[Peace-discuss] Ron Paul in St Paul

[David Green]

I agree with Chomsky's assessment regarding liberals and the left, which was reflected in the hysteria directed at him and I.F. Stone for their criticism of Israel after the 1967 war. As stated previously, I'm uncomfortable with liberal civil libertarians for wrapping themselves in the flag of the 1st amendment to the neglect of substantive stands on important issues--partly to avoid being identified with the left. By the same token, in its championing of capitalism and self-interest, libertarianism ignores the foundations of the foreign policies that it opposes; if they don't actively oppose corporate hegemony, they indeed contribute to the perpetuation of those policies. It's like they plant a tree and then oppose its growing branches. 
   
  The Libertarian persuasion countenances such people as pro-war Dinesh D'Souza, who debated Paul on a libertarian panel a couple of years ago addressing foreign policy. I suspect they have few differences on domestic/economic issues, and there's a palpable racism involved with that. Obviously I don't have a problem with libertarians as part of the pragmatic antiwar movement, but there is a libertarian pro-war mentality, whereas on the left as I define it there is no such thing. I see the Ron Paul phenomenon the same way I see the Palin phenomenon, as a kind of distraction. In the case of Palin, it's a media creation in the absence of major differences between the two parties. In the case of Paul it's leftist-libertarian creation in the absence of an effective antiwar movement.
   
  DG

"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
  Bill Kauffman's recent book, "Ain't My America: The Long, Noble History of 
Antiwar Conservatism and Middle-American Anti-Imperialism," is I think the best 
thing on general American politics since Chomsky's latest -- and, with some 
changes in emphasis (and style), the two are remarkably similar.

But, as Chomsky himself points out, the place where these ideas are "most feared 
and despised is probably in left liberal intellectual circles."

In a recent interview, Chomsky said, "If you want to see a graphic indication of 
this, take a look at one of my favorite journal covers, which is framed and 
posted right outside my door. It’s the more or less official journal of left 
liberal intellectuals, The American Prospect, and the cover depicts the terrible 
circumstances in which they try to survive – the enormous forces that are 
virtually destroying them.

"In the picture, two figures are depicted; two faces, sneering and angry. On one 
side is Dick Cheney and the Pentagon, on the other side is me. The left liberal 
intellectuals are caught between these two huge forces. This depiction is 
indicative of the paranoia and concern that there might be some small break in 
orthodoxy. The liberal intellectuals (and not just in the United States) are 
typically the guardians at the gates: we’ll go this far, but not one millimeter 
farther; and it’s terrifying to think that somebody might go a millimeter 
farther. This extends throughout the major media too. So, yes, the United States 
is a very free country, in fact it’s the freest country in the world. I don’t 
think freedom of speech, for example, is protected anywhere in the world as much 
as it is here. But it’s a very managed society, it’s a business-run society, 
carefully managed, with strict doctrinal requirements and no deviation tolerated 
– this would be too dangerous.

"One of the reasons it’s too dangerous is that the political establishment, both 
political parties and the political class, is, on many major issues, well to the 
right of the population. On health care, for example, which you’ve written about 
for decades, the population is to the left of the establishment, and has been so 
forever. And the same is true for many other issues. So, permitting issues to be 
discussed is threatening, and permitting deviation from a kind of party line is 
dangerous and has to be carefully controlled.

"So, yes, this is a very free country, but at the same time there’s a very rigid 
ideology."

http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20080718.htm


ewj at pigs.ag wrote:
> Matt,
> As a "Ron Paul Republican" I participated in the GOP convention which I 
> would call really bad theatre. I also attended the Rally for the 
> Republic and heard some excellent remarks by Bill Kaufman, Bruce Fein, 
> Adam Kokesh, and others including Jesse Ventura. The entire Rally is 
> available on YouTube.
> I dont have the links right now.
> 
> Wayn
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Peace-discuss] Ron Paul in St Paul
> From: Matt Reichel 
> Date: Thu, September 04, 2008 12:59 pm
> To: 

> 
> There is at one member of the two major parties who will not be
> capitulating to the neo-liberal duopoly this time around, as Ron
> Paul is holding his own convention rather than participate in the
> concurrently occuring Republican media blitz.
> Of course, in perusing the mainstream press in the U.S., one would
> have no idea that this was going on.
> 
> Pathetically enough, I had to read the French LeMonde in order to be
> informed of this popular movement in their front page article:
> 
> http://www.lemonde.fr/elections-americaines/article/2008/09/04/ron-paul-continue-a-faire-parler-de-lui_1091662_829254.html
> 
> Here is all I can find for English language coverage of the event:
> 
> http://www.minnesotaindependent.com/7285/the-ron-paul-people-all-hepped-up-with-no-place-to-vote
> 
> 
> -
> Matt e r

_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss


       
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080904/3d283a1e/attachment-0001.htm