything, pretty much, even tarnishing. (Though, I don’t think the Paul-curious are doing well.) But that’s the best case I can see.
He has big media cameras trained on him.
He has Republicans and right-wingers listening.
If he can convince even a small number of them that bombing people abroad is not usually a good idea, that’s a hell of a lot more PR for anti-imperialism than most politicians ever engage in.
If the American body politic can tolerate obvious criminals advocating Christian charity, it might well tolerate neo-feudalists advocating a more peaceable foreign policy.
Paul for President? Nein. Paul as useful gadfly on one or two issues? Ja.
Is there any evidence than any Republicans are listening serious to him that weren’t already libertarian/isolationist?
As far as I can tell, no.
So where’s the positive PR?
Would it be out of line to compare voting results for Paul in 1988 (running on the Libertarian ticket), 2008, and now?
Nope. That’s probably the best way to do it, though you might want to normalize it a bit for money and organization (he has built one over time) and the “any kook but the Morman” sentiment going on.
But my quick googling found this:
Stoopid blockquote button.
Ok, Wikipedia has the entrance poll results for Iowa:
The interesting bits seem party where Paul got 14% Republican and 43% independent and ideology where Paul got 15% of Very Conservative, 21% of Somewhat Conservative and 40% of Moderate or Liberal.
On most important issue, antiwar/drug war/civil liberties aren’t listed, but Paul got 28% Budget Deficit and 20% Economy.
This Reason article analyzing their poll results doesn’t mention war or drug war (from my skim).
So, I don’t think you need to go historical to have some evidence that Paul isn’t really raising antiwar (or drug war) support. There is this Mother Jones article which suggests that antiwar liberals crossed over, but I see nothing about that in any of the numbers I can find.
To a first approximation, Paul’s antiwar effect is zero, afaict.
The Reason article claims that, by self-identification Paul supporters were 2% liberal, 4% progressive vs. 22% libertarian and by role of govt questions 9% liberal vs. 41% libertarian.
(Hmm. This seems to be a national poll. Oh well. Gives a flavor.)
Here’s a Blue Republican facebook page.
Oh man, they get silly:
Ok! Of course the thing immediately under his control is not actually the military (you think he’d withdraw against military advice?! do you see his defense page?) but the rest of the govt.
To be clear, if you do the calculation and decide that kook driven publicity is better than none, fine. We disagree on the calculation, but I presume we can agree on the terms in the formula.
I’m fine with that. And perhaps I’m fighting the last Greenwald, but I don’t think it’s off to be antiwar and anti-Paul-as-messenger. I think Paul has a lot of nasty baggage that Kucinich does not (or Sharpton, for that matter).
By and large, I’ll take my despair without a helping of Paul.
Again: Paul’s baggage–immense as it is–isn’t the issue. If Paul is bringing up anti-imperialist issues, or if Elmo is bringing up anti-imperialist issues, or if Gilbert Gottfried is reading Noam Chomsky in a grating voice, then the issues are getting aired. That’s an improvement over the issues not being aired.
Really?
Is mere bringing up of such issues typically useful? How? What’s the mechanism?
I think it was useful in 2004 and 2008. I think we have a generally more cautious Democratic war machine as a result. But I don’t see how Paul’s going to make a less neo-con Republican party or bolster the antiwar part of the Democratic side or make the general populace less likely to have its standard attitude cycle toward any military conflict.
I do see the possibility that it will marginalize antiwar voices in the Democratic party as well as alienating parts of the coalition.
So, what’s the argument. Point me to some, any evidence?
(Note that some of my arguments, to wit, that Paul isn’t so very robustly anti-imperialist as all that also don’t matter if his merely raising the issue has sufficiently good effect. But where’s the effect other than some headlines?)
“Alienating parts of the coalition”? You mean the ones who have been informed that they’re fucking retarded and need to be drug tested?
Bringing up coalition politics is pretty funny around here. If anyone from the left does it, we’re told that it’s all about math, not feelings. If the centrists do it, it’s strategy.
Make your mind up. Either the non-mainstream elements are to be brought in, or they are to be excluded.
I was think more of women, African-Americans, and immigrants.
And unions.
Possibly the best quote of the night.
You’re just wrong about this. We encouraged them.
Please. Don’t let facts get in the way of uber-Realist resignation.
You say,
“President Paul might not have engaged in a direct military relationship with Indonesia, but he would not have prevented American private military firms from contracting with the Indonesians in training and advisory roles; he would not have prevented the Indonesian military from purchasing all the military equipment that it could afford from US defense corporations; he would not have prevented US corporations with interests in Indonesia from calling (publicly or privately) for violent defense of their extractive and labor interests.”
I sometimes think that progressives that defend Ron Paul or attack his domestic ideals still do not understand the man’s politics. I have studied libertarianism and many of its primary actors and its underlying philosophies and have come to the conclusion that liberals and conservatives still have an underlying ignorance towards libertarian philosophies. According to this website,
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
U.S. & state government spending account for over 46% of our GDP (This puts a thorn into the ideal that we are a free market capitalist state). I will tell you that Paul would not be accepting of the “private” transactions listed especially if government money is going to these corporations via subsidies or other benefits. Why do you think the mainstream media ignores Paul? Many large corporations see a Paul presidency as being bad for business because the parasite that is public/private partnerships are a huge form of business and Paul opposes this. Progressives often overreact that the United States would become a corporate state without government oversight but isn’t this what we already have (Including regulatory agencies that work for the corporations that they are supposed to monitor). Can’t we have a debate whether the liberal ideals behind this are valid in the 21st century? Liberals and progressives are often incorrect about Paul’s domestic policies because I really don’t think they understand them. Republicans are opposed to him because of his position on foreign policy and social issues (Like the drug wars and the legalization of prostitution at the federal level). I can understand your opposition to Paul’s policies (Because I don’t agree with him on everything either) but I often find that either party does not debate Paul’s ideas honestly. Plus, the idea of government performing humanitarian gestures or providing social programs for the poor have even made me question their purpose lately. I don’t necessarily have issues with social programs but when we get involved in a foreign country for humanitarian reasons, it always appears to me that we cause more problems “liberating” these people while causing massive civilian casualties or creating a new form of oppression. I think liberal humanitarianism through government enforcement is an idea that we may need to rethink. Again, these are ideas that need to be discussed and progressives dismissing his domestic policies is just as much of a sin as Republicans dismissing his foreign policy views.
This made me laugh. Thanks.
Ok, how about (from his campaign website):
My understanding is that Paul does not understand inflation or modern economies.
That tells me that Paul is ginormous union buster.
And his foreign policy page is, well, less than specific, but a couple of points stood out:
Er… drone wars? Or just Osama-kill-esque missions?
This seems compatible with lots of intervention.
(There’s plenty on that page to like, don’t get me wrong. But it’s hardly a window into a practical plan.)
There is also the not to small matter that a lot of these “private” contractors do not exist without government money.
it’s unclear to me why progressives need to discuss in depth the political opinions of the not-even-least-bad GOP presidential nomination contender.
Well I’ll tell you and it’s something you didn’t bring up in your post (unless I missed it):
Basically as President of the U.S. he would have the power to end the fucking wars!
His consistent voting record shows that he IS serious that he would recall the US empire.
You mean his Yes vote on AUMF?
In our increasing totalitarian society how long do you think dissent will be tolerated?
Electing Ron Paul is probably our last chance to end the wars and recall the empire from abroad. It’s a matter of priorities.
Are you going to argue on the AUMF on 2001? That might be a fair point for a debate but I think you’re just looking for single issues to end debate on the larger issues we have today and avoid talking about what we’re going to do to end the injustices going on now.
Putting aside your kookiness, I’m just saying that his record is not actually perfectly consistently antiwar. See my other comment above, plus look at his squishiness on Iran. His general voting record is better than many, but he’s not my hero here (and he’s never faced a tough vote).
I think you don’t understand totalitarianism or modern Western society and how dissent is managed. But ok!
I don’t sense a great debate manifesting here.
Please explain what you mean by “kookiness” or apologize. I don’t care to reply to people who try to shut down arguments by labeling them “kooky”.
I didn’t shut down discussion, I put aside your kookiness to continue it. But here you go:
This is kooky. It’s vintage, unsophisticated black helicopter thinking. I think loads of dissent will go untouched because mass dissent suppression (on the Stalin/Hitler/classic totalitarian mode) is not a common path for Western democracies. Small scale harassment, sure. Marginalization and very serious mockery, sure. But that ain’t the rack for most bloggers.
Well, then there’s no chance. So kooky and kookily phrased.
The telltale sign: You evade a point by accusing me of trying to (or wanting) to not just evade discussions but “end debate”. Not the sign of an honest person.
I’ve indulged you for funsys, not because I take your offendedness seriously.
If Konst is “kooky”, then so am I.
I don’t consider myself a libertarian, or a “progressive” (God how I hate that term) but I do sympathize with many ideas and goals of the “left” as well as those of many libertarians, and I don’t see these movements as radically opposed to each other. I agree with Konst that the discussion here evinces a complete lack of understanding of libertarian ideals. The system of crony capitalism we have today is a far cry from a free market as Paul envisions it. He is against the unholy alliance between government and big business and corporate welfare, which is not addressed by any so-called “mainstream” candidate, democrat or republican.
We have a president who has openly declared that he has a right to assassinate anyone, and who has destroyed the last remaining vestiges of due process with the indefinite detention bill. Members of his cabinet openly call for the murder of whistleblowers. All of the enabling laws are in effect for a totalitarian dictatorship.
This, in my estimation, is the height of “kookiness.” You dismiss this with the perjorative phrase, “black helicopter thinking” because totalitarianism in the Hitler/Stalin mode is not a “common path for Western democracies.” I wish I could share your optimism, but I think history teaches us the no government which has these powers can be trusted not to abuse them. It’s like, um, the whole reason America was founded as a constitutional republic.
Ron Paul is the only major candidate who speaks out against these horrendous developments. To me, supporting him is a no-brainer. The importance of these issues far, far outweighs any discomfort I might have with his support of “right-to-work” laws or unfortunate comments in twenty-year-old newsletters that he didn’t even write.
There is a glaring hypocrisy here. Thanks to Konst for bringing the voice of reason into this discussion.
Kooks of the world, unite!
I don’t see these movements as radically opposed to each other.
Then you can’t see.
Do you guys get paid for this shit? Because I’ll do it too if there’s money in it.
There are some very good points in this article, but ultimately it’s a straw man because…
DE BOER (et al. of his ilk) ARE NOT SUPPORTING CANDIDATE PAUL!!!!!
They’re simply saying – what’s going on when a nutcase like Paul is to the left of progressives on these incredibly important issues?
Why is that so hard to understand?
Paul is not to the left of anyone on these issues. That’s the point. That he comes to his views from a xenophobic, isolationist, states’ rights point of view is very relevant to what his views mean–Paul’s anti-war views mean “let the world burn” and “drown the federal government in a bathtub,” not “blowing up people is wrong”–how he’d implement them if he could, what ancillary policies inevitably go along with those views, and how he can function as a gadfly/spokesman on those views.
If you think Paul is to the left on interventionism you are paying no attention at all.
If he would stop drones form killing innocent children tomorrow, that would be to the left of what we have now, which is drones killing children. He’s against the NDAA, which is to the left of being for it. On and on we can go.
How can this be? How can this ass hole be to the left of most of the Dem party? THAT is the point.
He’s being used BECAUSE he’s an ass hole! you should being aiming your angst at the DEMOCRATIC PARTY who are failing so badly in their policy that an idiot like Paul is to their left. And that’s the point.
Why is it so hard? You have to ask? Look, to ‘realists’ anything to the left of them on foreign policy is simply ‘not feasible’. Since it is ‘not feasible’ it is not worth considering or simply beneath discussion.
Thus, in times of war, we get the simply astounding “debate” about WMD’s. The rest of the time we get the standard issue non-debate about whether or not we should have a 2 ocean navy or merely a 1 1/2 ocean navy.
The point is Paul is not “to the left” of progressives on these types of issues. He’s not. But he does bring to the table the concept of “empire” and the need to disassemble it.
Would that a candidate in Democratic primaries could mobilize even half the percentages that Paul is getting by bringing such issues to the forefront.
It’s simply a shame, or more aptly a sham that is not the case, and the gatekeepers of “good Democratic Party thinking” on these issues are doing our polity a huge disservice.
bobbyp, I dredged up some numbers which strongly suggest that the issues animating Paul supporters are not the antiwar ones.
So, I think that you need to substantiate the causal relationship expressed here:
Again, it’s not about the Paul supporters; it’s about anyone in the electorate hearing anti-imperialist views widely disseminated.
The Paul supporters, in the main, are disaffected Republicans or single-issue tax evaders and pot fanciers.
Ok, Doc, but then show me some numbers, anything.
If the story is just a brute “any discussion is better than no discussion” then I don’t see that that’s a strong argument for jumping on board (much less that its true).
Bijan, do you think you could show any numbers that indicate how several hundred words rebuking an anti-imperialist blogger for saying semi-complimentary things about Ron Paul furthers the progressive cause? I wouldn’t ask you for it, because it’s obviously not exactly the thing we have state-of-the-art research on. So I don’t see why Doc should be held to that standard.
Well if I had explicitly or implicitly claimed that my comments, or things like them, furthered the progressive clause, then your tu quoque attempt might have some bite.
Alas, I made no such claim either implicitly or explicitly, thus your tu quoque doesn’t even get off the ground.
I’ve enacted precisely the standard I’m asking of Doc: i.e., I’ve tried to give evidence for my assertions. Now I have a bit of trouble getting people to acknowledge or respond to them, but that’s ok. Doc is in fact responding by saying that I have, roughly, the wrong numbers. (Though I’d argue that the low saliency of the antiwar/anti-imperialisitc cause among Paul voters and explicit supporters is a reasonable first proxy for its saliency among the general populace. Now, among antecedently antiwar folks this obviously isn’t true, but I don’t see the net gain.)
Oh, and, of course, we do have things like opinion polls on antiwar and research on the ebb and flow of pro and antiwar sentiment. No so much on the efficacy of my writing promoting progressive causes. But I’ll spot you that: It’s completely ineffectual.
I figure that everybody — Fred in sort of defending Ron Paul, Robert in criticizing Fred, Doc in sort of defending Fred, you in sort of criticizing Doc, me in in sort of criticizing you — is participating in these discussions out of some general instinct that their strategy is doing some sort of good (however limited) for somebody. I don’t think any of us could really provide evidence for this, just as I don’t any of us could really provide evidence for propositions like “it’s good to have prominent people challenging important evils.” That’s all, really. It wasn’t meant as an accusation of hypocrisy or anything like that.
Well, if you look around in the thread, you’ll see that I have mobilized some data, specifically on this and related points. Hence my asking.
I think I’ve more or less refuted the “Paul supporters represent a significant antiwar group which sends a signal” line (which has been floated about). Doc upped it to a more generalized claim, but I don’t think it’s ridiculous to ask for some sort of evidence, if only an outline of how it would work.
I mean, for example, Paul’s also out there with the kooky talk and giving THAT exposure. If his mere giving antiwar talk exposure is good for that, then presumably it’s probably good for the kooky talk.
Anyhoo, it’d be nice to know what evidence people would accept. (We can always look at the papers about Buchanan, who had a platform similar to Paul.)
Did you ever consider that maybe, just maybe, the rest of the world (a good portion of which is being bombed, bullied, spied on, or sabotaged by you) would vastly prefer Paul to Obama?
Good point. Re my Iranian friends and their families, I’ll second that.
In Ron Paul’s world Israel would be bombing the ever loving shit out of Iran.
No, it wouldn’t, because the US would not be enabling them with billions of dollars in military aid, promises of military intervention, and fawning words of encouragement.
Am I not an Iranian(-American) friend? (I’ve never lived in Iran but I have family.)
I don’t think I’d prefer Paul to Obama all things considered, though I’m sure if I were bombed I’d loathe Obama.
Paul hasn’t said that he wouldn’t bomb Iran, fwiw! He agreed that nuclear Iran should be discouraged.
But I do think that the world policy toward Iranian nukes is really nasty and wrong.
One thing that seems certain is that if Ron Paul, a republican, was President then progressives wouldn’t be sitting on their asses writing “what if so and so happened 50 years ago and Ron Paul was President would he…”.
Rather they would be in the streets demanding social justice and there would actually be an anti-war movement (even if it’s an anti-other-party movement like last time).
Face reality people. Our dwindling civil liberties are not going to come back and the killing of innocent foreigners is not going to stop just by wishful thinking and purist dogma. That’s why I’m not a progressive any longer and don’t believe in this cognitive dissonance enclosed bullshit of a strategy that candidate a is not perfect so it’s against our progressive religion to vote for him.
That “sitting on their asses writing” comment is not just for writers not facing reality but to all progressives. It wasn’t meant as a pejorative.
Yes…if it’s wildly unrealistic idealism, abandon it….cf Hubert Humphrey, 1948.
But if it is “political realism” prostrate yourself on the altar of expediency…cf Hubert Humphrey, 1968.
But Freddie’s question, the upshot of his whole post, remains unaddressed: “I want my country to stop killing innocent people. What am I supposed to do?”
Right? I find it both hilarious and sad that the essay pretty much predicted this would happen (people would ignore the ‘what can I do, vis a vis my country killing innocent people?’ part to hone in on a Shiny Distaction).
Yes it is both hilarious and sad. I think we should take this as further evidence for the incredible human capacity for denial of anything which threatens our sense of our own righteousness.
Whatever you do, being distracted by Paul-curiosity can’t possibly help and is more-or-less a sign that you’re not at all serious about the matter or not bright enough to make a difference.
Or not bright enough to understand the simplest of rhetorical license, wherein one confuses said license using candidate X with support of candidate X.
And what would you suggest, Robert? I’m not that bright, apparently, so help me out.
If we’re not even allowed to say to the dems “WTF is going on that RON FUCKING PAUL is right on these issues and you’re not” (which, for some reason you et al. cannot parse from SUPPORT for Paul, but whatever) then what should we do to stop the mass slaughter in our names and erosion of our civil rights that both parties oversee w/o debate?
This I gotta hear….
Robert? Is your name Robert? For some reason I keep thinking Robert Johnson blues guitar player….
And yet his question remains unanswered.
Mr. Farley,
You state at the outset of your response to Mr. De Boer’s original post:
With whatever respect you or your readers feel you are due, and I’m sure it is a great amount, I must say that I feel your assertions are not even remotely supported by the text of Mr. De Boer’s post. I can find nothing in his article to indicate that he is making the assumptions you have attributed to him. (Whether Mr. De Boer himself makes these assumptions is immaterial here; the question is whether or not he has written what you claim.)
It seems to me after another careful reading of the article (Mr. De Boer’s) that your assertions could be corrected in the following manner:
I only read about 50 or so of the comments to your post, so my apologies to yourself and others if the issue I raised has already been discussed. If it hasn’t, I’d be even more dumbfounded than when I first read your opening statements.
I hope you will consider replying with either a brief exposition of how Mr. De Boer’s article indicates that he assumes what you claim him to assume, or else a revision of your claims.
Thanks.
Sammy – I made the same point as did a number of others. Still waiting for the brilliant reposte……….
I was willing to suspend disbelief until this:
“But this comparison rests on a basic falsehood, which is that the foreign policy of Ron Paul resembles that of Sanders or Kucinich in any meaningful way.”
Their foreign policies are demonstrably similar. What planet is Farley inhabiting here? Their ideas about foreign policy are different (UN yay! vs UN nay., eg), but in you know, like, reality, they are very similar insofar as neither Paul nor Kucinich nor Sanders support a murderous, immoral empire. Pretend it’s more complicated than that if you like but it’s not.
Which of the three would bomb IRan? Which of the three would have bombed Libya? Which of the three favor increasing overall military expenditures at the expense of domestic govt spending? Which of the three would have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? Just to be clear, there ARE differences, but the similarities are undeniable.
Uh, no.
Ron Paul’s foreign policy is to bunker up and let the rest of the world go fuck itself. That has nothing to do with liberal anti-war foreign policy.
uh, no.
We believe bin Laden when he takes credit for an attack on the West, & we believe him when he warns us of an impending attack. But we refuse to listen to his explanations of why he & his allies are at war with us.
Bin Laden’s claims are straightforward The US defiles Islam with military bases on holy land in Saudi Arabia, its initiation of war against Iraq, and its dollars and weapons being used against the Palestinians as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israel’s occupation expands. There will be no peace for the next 50 years or longer if we refuse to believe why those who are attacking are doing it.
To dismiss terrorism as the result of Muslims hating us because we’re free is one of the greatest foreign-policy frauds ever perpetuated. Because the media and government have restated it so many times, the majority now accept it at face value. And the administration gets the political cover it needs to pursue a holy war for democracy against the infidels who hate us for our goodness.
So yeah, I’m glad someone is saying these things. And I kind of think our foreign policy right now consists of “let the rest of the world go fuck itself”. And no, I don’t think our current foreign policy represents America’s innocence lost. I am aware there was never any innocence.
“And I kind of think our foreign policy right now consists of “let the rest of the world go fuck itself”.
Right on.
Hey Nostradamus, why don’t you get in touch with reality and stop projecting. In tonight’s debate, RP invoked the golden rule re foreign policy, not narrow self interest. Is that a bunkered-up, neanderthal idea or what?
Oh for Christ’s sake. It’s really sad when an intelligent guy is so consumed by his own tribalism that he constructs straw men out of someone else’s thoughts. How did we get from “wow this is an affecting post about the human costs of our policies and why we should talk about them more, maybe Paul being in could stimulate that talk” to “hey dumbass here are the 97 reasons why Paul wouldn’t be any better nyah nyah nyah?” Why some people willfully misunderstand a basic point (vote for Paul, don’t vote for Paul, but at least he brings some important stuff up) is pretty unfathomable, unless it comes from some really defensive place of Our Team hoo-ra-ry. Whatever.
Because the notion that we need Ron Paul to “stimulate that talk” is absurd on its face.
As if Democrats, liberals, and the left in general haven’t been involved in an intra-mural debate over foreign policy for the past three years.
This is the most absurd comment of all.
We have been involved in no such thing.
Right, sure. It’s been one big mutual admiration society on the left over issues like Iraq withdrawal, the Af-Pak War, Libya, NDAA.
The only thing more prominent than the silence has been the complete lack of dissension.
“Intra-mural” is the problem.
Talking to ourselves is pointless.
Having the issue raised by people who will actually be heard by the general public is very useful.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I think your argument here is a much better one than Greenwald’s “holding a mirror up to progressives” claims.
The general public isn’t going listen to Ron Paul. The general public think he’s a kook.
Where he’s useful is in talking to right-wing wackos. Right-wing wackos (of a certain sort) respect Ron Paul.
Joe perhaps uniquely has the inside track on what the general public thinks
But Ron Paul isn’t raising progressive issues. He’s coming to the same conclusion some progressives are by way of extremely right-wing premises. If you don’t call out the means, and instead decide to validate it by rationalizing that “at least he’s talking about ending the war on drugs,” then in effect you’re really validating the right-wingery by which he’s coming to those conclusions.
The drug war claims about Paul are even more ridiculous than the shooting war claims about Paul. At least when it comes to shooting wars Ron Paul’s actually against non-defensive shooting wars, even if the baggage associated with how he gets there means his foreign policy is at least as dangerous as war hawkery. With respect to the war on drugs Paul isn’t even against it at all; he simply wants the federal government out of the way and does not oppose state and local level policies identical to or worse than current federal policies.
And his hypothetical justice department would do absolutely nothing to stop state and local governments from engaging in systemic violations of your rights, either.
The federal civil rights prosecutions in the Rodney King case never happen under President Paul, but Anwar al-Awlaki would still be doing what he did in Yemen.
Yay Ron Paul civil liberties!
This article is why I’ve come to be so disgusted with a liberalism that elides itself with leftism, yet is essentially conservative. It’s filled with nonsense counterfactuals that try to justify the sales of weapons to mass-murdering SOBs by good liberal administrations as well as bad conservative administrations. And it’s all dipped in a pseudo-intellectualism so shallow as to be absolutely laughable — the kind of fake scientificism that can only come from poli-sci departments, the Heritage foundation, or liberal propagandists.
Liberalism is technocratism. It’s LBJ and JFK — technical competence advancing the same goals under a propagandistic shield of compassion. The difference between American Liberalism and Conservativism is not in goal, or strategy, but mere talent.
Just think — the underlying claim here is that the gun seller isn’t responsible, even when the buyer tells him he’s going to murder someone, because it’s not “provable” that the killer wouldn’t have gone down to the next pawn-shop. What a disgusting abdication of morality by sophisticated word games.
To publish this on MLK day is particularly rich. This is why MLK continuously rejected this sort of “liberalism”.
Exactly. Obama is excused for all of the monstrous crimes his administration commits; Ron Paul is excoriated for renouncing said crimes, because he would not stop third parties from committing such crimes.
This is not just juvenile “logic”, it is another in an endless series of straw man arguments. Ron Paul is against military aid to other countries and I don’t know of anything in his philosophy that would prevent legislation outlawing private arms sales to other countries.
De Boer never said that a Ron Paul presidency would end war and slaughter overseas. It clearly wouldn’t, because it’s non-interventionist. But it might(in theory) succeed in ending US military, intelligence and hence tax-payer involvement in such wars. It might (in theory) scale back or otherwise halt the expanding domestic powers of surveillance, due-process free detention and extra-judicial killings. Not small matters.
What people like De Boer and Greenwald are so depressed about is that it is the like of Ron Paul and his supporters who are the most visible exponents of anti-imperialism and (certain forms of) civil liberties these days. Progressives were supposedly big on this issue under Bush. Under Obama, not so much.
A lot of these “in theory” things are highly questionable given Paul’s campaign materials (I quote above) and reasonable assumptions about the pressures and constraints he’d face if President.
(E.g., civil liberties, I’d believe; ending extra-judicial killings…well given his fondness for marque and reprisal, that seems less likely.)
As for the last claim, again, some evidence would be nice. One reason that there haven’t been as many big antiwar protests is that Obama has done nothing comparable to Bush (i.e., start large wars). Saliency is low. There’s a general sense, I’d say, that he’s moseying in the right direction (we are now out of Iraq; Afghanistan is a conundrum; Osama is dead & al Quaeda disrupted). He is, of course, terrible on loads of civil liberties (though decent on enfranchisement).
“As for the last claim, again, some evidence would be nice.”
There was this widespread anger at Bush’s war on terror policies (admittedly this took until the second term to really gain momentum, so maybe it’s just a matter of time). I’d have expected the disapproval with Obama’s record on these to be more vocal. Libya, Yemen, the Afghan surge (he didn’t start it, but he embraced it and escalated it), Gitmo still open – and just look at the statistics on the expansion of the ‘drone war’(especially in Pakistan) under Obama. If he’s better than Bush, a lot of that comes down to his more palatable rhetoric.
But if you do want evidence for my sense of the public mood, there is what Google Trends has to say about the term ‘antiwar’. The main references are to protests and activists. While there has been a general downward trend since the start of 2007, we can see it was up and down (with significant spikes) throughout the Bush administration, and overall lack of interest coupled with a downward trend under Obama. It’s not the most scientific measure, but I’d like to see some evidence to the contradicting my view.
“Saliency is low. There’s a general sense, I’d say, that he’s moseying in the right direction”
Leaving aside the current tensions over Iran (which Obama’s “all options on the table” policy, increased sanctions, and lacklustre pursuit of the promised ‘diplomacy’ is not helping). The direction Obama is moseying in is instead towards heightened military presence in the Asia Pacific, and increased arms sales to allied countries surrounding China. This is what Obama said in his recent speech in Australia, where a new marine base is being opened. Now imagine if China were doing in the east Pacific what the US is doing in the west, and tell me if that’s not the continuation of imperialism.
I see the Australian bases as exactly the opposite. I think their purpose is to allow us to maintain a presence in the Western Pacific while drawing back from the bases on China’s doorstep. I suspect we’ll see drawdowns of the American troop presence in and around Japan and Korea, and their relocation to Australia, in coming years.
I’m sure you do…
lmao!
It’s that very presence in the Western Pacific I was questioning. Furthermore, I like the way you casually sidestepped any consideration of the Australian point of view.
No, it wasn’t: The direction Obama is moseying in is instead towards heightened military presence in the Asia Pacific, and increased arms sales to allied countries surrounding China.
You weren’t just talking about having a presence, but about expanding and increasing one.
For me to have “sidestepped it,” you would have had to bring it up. Otherwise, I’ve “sidestepped” it to exactly the same degree as I’ve “sidestepped” the Pepsi-Coke question.
“You weren’t just talking about having a presence, but about expanding and increasing one.”
OK, my point about a hypothetical Chinese military presence in the East Pacific IS about the US presence in the West Pacific per se, and not about a possible heightened US presence. I was certainly questioning that presence, even if that wasn’t all I was questioning.
Let’s say (and this is highly questionable) that the a new Obama term will see the beginnings of a draw down from S Korea, Japan etc. and the piling-on of bases into Australia. This absolutely does raise the issue of Australia’s interests (or lack thereof) in such a move, regardless of I brought it up in my earlier comments. I have brought up the basic issue of US imperialism, which this falls under even if the Australian government were to acquiese to such a proposal.
First, let me thank you for mobilizing some evidence! Much appreciated.
“As for the last claim, again, some evidence would be nice.”
Can we make the claim more precise? You claimed:
If this is the claim, then it’s pretty specific to progressives. Generalized anger (which I’m not clear is targeted to war on terror generally, rather than Bush specifically).
I’m not a fan of drones (Obama JOKING about drones at the journalist dinner was as awful and tone deaf and nasty as Bush’s search for WMD; horrible; classless; disgusting) but 1) they are low saliency for most of the public (i.e., they don’t involve big troop committments), 2) they seem closer to a targeted war on al Qaeda, and 3) they are much less overall deadly. From 2008 to 2012, the min (according to that page) was 1638 and the max 2580. If we just look at casualties (and not excess mortality), from 2004-2009 (by the war logs) we have: “109,032 deaths broken down into “Civilian” (66,081 deaths), “Host Nation” (15,196 deaths),”Enemy” (23,984 deaths), and “Friendly” (3,771 deaths)”.
Drones are awful, but a pure drone war would be an in aggregate much less destructive thing (assuming it didn’t trigger off something else bad).
A good number of progressives (not me, but see Rob and Berube) were and are for the Afghanistan war. So there wasn’t nearly the unanimity on that part. Anti Iraq war was very different and united lots of people including those who are more generally supportive of intervention.
So, I’d want to tease these out a bit.
Public, democrats in general, or progressives/leftists?
Wouldn’t the US one be more relevant?
http://www.google.com.tw/trends/?q=antiwar&date=all&geo=usa&ctab=0&sort=0&sa=N
It still shows the general trend, but it’s got some oddities that are hard for me to interpret. And I don’t know how to break out progressive opinion.
Ok:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_2001_Afghanistan_War#International_public_opinion
These refute your assertion about the general public. I suppose progressives might be more pro-war than they were, but that’s your burden.
This seems good too: October 2011 56% opposed, August 2011 73% for withdrawel, June 2011 “The majority 58% of Americans oppose their country’s military involvement in Afghanistan, and the overwhelming 79% majority of Americans – four in five – support the announced withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014″, December 2010 60%, June 2010 43% against, January 2010 54% oppose, December 2009 55% oppose, April 2009 46% oppose, July 2008 “68% of Americans think that the U.S. did not make a mistake in sending military forces to Afghanistan, down from 72% in 2004 and 93% in 2002.”
So, well, first, you just are completely wrong about popular opinion (at least in this case). Second, I have to conclude that your trend evidence really is not helpful at all. Third, I suspect that some of the rise is Republicans opposing Obama.
But this is good news for Ron Paul!
You’ve certainly responded in good faith, and ideally I would go and iron out all the things I said before which, as you rightly say, were not precise!
Instead I’ll let that criticism stand (so as to avoid a ‘debate about the debate’) and clarify where I’m coming from in all this. I oppose(d): the war against the Taliban (odious as the are); PATRIOT (odious as terrorists are); the actions in Yemen, Pakistan, Libya; (numerous other things which are mentioned in eg. Greenwald’s columns on a regular basis). So regardless of where the public at large stands, or were the broader ‘left-wing’ public, and why, I’m clearly not alone in my disappointment that there isn’t a presidential contender on the left echoing my opinions on these things. Ron Paul of course is doing wonderful things to (seemingly) discredit the left-wing credentials of anti-imperialism (another source of disappointment).
In the end, though, what brought me to this thread is my first comment about De Boer’s article and what it was not, in fact, trying to argue.
*So regardless of where the public at large stands, or where the broader ‘left-wing’ public stands, and why,
Thanks for the reply.
I actually shared most of your opinions and I suspect more than a bare majority of Greenwald’s (on particular topics, not on metastuff). I likewise wish there were a candidate that more perfectly reflected my views. I’d esp. like a candidate who was relaxed about Iran.
The problem with a lot of other people with a similar cri de coeur is that they make Obama out to be a bigger disappointment on these fronts than he is and tar poeple who don’t share that disappointment as, roughly, partisen hacks. (The new move is to say you can be partisen and not a hack if you just cop to being partisen. That doesn’t help those who are neither blindly partisen on these issues nor hacks.)
I trust that disappointment due to projecting views or powers onto Obama that he does not have (and never did) is easily dismissed. (I.e., Hillary would have achieved so much more!!! I think odds are Hillary would be roughly the same.)
While there are clear points where Obama policies neither overturn or in ways extend Bushesque policies, the broad effect of Obama’s administration seems substantively better (on *net* for civil rights and liberties, and on foreign policy at least in terms of people killed). There are some points where it seems pretty evident that he would have done better if not constrained. Some of those constraints are clearly extrinsic, some of them are probably “in their head” (i.e., temperamental or stemming from errors). And some reflect positions I vehemently disagree with.
This all points to a “more democratic rule” and “crush the republicans” position with a healthy dose of “pressure from the left”. None of it, afaict, requires lauding Paul in any way. It may be compatible with lauding Paul (though I think it’s not really, but we can discuss the merits of that).
Couldn’t agree more about the war-talk on Iran. I certainly don’t think Obama is (or has ever been) the worst of the various candidates on offer (left and right) – quite the opposite in many respects. It was also patently clear that people expected things from him which he was never going to deliver. I don’t count myself among these – my disappointment is about the overall standard of the national debate.
Neither would I go so far as to “laud Paul”. However, I do think this is because I understand (or think I understand) the destructive ramifications of his political philosophy as a whole better than a lot of people who are, naively, lauding Paul. And it is often the case that people who praise Paul do so with reference to ideas that do resonate with me – often through clumsy use of buzzwords like ‘blowback’, ‘imperial overstretch’ etc… all of which pertain to quite legitimate ideas which Paul has in fact adopted from non-libertarian sources. So in this respect he is partly sucking up support for reasonably held positions and channeling it into his own agenda. Part of me is actually glad that these ideas are political traction (even if for the wrong reasons). Still another part of me does not want to actually discourage the (re)discovery of anti-imperialism among dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, if only as a bulwark against repulsive neoconservative theories of “benign hegemony” etc. etc. This gladness about some(on the one hand) is naturally embedded in a great mass of bitter resignation, and this unwillingness to discourage others (on the other) is reflects a calculated choice to pick my fights elsewhere. Either way this falls short of praising Ron Paul in part or otherwise. At best, the Paul phenomenon has provided the occasion for progressives to re-examine and debate both core principles and strategy. As for Greenwald, De Boer and others, my understanding is that their positions (on this matter) are more or less what I have tried to convey above (however emotively!) As you say it was not necessary (in fact is is unfortunate) that Paul and his supporters should the inspiration for this.
*that these ideas are gaining political traction
I’m going to re-askwhat I see as the central question (put to R Johnston above but left unanswered) for all of you that cannot tell the difference between supporting a candidate and using a candidate to illustrate a point (a complex distinction, I know):
If we’re not even allowed to say to the dems “WTF is going on that RON FUCKING PAUL is right on these issues and you’re not” (which, for some reason you et al. cannot parse from SUPPORT for Paul, but whatever) then what should we do to stop the mass slaughter in our names and erosion of our civil rights that both parties oversee w/o debate?
It’s not a rhetorical Q. I want an answer.
If you want to stop it, and genuinely have the courage of your conviction, you model your life on the Berrigans, and you accept that you will spend your life in and out of prison.
If you accept that you lack those levels of heroism, then you choose to work within the existing power structure without threatening it, which means accepting the lesser evil. If you are not willing to go to jail, then you are not actually threatening power. And while spouting off on the internet has its place, don’t delude yourself that you are changing things by doing so.
And choosing the latter path does not preclude anger that a bigoted kook like Paul gets attention, while nobody remembers the Berrigans, who really were fucking heroic.
What nonsense. “Spend your life in jail” is such a nonsense, non-specific, avoid-the-issue answer.
And who’s talking about being outside the current power structure?
Who said spouting off on the internet is changing things? (aren’t you spouting off on the internet as well??)
Are you incapable of understanding the most basic of questions? Is every response you give some non-sequitor, straw man screed?
I’d invite you to address what I actually asked, not make up my argument for me. I’m good there, thanks.
You asked a question, I gave what I believe is an honest answer. If you want to stop militarism, do so. If you want to believe that playing Internet Tough Guy about Ron Paul will accomplish something, I’m not obligated to agree.
But unless you agree with brs you’re not answering his question.
HA!!! From the guy who refused to answer this very Q in the first place above, and no here.
How about? Enough of the horsheshit – what should we do?
Enough of the horsheshit – what should we do?
Asked and fucking answered.
Honest id beside the point. YOu didn’t address the points logically and ascribed points to me I never made. How you felt is irrelavent.
How you felt is irrelavent.
I never discussed how I felt. You asked how to stop the US military. You asked what could be done. I answered, giving two examples. There is no possible fucking way that you can credibly claim that I failed to answer your question. And yet you persist in whining about my answer. I gave an example of two people who lived lives of far more integrity than either of us will ever manage. But that hurts your feelings, because right now being purer than the Democrats feels so very very pure, without the need to actually do anything.
You did not answer my question in any way. I asked what progressives should do about the fact that our interests are not being represented by either party (which is what the Ron Paul talk is menat to illustrate) and you called me a coward. WTF is that?
YOu drone on about hurt feelings, going to jail, internet tough guys (how this doesn’t apply to you is beyond me since you’re commenting as well), but you never answered my question.
I asked what progressives should do about the fact that our interests are not being represented by either party
Your actual question, that I answered, using small words and great patience: what should we do to stop the mass slaughter in our names
Now, I realize that I did not answer the other question, the one that was in your head, the one that you did not ask. But I did, in fact, answer what one could do if one wants to try and stop the killing done in our names. And I really don’t give a shit if you don’t like the answer, but stop pretending people have refused to answer the question that you actually asked.
Hey brs – read the reply – he was right – follow the link to the Berrigans. You can obviously talk the talk but can you walk the walk?
So we’ve got biggoted kook Ron Paul, and war-monger Obama. YAY
Why do you need to invoke Ron Paul to make your point?
Do you imagine that having Ron Paul agree with you makes you right?
Do you imagine that citing Ron Paul will be a good way to convince liberals who disagree with you?
My answer to “WTF is going on that RON FUCKING PAUL is right on these issues and you’re not” is, check your premises. Why are you adopting the policy prescriptions of a racist lunatic?
Seriously, what value-added does the invocation of Ron Paul bring to an intra-mural debate among progressives? Why would you want to point out that he’s on your side?
Once again, Ron Paul is not even remotely right on these issues. He’s horribly, horribly wrong. His foreign policy would result in more suffering and more dead than any of the prevalent forms of militarism. “Let the world burn” and “kill off the federal government so that states can lynch darkies with impunity” is not even an attempt at an approach to reducing suffering in the world.
Ron Paul’s anti-war because he believes that war is a inefficient method of inducing suffering. Simply letting international institutions fall apart and watching as the world goes up in flames results in fewer dollars out of the U.S. taxpayer pocket and has the side benefit of being consistent with a weak federal government that allows the states to run amok.
This is just stupidly wrong on all levels.
Well that settles that then.
Yeah, I’m certainly convinced now.
How abrogating all treaties and cutting off all association with all international organizations–that’s Ron Paul’s foreign policy, like it or not–is supposed to not result in a whole lot of really, really dead people is a bit of a mystery, and Pauls desire to kneecap the federal government while placing essentially no restrictions on state and local level tyrannies is phenomenally well established.
The last sentence seems especially important to me, and it’s why I have zero patience for the idea that civil libertarians should sympathize with Ron Paul. To make that argument you literally have to ignore the entirety of American history and assume that local governments will be more respectful of your rights in the absence of an active federal government.
Of course, the people making those arguments also tend to come from “the right kind of people,” if you catch my drift.
Start a mass movement based on anti-imperialism.
Yep, so-called progressives can’t be counted on to have consistent values in this regard.
Progressives by and large are organized around other issues than foreign policy. If you want some political victories on that issue, go out and organize. Stop waiting for someone to come along and do it for you.
In the meantime, make sure you demonize the most vocal opponent of American imperialism and explain to everyone that his opposition is rooted in evil.
Paul does have a mass movement behind him. It just happens to be based on white supremacy, not anti-imperialism.
Bullshit, Hogan.
Quoting myself from down thread:
Here’s another link.
Nothing you have said changes the fact that Paul is a fucking white supremacist. Let’s look at that “rational understanding of other nations”:
Alright, lets see what the white supremicist said about more current pressing matters, say domestic treatment of Muslims and Park 51:
Can you name a politician (who isn’t a white supremicist) who is gonna make the argument publicly that blaming Islam for 9/11 is like blaming Christianity for US wars of occupation?
It’s debatable whether Paul is right on all of these issues (and even more debatable as to what he would do in office). But let’s put that aside.
Go ahead and say to “the dems” “WTF is going on that RON FUCKING PAUL is right on these issues and you’re not”. Expect push back on all the things Paul is horribly horribly wrong about. Expect to be asked whether you support Paul or these horrible positions.
Don’t expect it to do much to change any Democratic position or action. Why would it?
What else would you expect?
Isn’t the first order arguments for the issues sufficient? I mean, what luster does Paul add?
Again, this is like saying to someone you want to convince to go vegetarian, “You know, EVEN HITLER was vegetarian! You’re to the right of HITLER on some topic!!! I don’t support Hilter, but, by gum, at least he was vegetarian!” (To be clear, I’m not comparing Paul to Hitler, I’m pointing out a structural aspect of the argument.)
If there were the tiniest shred of evidence that using the Paul candidacy in whatever way (supporting it, cheering it on, using it to shame, ratfucking, whatever), then you’d have a case. We could evaluate the case and in particular weight the downsides. But right now there’s, afaict, no upside and plenty of possible downside.
First off, Ron Paul is not simply preaching “let the World burn” isolationism. He is constantly referencing “blowback” and other foreign policies ideas that are rooted in sympathy and rational understanding of other nations. His campaign comes out with stuff like this:
LINK
Secondly, Ron Paul’s rhetoric and philosophy is heavy on the idea that we cannot separate our good foreign policy from our bad. When Ron Paul preaches his sort of “isolationism”, it has to be understood that he doesn’t believe we can maintain a governmental structure that can be a powerful source of freedom and good without creating a governmental structure that can be a powerful force of oppression and death.
This latter point has been extremely resonant with those idealistic progressives who bought into Obama’s brand, rather than his concrete foreign policy statements.
In other words, the belief that the United States can never be a force for good on the international stage – that everything we touch turns to shit, so there isn’t really any purpose in looking hard at different military and foreign policy efforts in order to draw conclusions about them individually – is the foreign-policy version of the libertarian view of government that progressives criticize so much when the subject is industrial regulation, poverty-reduction programs, or smart-growth planning.
Assuming this is a strawman for the argument that the dangers and costs of government power tend to be greater than its benefits, yes.
Unsurprisingly, many of the more radical liberal types who have been extremely disappointed with Obama have shifted towards the libertarian side of the argument.
1. “Straw man” is not actually defined as “accurately restating an argument in a manner I don’t find sufficiently flattering.”
2. I, too, find it unsurprising that “many of the more radical liberal types who have been extremely disappointed with Obama” would embrace a libertarian argument. I’ve found that such people are quite comfortable at embracing and then casting aside principles and beliefs based on what is momentarily convenient for pushing an anti-war line. Just look at how quickly the Libyan Arab Spring movement went from an inspiring, popular liberation to a mob of skeery al Qaeda Mooslems, in they eyes of people who’d spent years applauding popular, indigenous uprisings against tyrants, and denouncing anyone who expressed concern about al Qaeda.
Big government isn’t a principle, its a method. To say that they are abandoning principle is unfair.
This also extends to economic realms, along the lines Stoller from Naked Capitalism explained.
Opposition to the right’s line about Big Government is a principle for progressives.
Perhaps it would be better, though, for me to say that they are taking up a principle, and one that they had heretofore held in contempt, because they find it momentarily convenient.
I don’t believe that they are flipping beliefs and ideals as irresponsibly as you make it out to be.
Remember that Paul’s strongest support comes from the 30-and-under demographic. These are people who, like me, really became politcally aware during the Bush Jr. presidency. These are people who’s political opinions are largely defined around Bush’s warmaking and expansion of executive privileve/power and the very vocal protest to it.
They are also people who have grown up in a time where some of the most pressing social issues, the War on Drugs, gay rights, and immigration to name a few, represent issues where the Federal government lags and hinders progress.
In the end, Obama branded himself with “Hope” and “Change”. He represented a government that was supposed to do right, and for much of the youth, he represents the only opposition candidate that they had thrown their support behind. When, after eight years of outrage, your candidate for change and responsible government turns out to be very underwhelming, it is not merely a matter of convenience for one to start doubting the government.
The evidence I’ve thus far found belies your assertion, to wit, Paul strongest supporters care about his economics most. AFAICT. Contrary evidence welcomed.
Paul is a bit of a package deal. Yes, his core cares about his economics, but every republican candidate has come out and praised Ron Paul on that front. What differentiates Ron Paul is foreign policy. But, no, I don’t think his core cares more about his foreign policy than they do about his economics.
With that said, that comment was offered in reference to those progressive/liberal types who are supportive of Ron Paul.
Oh, so you meant “strongest supporters among liberals” rather than “strongest supporters, i.e., liberals”?
Also, I don’t think that foreign policy is all that differentiates Paul, even for liberals, but at this point I’ve no idea what point you were trying to make.
Also, I note:
At least two of your examples (gay rights and immigration) are clearly quite poor for your point. FWIW.
The point that I was trying to make is that Paul’s popularity right now is a reaction to the Bush years and Obama’s inability to separate himself from that legacy in some minds.
For many under 30 (where Paul finds his highest level of support) their only experience with presidents, at least in their minds, amounts to 8 years of the worst ever, and three more that is only marginally better at best.
Joe makes it out as if the libertarian shift has just been one of convenience for the anti-war movement. I don’t agree.
And the everything we touch turns to shit line implies that the problem is solely with results, when the problem also lies very much with the system by which decisions are made.
I didn’t say that was the sum total of the libertarian vision.
But it’s the point of commonality.
YOu guys need to forget about Ron Paul. It’s not about him – he’s being used as an ILLUSTRATION…
Why are Obama and the Democratic party not against the NDAA and drone strikes of children? WHY?
And why should I vote for Obama when he’s slightly better than Bush on civil liberties and foreign policy?
To the CORE point why would Obama and the Dems take the risk to changing these things if WE’RE GOING OT VOTE FOR THEM ANYWAY!
What does the fact that you need to point this out – that you keep being frustrated by how the discussion goes off-track and becomes about Ron Paul – indicate to you about the utility of him as an “illustration?”
As I understand it, the point of the Ron-Paul fluffing is to get a certain set of liberals and progressives to understand and appreciate issues related to war and civil liberties, and the Obama administration’s stance on these issues, better than they currently do.
So, how’s that going? These Paul-curious articles and arguments have been burning up the liberal blogosphere for a couple of weeks nows. Mission Accomplished?
Shorter me: You tell us we need to forget about Ron Paul.
Who keeps bringing him up?
So the penalty for saying “even Ron Paul has this right, what’s going on?” is a straw man argument? Nice. Real logical.
IOW: “I’ll only acknowledge the dead kids from Oabama’s drone attacks if you stop talking about Ron Paul”.
Gottcha.
I don’t even know what you’re claiming is a straw man argument. I didn’t even state an argument.
You’re throwing out big words you’ve seen other people use, because you can’t answer the question.
And, for the record, this is all BS:
People HAVE been bringing up Oabam’s illegal wars, suspension of HAbeas etc. to which progressives went “YAWN…”
So again, what’s left? Since progs don’t seemt ot give a shit, at least we can sort of bring up the point by being polemical.
In what parallel universe do you live, where progressives as a whole are ignoring these issues? Because here in this one, they are the subject of constant debate, and have been for years. Half the diaries on the DKos Rec List revolve around them.
So now I’m going to ask again: how’s that working out for you? This little burst of Ron Paul fandom – how’s it going? Lemme answer that question for you: it’s “going” in such a way that you found yourself frustrated and shouting at people to stop talking about Ron Paul.
Hey look, two assumptions from stupid speak.
When it comes to assumptions, jeebus, who exactly is assuming here? That Obama’s “support” is not an issue of such a cruel regime? Or that Paul’s non-support of such a country would be a bad thing if it failed to support such genocide?
Between both bloggers there is an inherently, utterly stupid argument going on here. It comes down to which crime boss do you want for US president, failing utter to see that, indeed MOST Americans will not pick anyone these ugly guys running for Preznut. The 1%’s pick, the label cult, which is all that is left running politics these days, both empty and delusional. Just look at the DAMN polls would you please. If the Ron Paul campaign says anything, it is that now the time is actually far past being ripe for third parties, but of course the 1 % holds all the election money, that, and that there are two defunct label cults worried over labels for president. Obama was Bush’s third term. Labels are meaningless and most Americans know this except, of course for the cult label clubs.
There are two tea parties now, one supposedly on the right, the other supposedly on left, made up of extremely stupid people.
Obama was Bush’s third term
Right. Bush’s third term would have involved the most important new domestic program in several decades, the end of the war in Iraq, the revitalization of the civil rights division of the DOJ, the repeal of DADT, the Ledbetter Act he already threatened to veto, Kagan and Sotomayor on the Supreme Court, a new consumer protection board, etc. etc. Sure.
1. I assume you are talking about Obamacare, which is a joke, and which should truthfully be called Pelosi-care because Obama had nothing to do with it.
2. Obama didn’t end the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq ended at the time previously negotiated by Bush. Obama tried in vain to extend the occupation.
3. Obama has kept Guantanamo open and actually made the situation worse by institutionalizing the procedures.
4. Obama just signed the National Defense Authorization Act which enables him and future Presidents the ability to indefinitely detain US Citizens.
5. Obama has authorized a vast escalation of the worldwide drone network and has used it to kill American citizens without any due process (Bush is probably thinking, Good Job Obamy)
I could go on, but really, what’s the point?
Obama is the third term Bush. He acts like he is forced to do things that he wanted to do all along. He is a fraud and a Republican.
1. If you think the ACA would have passed with Bush or McCain in the White House, you’re insane. If you think it’s a “joke,” you’re wrong.
2.Just to be clear, you’re arguing that Bush was seriously committed to getting out of Iraq, and would not have found a way around an unenforceable deadline negotiated with a quasi-American puppet regime. Right.
3. You do know why Gitmo is still open, right? Well, actually, you probably don’t.
And, of course, you don’t care about civil rights or federal regulatory enforcement or the federal courts because who gives a shit about such trivialities? I could go on, but what’s the point…
Yes, Obama supporters overstate both his role in passing the ACA and the likely effectiveness of having passed the ACA. Yes, Obama had little to do with ending the war in Iraq and is given too much credit for doing so by his supporters, although his reflexive naysayers also overlook the fact that Obama could have pressed considerably harder for various ways of extending the war in Iraq.
What about “the revitalization of the civil rights division of the DOJ, the repeal of DADT, the Ledbetter Act [Bush] already threatened to veto, Kagan and Sotomayor on the Supreme Court, a new consumer protection board, etc. etc.”
Obama is, in some aspects, as bad or worse than Bush. On state secrets, in particular, he’s taken Bush’s idiocy to new and exciting levels. But that doesn’t make Obama term three of Bush. Term three of Bush would involve 15% unemployment, invasion of Iran, the total destruction of labor and consumer rights, and a Supreme Court that would have Scalia as the median vote rather than Kennedy. Saying that Obama is just the same as Bush is a lie designed to elect radical right wing lunatics by suppressing the vote for moderate conservatives like Obama.
If you really want better Democrats, don’t transparently lie about how bad the current crop is. They’re bad, but they’re not Republicans.
Some truth is here, but I vouch it will take a democrat (like Obama) to do damage to Social Security and Medicare. We’ve already seen proof of that.
And what damage to Social Security and Medicare would that be?
Hey look, two assumptions from stupid speak.
When it comes to assumptions, jeebus, who exactly is assuming here? That Obama’s “support” is not an issue of such a cruel regime? Or that Paul’s non-support of such a country would be a bad thing if it failed to support such genocide?
Between both bloggers there is an inherently, utterly stupid argument going on here. It comes down to which crime boss do you want for US president, failing, completely to see that, indeed MOST Americans will not pick anyone these ugly men now running for Preznut. The 1%’s pick, the label cult, which is all that is left running politics these days, both empty and delusional. Just look at the DAMN polls would you please. If the Ron Paul campaign says anything, it is that the time is actually far past being ripe for third parties, but of course the 1 % holds all the election money, that, and these two defunct label cults worried over labels for president. Obama was Bush’s third term. Labels are meaningless and most Americans know this except, of course, for the cult label clubs.
There are two tea parties now, one supposedly on the right, the other supposedly on left, made up of extremely stupid people. Nice indeed that the polls show me that most Americans know that labels are meaningless.
That Obama’s “support” is not an issue of such a cruel regime?
Do you realize that the Suharto had been out of power for almost a decade when Obama took office?
“What animates progressive rejection/derision of Sanders and Kucinich stems from the belief that their policy proposals, however sensible, are too far to the left to win”
I believe illuminating this obviously self-defeating mindset was the main point Freddie De Boer was trying to make with his post. This is the kind of thinking that has resulted in clinging to the Republican Obama with a maniacal death grip.
Exactly “Obama No Matter What 2012″.
That should be the campaign slogan of these people who are more incensed about comparisons to Ron Paul than our death squads & NDAA.
I’m with you there brs
Obama loyalists are in parallel in hypocrisy, with the amount of partisan bantering I’ve just read here. This discussion is so steeped in fallacies, double-standards, and distorting…it’s pathetic.
Exactly.
If I simply pointed out that Bill Buckley was to the left of the modern dem part on many issues, they’d ignore the point that we need to push the dems in the right direction and accuse me of trying to reanimate Buckley for a run at the White House.
They’re almost as bad as the Bush supporters of 2004….
Malaclypse says:
January 17, 2012 at 2:04 pm
What tedious nonsense. You knew exactly what I was asking. Like the context that I asked it in didn’t matter. IMagine playing dumb anonymously instead of having a real conversation.
And still, unanswered by you, R Johnston and pretty much everyone else.
So the lesson? Just vote for Obama and don’t as any pesky fucking questions, or make any annoying comparisons. Just do what you’re told.
I like it:
“Obama No Matter What 2012″
You knew exactly what I was asking.
Yes. You asked the following: what should we do to stop the mass slaughter in our names
But you are right in one regard: this is beyond tedious.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199910–02.htm
I was thinking of Chomsky myself. As far as I know, 100% of the time in the post WWII world, when the United States militarily involved itself in foreign affairs it was for imperialistic reasons. The idea of humanitarian intervention is nice in theory, but has never actually happened. The non-interventionist foreign policy of Paul is a huge step up from every modern president in recent memory, including Obama.
Here are two assumptions embedded in this post:
1. The Indonesian government wouldn’t or couldn’t have carried out serial pogroms and violent state-building exercises without the support of the United States.
2. A President Paul, by withholding support and instigation, would have prevented these bad things from happening.
Where? Those 2 assumptions sprang straight out of your imagination. Very poor post.
Since almost all foreign aid is really a bribe to the powers that be, and they in turn use whatever portion their paranoia tells them is necessary for the military, the United States did play a role in Indonesia. Congress could have forbid foreign aid to an inhumane and genocidal regime. In fact, knowingly providing material support to nations that have committed crimes against humanity, cannot avoid responsibility with the statement, “We do not get involved in the internal politics of foreign sovereign nations.” Funding is involvement.
What would lead anyone to believe that Ron Paul or Willard Romney has a better chance of causing change than former Presidents, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama? There is an agenda that pushes straight through modern presidents, almost as if they weren’t there at all.
If, contrary to fact, Paul became president, I’m sure that the cry of BETRAYER!! would follow anon.
For example, he already has said that his basic policy goals vis-a-vis Iran are the same as everyone else’s (to a first approximation, no nukes, everything’s ultimately on the table). If there were an incident in the straits of Hormuz in which US servicefolk were killed, it would be consistent with his principles articulated to attack Iran.
He may well not have intervened in Libya, but that wouldn’t have prevented, AFAICT, intervention in Libya (e.g., UK, France) and Libya had a better case than many for intervention.
This is a very silly post.
Freddie was not talking about Paul the person for the bulk of the post, he was making an argument similar to the one you’ll find here: http://coreyrobin.com/2012/01/03/ron-paul-has-two-problems-one-is-his-the-other-is-ours/
I.e. there is not an anti-war left worth mentioning, because of similar techniques you now see being applied to a right-winger bringing attention to the horrors of American foreign policy as it stands.
Move the discussion away from the bodies, and towards the person talking about them. Much like you do in this very post!
Hogwash.
This is a typical DeBoer post:
Step 1: Create a poorly written, reductive essay about an insanely complex topic with impractical or indefensible positions completely divorced from policy.
Step 2: Cry “Woe is me!” both before and after critics begin to tell you how terrible your positions are and how limited they are in their applicability to real policy decisions.
Step 3: Take your ball home in smug certainty that your critics have just engaged in a series of ad hominems without engaging you on the ‘substance’ of your arguments.
Additionally, even if we are to resort to counter-factuals (one of the basest approaches to history), you’re in somewhat shaky territory saying “It would have happened anyway”.
Like Freddie says, 500,000 is an estimate on the low side. That there were that many leftists to kill indicates the divided nature of Indonesia prior to the genocide (even assuming a large portion harboured no such sentiments).
Indonesia had a rich revolutionary tradition, and it’s quite likely that American support within this context was related to not wanting to see that side take power. Why do you think the CIA were even involved? More broadly, American involvement was both financial and political, but the two aren’t really discrete.
In that way seeing Suharto as some random agent America should have exerted influence over has it backwards: a substantial part of the reason he was in power is as an American anti-communist client.
Hence the CIA’s response to him starting to kill the left was to hand over a list of targets. They helped him in, then they guided his purges.
Counter-factuals are an inherent part of your point, it seems.
Arguing anti-imperialism 40 years hence from what was then viewed as a national security problem inflaming an entire hemisphere looks pretty fraught with counter-factuals, from where I stand.