[Peace-discuss] [sf-core] Ron Paul, Electoral Politics, and the Workers' Movement

[C. G. Estabrook]

Unless you're going to eschew electoral politics entirely - a not  
unreasonable position, but one that entails either quiescence, or  
finding extra-parliamentary ways to oppose the US government's crimes  
- you've got to decide what you're going to do in the voting booth.   
Ron Paul is simply the only major party candidate who opposes Obama's  
murders, bail-outs of Wall St, and violations of the Constitution; all  
the others approve.

It's true that our sham democracy provides us with little chance to  
express disapproval: Illinois' electoral votes will almost undoubtedly  
be delivered to Obama. Given the business parties' tight control of  
the ballot, we'll at best be able to register a protest by voting for,  
say, Jill Stein (Green Party) or Rocky Anderson (Justice Party). But  
in March the primaries will occur, and one can take a Republican  
ballot and vote for the only Republican or Democrat who's calling for  
a reversal of Obama's military, economic, and anti-Constitutional  
policies.

    --CGE

    "I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the  
nominating."
    --William "Boss" Tweed (1823-78), head of Tammany Hall, the  
Democratic Party's machine in New York; the very model of a modern  
major politician


On Jan 23, 2012, at 6:59 PM, Brussel Morton K. wrote:

>
> Most of us already know that Ron Paul is a reactionary on economic  
> policies, essentially isolationist in foreign policy (although I'm  
> not sure about how he would treat oil and resource extraction  
> corporations, e.g., how to protect them for our national interest),  
> and a "libertarian" on certain civil rights, (excepting women's  
> choice issues)—i.e., let anyone do mostly what they want,  
> discriminate, carry guns wherever, get rid of public education, any  
> social or health safety net,  ….  On the other hand, It might not be  
> a bad idea to advertise/promote his anti-war foreign policy  
> statements vis-a vis Obama and the other Repubs in the interest of  
> popular education, but how could anyone with a humane social concern  
> domestically ever vote for him? The havoc and misery his domestic  
> policies would entail is inestimable. As Carl's opponent, John  
> Reimann, in Dave Johnson's program noted, a dying off (call it  
> murder?) of large segments of our populations could be expected in  
> such an advent. Like in Russia after the USSR was dissolved. If you  
> look at the details, it is simply crazy.
>
>
> My impressions from that fascinating program.
>
> --mkb
>
>
> On Jan 23, 2012, at 5:50 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>>
>> And here's an account of what John was upset about: <http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/12/matt-stoller-why-ron-paul-challenges-liberals.html
>> >.
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2012, at 7:43 PM, C. G. ESTABROOK wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On Saturday 21 January, David Johnson, Bob Paleczny, Bill Gorrell,
>> > and Tom Thomas hosted a debate - "Ron Paul, Electoral Politics, and
>> > the Workers' Movement" - between Carl Estabrook of News from  
>> Neptune
>> > and labor activist John Reimann on the Illinois World Labor Hour.
>> >
>> > Thanks to David who arranged it, and Bob, who made it available
>> > online. The first hour of the show is at <http://radio4all.net/index.php/program/57180
>> > > - the debate begins in the last third; the second hour,  
>> containing
>> > the majority of the debate, is at <http://radio4all.net/index.php/program/57182
>> > >.
>> >
>> >
>> > --CGE
>> >
>>