[Peace-discuss] A liberal's take on Paul
Marti
tvchick at insightbb.com
Fri Nov 9 09:24:31 CST 2007
Paul's position on immigration does not sufficiently state how immigration
laws will be reformed. Several years ago I worked in an office where I saw
students from other nations work on more than one degree. This is because a
student visa represented the only legal route for residency. Additionally in
order to gain permanent residency these students needed to find employers
who would sponsor them for citizenship. So while searching for work a
student might pursue more than one degree.
A local friend of mine came to this country from Mexico. Through relatives
he had sponsorship for permanent residency and he eventually became a US
Citizen. Telling an immigrant to 'play by the rules' fails to consider that
the current standard is one that is unreachable to many immigrants. As a
result the only way to stay in the nation is through loopholes such as
'birthright' citizenship. We need to find a way to help people become
permanent residents or have legal visas and work permits. This will
eliminate the need for a loophole and may even protect our immigrants from
exploitation from employers.
As someone who is 'pro-choice' I am reluctant to support a presidential
candidate who is not. Softening ones position is not the same as changing
it. Why women have abortions, be it due to assault or the desire to get a
law degree, is none of my business. Ultimately this is a private decision
between a woman and her doctor.
-----Original Message-----
From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G.
Estabrook
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 8:48 AM
To: Peace Discuss
Subject: [Peace-discuss] A liberal's take on Paul
[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
_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list