[Peace-discuss] Nader's allliance

["E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森"]

"Oh, he's very popular Ed.

The sportos,
the motorheads,
geeks, sluts,
bloods, wastoids,
dweebies, dickheads, ...
...they all adore him.

They think he's a righteous dude."

Ralph Nader’s Grand Alliance


        /Progressives find hope—in Ron Paul./

*http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/ralph-naders-grand-alliance/*


*By Michael Tracey* | September 28, 2011

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.”

Not that he was  ever particularly* *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.

Yet he says there is one candidate who sticks out—who even gives him 
hope: Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.

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?

“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.”

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?

“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.”

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.”

“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.

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?

“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.”

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.

“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.”

“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.”

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.”

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.”

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.

“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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

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.”

“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.”


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110929/081e03c7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: oct11issuethumb.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 18457 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110929/081e03c7/attachment-0001.jpg>