<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">"</font>Oh, he's very
popular Ed. <br>
<br>
The sportos, <br>
the motorheads,<br>
geeks, sluts, <br>
bloods, wastoids, <br>
dweebies, dickheads, ...<br>
...they all adore him. <br>
<br>
They think he's a righteous dude."<br>
<br>
<p id="BlogTitle">Ralph Nader’s Grand Alliance</p>
<h4 style="font-weight: normal;"><em>Progressives find hope—in Ron Paul.</em></h4>
<a
href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/ralph-naders-grand-alliance/"><strong
dir="ltr">http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/ralph-naders-grand-alliance/</strong></a><br>
<br>
<br>
<div><strong>By Michael Tracey</strong> | September 28, 2011</div>
<p>It’s no secret that Ralph Nader has held the Democratic Party
establishment in low regard for decades now: the marginally more
palatable alternative in an ugly duopoly, he claims, is still quite
ugly. But lately Nader’s disdain has reached a new high. “It’s gotten
so bad,” he tells me, “that you can actually say a Republican
president—with a Democratic Senate—would produce less bad results than
the present situation. That’s how bollixed stuff has gone.”</p>
<p>Not that he was ever particularly<strong> </strong>optimistic about
the Obama administration, especially its potential to make headway on
curtailing corporate welfare, now Nader’s signature policy objective.
But in that, as with so many aspects of Obama’s presidency, the
adjectives “disappointing” or “inadequate” don’t even begin to capture
the depths of progressive disillusionment. Looking ahead to the 2012
presidential race, one might assume that Nader has little to be
cheerful about.</p>
<p>Yet he says there is one candidate who sticks out—who even gives him
hope: Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.</p>
<p>That might sound counterintuitive. Nader, of course, is known as a
stalwart of the independent left, having first gained notoriety for his
1960s campaign to impose greater regulatory requirements on
automakers—a policy act that would seem to contravene the libertarian
understanding of justified governmental power. So I had to ask: how
could he profess hope in Ron Paul, who almost certainly would have
opposed the very regulations on which Nader built his career?</p>
<p>“Look at the latitude,” Nader says, referring to the potential for
cooperation between libertarians and the left. “Military budget,
foreign wars, empire, Patriot Act, corporate welfare—for starters. When
you add those all up, that’s a foundational convergence. Progressives
should do so good.”</p>
<p>I thought I’d bring up the subject of Ron Paul with Nader after
seeing the two jointly interviewed on Fox Business Channel in January.
Nader had caught me off guard when he identified an emergent
left-libertarian alliance as “today’s most exciting new political
dynamic.” It was easy to foresee objections that the left might raise:
if progressives are in favor of expanding the welfare state, how well
can they really get along with folks who go around quoting the likes of
Hayek and Rothbard?</p>
<p>“That’s strategic sabotage,” Nader responds, sharply. “It’s an
intellectual indulgence. … If they’re on your side, and you don’t
compromise your positions, what do you care who they quote? Franklin
Delano Roosevelt sided with Stalin against Hitler. Not to draw that
analogy, I’m just saying—why did he side with Stalin? Because Stalin
went along with everything FDR wanted.”</p>
<p>There may be an insurmountable impasse between the camps on
social-safety-net spending. “But,” Nader says, “you could get together
on corporate entitlements, subsidies, handouts, giveaways, bailouts.
Ron Paul is dead set against all that. So are a lot of
libertarian-conservatives. In fact, it’s almost a mark of being a
libertarian-conservative—in contrast to being a
corporatist-conservative.”</p>
<p>“Do you read all these right-wing theoreticians?” he goes on.
“Almost every one of them warned about excessive corporate
concentration. Hayek did, [Frank] Meyer did, even Adam Smith did in his
own way.” He leaves the mechanics of a left-libertarian political
coalition to be sussed out later.</p>
<p>If the issues around which progressives and libertarians can
coalesce, I ask Nader, are the most intractable, deeply entrenched
problems, is he proposing that such a coalition would be more tenable
than the one currently cobbling together the Democratic Party, with its
many Blue Dogs and neoliberals?</p>
<p>“Exactly,” Nader says. “Libertarians like Ron Paul are on our side
on civil liberties. They’re on our side against the military-industrial
complex. They’re on our side against Wall Street. They’re on our side
for investor rights. That’s a foundational convergence,” he exhorts.
“It’s not just itty-bitty stuff.”</p>
<p>Nader cites opposition to “the self-defeating, boomeranging drug
war” as another source of common ground, in the face of both parties’
indifference—with the scant exceptions of a few House Democrats who
favor decriminalizing marijuana—to drug prohibition’s many ills. Ron
Paul’s rejection of the very notion that personal drug use should be a
criminal offense is something that has resonated with younger
supporters, often catalyzing their first moment of political
consciousness.</p>
<p>“This is one place where conservatives and liberals can get
together,” Paul tells me. “Because it’s sort of a nullification
approach—a states’ rights approach.” California attempted to legalize
marijuana outright via ballot initiative “because they have millions
and millions of people who are using it, yet the federal government’s
position—Obama’s position—is still to go after people even if it’s
being used for medicinal reasons, and putting sick people in jail.”</p>
<p>“But of course,” Paul goes on, “the conservatives are very weak on
states’ rights when it comes to marijuana, which I find rather ironic.
Why don’t they just stick to principle and say, ‘Well, we’re for
states’ rights. Let the states do this.’ But no, they come down hard
and say, ‘We need a federal law’.” He sounds exasperated. “I think both
sides should work harder at being consistent.”</p>
<p>Some critics allege that Paul himself has proven inconsistent on
states’ rights when it comes to the Defense of Marriage Act, which
created federal criteria for the recognition of marital unions.
Campaign literature distributed by the Paul campaign, under the header
“Barack Obama’s Assault on Marriage,” asserts that the administration
has shown “a profound lack of respect for the Constitution and the Rule
of Law” by no longer defending one of DOMA’s provisions in federal
court. “As President,” the literature reads, “Dr. Paul would enforce
the Defense of Marriage Act, stopping Big Government in Washington,
D.C. from forcing its definition of marriage on the states.”</p>
<p>The flyer’s aggressive tone suggests it may have been written with
an eye towards appealing to Evangelical voters. In our interview, Paul
offers a nuanced position. He wasn’t in Congress in 1996 when DOMA was
approved, but says he “probably” would have voted for it. “Looking
back,” Paul tells me, “I believed it protected the states over the
federal government’s dictates.”</p>
<p>How sharp is the divide on social issues between progressives and
Paul’s more conservative supporters? I ask for his opinion on the
central role religion has seemingly taken in the Republican
presidential contest, something that has distressed progressives and
libertarians alike. Texas Governor Rick Perry preceded the announcement
of his bid with a massive Evangelical prayer rally in Houston, just
miles from Paul’s congressional district.</p>
<p>“It certainly is his judgment call,” Paul says of Perry’s decision
to convene a stadium-sized worship event. “There’s nothing that says he
should not do it. But whether it’s the wisest thing to do? For me, I
would consider it unwise.”</p>
<p>Paul is typically demure about his own belief in
Christianity—willing to speak about it when prompted, but never
ostentatious. “It might be the way I was raised. We weren’t ever taught
to carry religion on our sleeves.” He references New Testament
admonitions against going “out on the sidewalk” to “make a grandstand.”
“You’re supposed to go quietly into your closet to pray,” Paul says,
“and not be demonstrating in any particular way. So I think I have
followed that more than others.”</p>
<p>I ask him at what point journalists should be entitled to press
candidates on their personal doctrinal views. Ordinarily, Paul says,
it’s inappropriate. “But if you start using religion precisely to gain
political advantage,” he adds, “then I think it’s much fairer to ask
those questions.”</p>
<p><img class="alignright" title="oct11issuethumb"
src="cid:part1.07050702.01040803@pigs.ag" alt="" width="184"
height="280">Nader takes a grim view of Perry, who polls indicate is
the Republican frontrunner. “It’s easy to say he may self-destruct, but
he’s starting to get some of that Reagan teflon. The Republican Party
is going to self-destruct with Perry. I don’t think he’s like Reagan.
He’s too cruel and vicious.”</p>
<p>There are nascent movements underway to bring disaffected
progressives into Ron Paul’s fold. A new organization called Blue
Republican, advertised on the Huffington Post and elsewhere, urges
Democrats to pledge their support for Paul. While Nader isn’t willing
to endorse Paul’s candidacy at this point, during our interview his
praise grew increasingly effusive. “Ron Paul has always been
anti-corporate, anti-Federal Reserve, anti-big banks, anti-bailouts,”
Nader says. “I mean, they view him in the same way they view me on a
lot of these issues. Did you see the latest poll? He’s like two points
behind Obama.”</p>
<p>“That’s where the hope comes from,” Nader continues. “Because the
left will reach out. I mean, they’re already reaching out. They want as
many allies as possible. It’s the right-wing that is being split, and
that’s historically been the case—the corporatists make sure authentic
conservatives are vectored in other directions. They’re vectored on the
social religious issues, abortion, more recently on raising the debt
limit. ‘Keep going after the libs,’ the corporatists say. Because
otherwise, authentic conservatives may develop a cooperative effort
with the ‘libs’ on other issues, which are our issues,” he concludes.
“The big issues.”</p>
<br>
</body>
</html>