[Peace-discuss] A liberal's take on Paul

[C. G. Estabrook]

[From Glenn Greenwald on Salon.  --CGE]

	The Ron Paul phenomenon
	An unconventional, anti-Beltway presidential candidacy
	is understandably igniting genuine political passion.
	Glenn Greenwald | Nov. 06, 2007

By far the most significant and interesting political story of the past 
24 hours is the extraordinary, record-breaking outpouring of support for 
Ron Paul's presidential campaign. Therefore, it is being ignored by much 
of our establishment press -- not a single article about it in The New 
York Times or The Washington Post (though it is discussed on a couple of 
their blogs), nor even a mention of it on the websites of CNN or CBS 
News (which found space to report on Stephen Colbert's non-candidacy). 
But MSNBC and Fox News did at least both post the AP article on the Paul 
story.

Regardless of how much attention the media pays, the explosion of 
support for the Paul campaign yesterday is much more than a one-time 
event. The Paul campaign is now a bona fide phenomenon of real 
significance, and it is difficult to see this as anything other than a 
very positive development.

There are, relatively speaking, very few people who agree with most of 
Paul's policy positions. In fact, a large portion of Americans -- 
perhaps most -- will find something in his litany of beliefs with which 
they not only disagree, but vehemently so. Paul has a coherent political 
world-view and states his positions clearly and unapologetically, 
without hedges, and that approach naturally ensures greater disagreement 
than the form of please-everyone obfuscation which drives most candidates.

Paul, of course, is not only in favor of immediate withdrawal from Iraq, 
but also emphatically opposes the crux of America's bipartisan foreign 
policy consensus. He reserves his greatest scorn for America's hegemonic 
rule of the world through superior military force, i.e., its acting as 
an empire in order to prop up its entangling alliances and enduring 
conflicts -- what George Washington lamented as "permanent, inveterate 
antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for 
others."

And Paul is as vigilant a defender of America's constitutional freedoms 
-- and as faithful an observer of the constitutional limitations on 
government power designed to preserve those freedoms -- as any national 
political figure in some time. In one interview, Paul put it this way:

     "As a matter of fact, if you look at every single problem we're 
facing today, it's because of the lack of respect for the rule of law 
and the Constitution."

At the same time, Paul is as much of an anti-abortion extremist as it 
gets, having proposed federal legislation to define conception as the 
beginning of life, and denying federal courts jurisdiction to adjudicate 
abortion cases. He is near the far end of what is considered the "right" 
in terms of immigration policy and favors a drastically reduced role for 
the federal government in everything from education to health care.

So there is at least something in Paul's worldview for most people to 
strongly dislike, even hate, if they are so inclined. Yet that apparent 
political liability is really what accounts for the passion his campaign 
is generating: it is a campaign that defies and despises conventional 
and deeply entrenched Beltway assumptions about our political discourse 
and about what kind of country this is supposed to be.

While Barack Obama toys with the rhetoric of challenging conventional 
wisdom, Paul's campaign -- for better or worse -- actually does so, and 
does so in an extremely serious, thoughtful and coherent way. And there 
are a lot of people who, more than any specific policy positions, are 
hungry for a political movement which operates outside of our rotted 
political establishment and which fearlessly rejects its pieties, even 
if they disagree with some or even many of its particulars.

Moreover, circumstances often dictate political priorities. Individuals 
who historically may not have been attracted to "limited-government" 
rhetoric and all of the specifics it traditionally entails may find that 
ideal necessary now after six years of endless expansions of intrusive 
federal government power.

Regardless of one's ideology, there is simply no denying certain 
attributes of Paul's campaign which are highly laudable. There have been 
few serious campaigns that are more substantive -- just purely focused 
on analyzing and solving the most vital political issues. There have 
been few candidates who more steadfastly avoid superficial gimmicks, 
cynical stunts, and manipulative tactics. There have been few candidates 
who espouse a more coherent, thoughtful, consistent ideology of 
politics, grounded in genuine convictions and crystal clear political 
values. Here is what Jon Stewart said to Paul on The Daily Show:

     "You appear to have consistent principled integrity. Americans 
don't usually go for that."

There is never a doubt that Paul actually believes what he is saying, 
nor is there any doubt that what he believes is the by-product of 
critical and rational thought grounded in genuine political passion.

Perhaps most importantly, Paul is the only serious candidate 
aggressively challenging America's addiction to ruling the world through 
superior military force and acting as an empire -- not by contesting 
specific policies (such as the Iraq War) but by calling into question 
the unexamined root premises of these policies, the ideology that is 
defining our role in the world. By itself, the ability of Paul's 
campaign to compel a desperately needed debate over the devastation 
which America's imperial rule wreaks on every level -- economic, moral, 
security, liberty -- makes his success worth applauding.

I actually think the Paul phenomenon is, in a very rough way, comparable 
to the phenomenon that fueled the early stages of the 2004 Howard Dean 
candidacy. Because Dean is now the head of the DNC, he's become a rather 
mundane Beltway politician, and that is how his candidacy is now widely 
remembered, but that obscures the highly unconventional genesis of 
Dean's ascension. When Dean first began to attract attention, he was 
intense, passionate, and angry -- not merely at the Bush administration 
but also at his own party, and he was speaking in tones and about ideas 
that were virtually non-existent in war-crazed, Bush-revering Washington 
in 2002 and 2003.

Like Paul, Dean didn't actually speak in conventional ideological terms 
-- he emphasized federalism principles and gun rights and balanced 
budgets and government frugality -- and he attracted a large amount of 
support because of the anti-Beltway ethos of his candidacy, including 
among many people who were previously apolitical and far from 
ideologically rigid, at least in the standard establishment way of 
understanding ideology. Just as there are now, there were many 
conventional Democrats running in 2004. Dean's appeal lay in his 
unconventionality, just as Paul's does.

Part of the dynamic of an unconventional candidacy is that it can become 
a repository for a whole array of disparate, unrelated groups. The lack 
of ideological familiarity enables many people with unconventional (even 
extremist or bizarre) political views to read into those candidacies 
whatever they want to see -- even if it isn't really there -- and to use 
the candidate as a proxy for their otherwise ignored and stigmatized 
causes. That was true to some degree for Dean, and is probably true to a 
much larger extent with Paul. But there is still clearly a coherent core 
to the rationale of both candidacies, and it is characterized by intense 
dissatisfaction with the mandated assumptions of mainstream political 
discourse.

Additionally, the establishment's reaction to both candidacies is 
similar. Even though they both were espousing ideas more substantive and 
thoughtful on vital issues than any other candidates, both of them were 
depicted as radical, fringe losers not to be taken seriously. This, 
despite the fact that they are both eminently rational medical doctors 
repeatedly re-elected by the people who know them best -- their 
constituents. But the Beltway political and media elite protect their 
prerogatives by demonizing anyone who challenges them as an unserious 
loser, and that is how they depicted Dean (until he joined them) and how 
they now depict Paul.

I don't want to push the Dean/Paul analogy too far. There are obviously 
very major differences between them and what fueled each of their 
candidacies. But the hallmark of both was that they tapped into the 
widespread and intense scorn for the rancid establishment governing the 
Beltway, and anything that does so is something to be cheered.

The YouTube video which I'm posting below makes, I think, as strong and 
compelling a case for Paul's candidacy as anything I've seen, and goes a 
long way towards explaining the passion it is generating. Early on in 
the video, one voter says this, which I think is -- again, rightly or 
wrongly -- more or less representative of the defining sentiment behind 
the surging support for Paul:

     "The right guy is the guy who's anti-government, anti-war, 
pro-personal-liberty, pro-economic freedom. Vote for him, whatever party 
he is . . . . If you really want to have a choice between a real 
revolutionary candidate and someone out of the machine, this is how it 
can happen."

This is a very engaging and revealing video. Personally, I could 
definitely do without the sappy and cliched Simon & Garfunkel background 
music and all the prophet talk at the end, but other than that, this 
expresses rather vividly the real passion that Ron Paul's campaign is 
understandably igniting:

*	*	*

UPDATE: I want to clarify what I think is one critically important point 
in response to some of the comments. Paul's opposition to having the 
Federal Government involved in things such as education and health care 
is constitutional in nature. His argument is that the Constitution only 
permits the Federal Government to exercise explicitly enumerated powers 
in Articles I and II and, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of 
Rights, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the 
Constitution . . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the 
people."

Thus, his argument, at least on this level, has nothing to do with 
whether there would be good or bad results from having the Federal 
Government exercise powers in these areas. His argument is that the 
Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to do so, regardless 
of whether it's desirable. If one wants the Federal Government to 
exercise specific powers which the Constitution prohibits, then the 
solution is to amend the Constitution, not to violate it because of the 
good results it produces.

While there are certainly arguments to dispute Paul's constitutional 
view (the Supreme Court, for instance, has had to reach to Congress' 
Article I authority to "regulate Commerce . . . among the several 
States" in order to "justify" many of these Federal Government 
activities), the argument that there are "good results" from having the 
Federal Government do these things -- or that there would be "bad 
results" if it didn't -- isn't a coherent or responsive reply to Paul's 
position.

It's either constitutional or it isn't for the Federal Government to 
exercise these powers, and it's irrelevant (for this argument) whether 
there is a "need" for the Federal Government to do so (for exactly the 
same reason that it's irrelevant whether unconstitutional and illegal 
warrantless eavesdropping is beneficial for guarding against Terrorist 
attacks). Regardless of one's view of Paul's specific Tenth Amendment 
theories, it is critical to emphasize -- as a general matter -- that 
"good results" is not a justification for having the Government violate 
the Constitution or any other law. That's true when the violations are 
committed by the Bush administration or anyone else.

UPDATE II: I honestly don't understand why it's even necessary to point 
this out, but as I saw when I lauded Chris Dodd's recent actions, it 
absolutely is. Saying something positive about a specific candidate does 
not mean that one: (a) is voting for that candidate; (b) is encouraging 
others to support that candidate; (c) believes the candidate espouses 
every correct view on every issue, (d) sees the candidate as flawless 
and god-like and the embodiment of political salvation, or (e) hates all 
the other candidates.

UPDATE III: I erroneously wrote that the NYT had no article on Paul's 
fundraising. They published this story by David Kirkpatrick on page A20.

UPDATE IV: The most illegitimate argument against Paul is the attempt to 
tie him to the views of some of his extremist and hateful supporters. I 
referenced that fallacy above, and elaborated on it in this comment.

And here is Markos Moulitsas -- no Naderite he -- on Paul's fundraising 
explosion (h/t Lambert): "This is the single biggest example of 
people-power this cycle." Markos adds that though he wishes it were a 
Democrat doing this, "it's nevertheless a beautiful thing to behold."

UPDATE V: Melissa McEwan raises what might be the biggest chink in 
Paul's "consistent, principled" armor: namely, his support for a federal 
law defining "life" as beginning at conception -- which means, she 
writes, that he is "advocating forcing a woman to carry an unwanted 
pregnancy to term against her will, which, by any definition, is -- at 
best -- an encroachment on her civil liberty."

At the very least, there does seem to be some tension between Paul's 
advocacy of that law and his federalism principles. Even Fred Thompson 
emphatically said this weekend that he would oppose federalizing 
abortion laws, believing that it should be left up to the states.

But there is a consistent, anti-choice libertarian position. 
Libertarians generally believe that government coercion is illegitimate 
except to prevent one from directly harming another (hence the 
justification for laws prohibiting murder, assault, etc.). Thus, 
libertarians who believe on scientific grounds that a fetus is a 
"person" are arguably acting consistently (even if misguidedly) by 
advocating anti-abortion laws.

In any event, I have heard from some Paul supporters today that he has 
modified his abortion position and now more or less shares the view 
expressed by Thompson. I haven't seen any independent verification of 
that but would be interested in seeing it, since there is at least a 
good argument to make (as McEwan does) that a federal law banning 
abortion is inconsistent with the principles Paul espouses.

UPDATE VI: I'll be on the Rachel Maddow Show tonight at 6:30 p.m. to 
discuss these issues. Local listings and live audio streaming are here.

UPDATE VII: PBS' Judy Woodruff conducted a fairly decent interview with 
Paul a couple of weeks ago during which Paul elaborated on several of 
his positions, including this:

     JUDY WOODRUFF: Abortion, you've said you'd like to make it 
impossible for the federal government to regulate abortion, which would, 
in effect, I guess, negate Roe v. Wade.

     REP. RON PAUL: Yes, it would, because I think that's a state issue.

     JUDY WOODRUFF: And then the states would be able to do away with 
abortion.

     REP. RON PAUL: That's right.

     JUDY WOODRUFF: I mean, in effect, would you like to see abortion 
banned everywhere? Or what's your position on that?

     REP. RON PAUL: I'd like to ban the federal government intervention 
in abortion. So since I've only been a federal official -- a congressman 
and then running for the presidency -- I say that we should keep our 
hands out of it. . . .

     The states, they should deal with it, because they're difficult. 
The more difficult an issue is, the more local the solution ought to be.

I'm not quite sure how that can be squared with his prior proposed 
legislation that "seeks to define life as beginning at conception" as a 
matter of federal law, but he said just a couple of weeks ago that 
abortion laws should be left up to states to decide.

In that interview, he also makes clear that some of his more extremist 
positions regarding eliminating federal agencies and the like are more 
ideals, abstract aspirations, and not actual policies he thinks he would 
be able to implement the day after he is in office. But read the answers 
he gave on foreign policy and decide for yourself if there is anyone 
challenging the core premises of our role in the world with anything 
approaching his level of coherence and persuasiveness.

-- Glenn Greenwald

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/06/paul/index.html