[Peace-discuss] Ron Paul's support

[C. G. Estabrook]

The question of who one "supports" for president seems to me to be a 
matter of substantial uninterest.  Worse, it's a distraction from the 
real issue of building opposition to the bipartisan foreign policy of US 
military control of the Middle East.  On this as on most matters both 
official parties are far to the right of the US populace.  Their job is 
to keep political discourse within the limits of allowable debate.  Once 
that's done, then the debate can rage: Clinton or Obama? Giuliani or 
Faceless Republican?  Kucinich or Paul (the safety valve)?

Presidential politics is the safe playground for what Gore Vidal calls 
the chattering classes.  That's why it started so early this cycle: the 
last election showed that the electorate didn't understand the rules and 
had to be brought back inside the fence.  That's the Democrats' job, and 
they've accomplished it nicely.

We have maybe two votes before the next president (safely within the 
duopoly) takes office -- one a year from now, when we'll probably be 
able to choose between Clinton and Giuliani, and another three months 
from now, in the primaries.  An increase in Kucinich's vote in the 
latter is probably to be expected, since the electorate voted against 
the war in 2006 and saw it didn't matter.  But it may marginally be the 
case that a jump in Paul's vote in the primary may be regarded by our 
rulers as a more significant change.  It might indeed "maximize 
disruption in the GOP," but I don't expect too much.

Paul's recent fund-raising ($4+ million on Guy Fawkes Day) and poll 
successes suggest that some popular dismay is being registered. And it's 
not because of Paul's Libertarian nonsense.  He's been saying that stuff 
for years -- even ran for president on it -- and attracted little 
attention.  What's brought him forward is his thoroughgoing anti-war and 
pro-civil liberties positions.  (See HR 3835, repealing the Military 
Commissions Act, etc.)  He's attracting people who had decided, quite 
reasonably, that party politics had nothing to do with them.

He can therefore be seen as playing the role that many have accused 
Kucinich (the Kerry supporter) of taking on -- the apparent outsider 
who's really bringing straying kids back onto the playground, and that 
certainly can be argued.  (See "substantial uninterest," above.) OTOH, 
he may represent a "disruption" -- another brick to throw at the tawdry 
political parade.  He certainly shouldn't be seen as a savior (cf. 
McCarthy, Kennedy, and McGovern in the anti-Vietnam war movement).

What effect the anti-war movement had on the Vietnam war came not from 
changing office-holders -- it didn't -- but from pressure on those who 
continued to hold office. And the impeachment threat v. Nixon was part 
of that.  I disagree with those (like Alex Cockburn) who see impeachment 
as a distraction, too.  I think Paul -- to say nothing of the Democratic 
liberals (which is usually best) -- should have supported Kucinich's 
attempt, which at least exposed once again (if that was necessary) what 
side the Democratic leadership is on.

But deciding between Kucinich and Paul doesn't matter much.  Two, three, 
many Potemkin politicians...  --CGE


Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> Well, THAT's a blunt instrument, and as such not really accurate.
> 
> But what about the issue of Kucinich vs Paul?  It's pretty clear, and
> not just from this example, that Kucinich is head and shoulders more
> worthy of support from an anti-racist anti-war movement interested in
> promoting principles, especially one with any hint of social justice
> (e.g. folks interested in universal healthcare, public assistance for
> the poor, things like that.)
> 
> I can see the logic of a strategy like voting for Ron Paul to
> maximize disruption in the GOP, but I think we'd more likely outsmart
> ourselves.  We don't have the numbers or the discipline to really
> strategize effectively.  Even if we did, what message do we send to
> the Democrats (who may win) with decreasing support for Kucinich?
> 
> Ricky
> 
> --- "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> 
>> So Ron Paul is exposed as a Democratic Party hack on the issue of 
>> Cheney's impeachment -- i.e., a hack to that Democratic Party
>> leadership whose appropriations for the war (with "timetables," of
>> course) you've supported throughout the year...?  --CGE
>> 
>> 
>> Robert Naiman wrote:
>>> Kucinich's impeachment bill against Cheney was voted twice on in
>>> the House today.
>>> 
>>> The Democratic leadership first tried to kill debate by tabling
>>> the Kucinich bill. This failed, because a substantial minority of
>>>  Democrats was supported by a majority of Republicans in opposing
>>> the Democratic leadership motion to table. Ron Paul voted with
>>> the Democratic leadership and against both the Kucinich
>>> Democratic bloc and the Republican majority to kill debate.
>>> 
>>> Then the Democratic leadership sent the bill to die - at least so
>>> they hope - at the Judiciary committee. This vote was almost
>>> entirely on party lines. Overwhelmingly, Democrats voted to send
>>> the bill to committee. Only 4 Democrats voted with Kucinich not
>>> to send the bill to committee: Filner, Kaptur, Towns and Waters.
>>> 
>>> Conversely, Republicans voted overwhelmingly against killing the
>>> bill by sending it to committee. Only 4 Republicans voted with
>>> the Democratic leadership to kill the Cheney impeachment bill.
>>> 
>>> Who were those four Republicans? Well, one of them was Ron Paul.
>>> 
>>> Ron Paul - Democratic Party Hack.
>>> 
>>> 1st vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1037.xml
>>> 
>>> 2nd vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1039.xml