Ron Paul: Is Being Against the War Enough?

When I was hanging out with the youth element of the Revolutionary Unions (RU) back in the early to mid-1970s, there was a fellow member who attended American University and was part of our branch. While returning from a meeting in Washington, DC one afternoon, our conversation turned to what brought us to leftist politics. During the course of the conversation, she related that she was originally interested in libertarianism until Alex — an RU organizer and member of our branch — explained via the use of history that even if capitalism could exist as the libertarians envisioned, it could not remain within that vision because capitalism requires profit to survive. Since profit requires a continual expansion (or atomization) of markets and the accrual of profit by some capitalists means that other capitalists would not be able to make a profit since the amount of capital (money) is finite. This creates intensified competition among the capitalists, which in turn causes the less predatory businesses to fail, thereby creating monopolies and inequality in their wake. In other words, a fair capitalism that depended completely on the fairness of the market could not exist for any amount of time because the market cannot remain fair. That’s the only verifiable outcome of the capitalist economic experience.

But this piece isn’t about libertarianism in the general sense of the word. In fact, it is about the current campaign run by Ron Paul and his supporters for nomination to be the GOP’s standard bearer for the 2008 presidential election. More specifically, it is about a growing trend on the left side of the spectrum to support that campaign. Naturally, I am in total support of Mr. Paul’s call to end the war and occupation of Iraq immediately and I applaud his ability to make that call something that other politicians must respond to. I also support the standard libertarian call for legalization of marijuana. In addition, there are other elements of Paul’s campaign that are quite appealing. However, the Libertarian hatred of labor unions and public education, opposition to universal health care and their generally objectivist (as in Ayn Rand) approach to human societal relations leaves me cold.

When one reads most left/progressive calls to support Mr. Paul, they tend to dismiss these and other libertarian aspects of Paul’s program by stating that these extremist views will never succeed because the moderate and progressive voices in Congress won’t allow them to. This argument is politically naïve and potentially dangerous. After all, who would have ever thought that the moderate and progressive voices in Congress would have passed the PATRIOT Act, given the White House blanket permission to wage war whenever and wherever it wishes, and steal billions of dollars from working Americans to hand to their wealthiest countrymen? In essence, what I’m saying here is that Congress can be convinced to do almost anything contrary to the majority of its constituents’ interests.

The solution Ron Paul appears to provide is inviting if for no other reason than its sheer simplicity. Vote for Paul in the GOP primaries and get him into the presidential race. Then elect him president. Then he will end the war. That alone is reason enough for many fervent (and not-so-fervent) anti-warriors. Hell, a half-dozen of my old leftie friends are seriously considering the idea and I have to admit there are times it even appeals to me. After all, not too many other candidates have consistently opposed allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant or continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. Even fewer said of the 2001 attack on Afghanistan while connecting it to Unocal’s desire to build a gas pipeline through the country: “The terrorist enemy is no more an entity than the ‘mob’ or some international criminal gang. It certainly is not a country, nor is it the Afghan people…. The Afghan people did nothing to deserve another war.”

However, I can’t give my vote to Mr. Paul. I can’t ignore the repercussions of the libertarian capitalism Mr. Paul espouses, especially in a world where corporate monopolies have been ruling the market for over a hundred years and, by doing so, have made any possibility of a free, much less fair, market absolutely impossible. I can’t ignore his musings about preventing people from so-called terrorist countries from visiting the United States. I can’t ignore his yes votes on building a fence along the Mexican border, or his vote against tipping off immigrants about the Minuteman Project, or on reporting undocumented residents who receive hospital treatment. Furthermore, his calls to find and deport every person living in the United States with an invalid (or no) visa and to end the constitutionally guaranteed citizenship of every person born in the United States are just plain wrong and would increase the police state he claims to oppose. I can’t ignore his votes against restricting employer interference in union organizing or his opposition to increasing the minimum wage. I couldn’t ignore Ronald Reagan or George Bush’s fundamentally anti-labor positions and I won’t ignore Mr. Paul’s. Nor can I ignore Mr. Paul’s position against women’s reproductive choice. His vote to ban gay adoptions in DC ticks me off as does his vote against continuing the moratorium on drilling for oil offshore, his vote for continuing military recruitment on college campuses, and his support for the Star Wars weaponry plan (SDI).

What the support for Ron Paul among potentially progressive voters signifies to me is the failure of today’s left to enunciate an anti-imperialist position better than that put forth by the libertarian right. This is not a new phenomenon in US history. Indeed, some of the members of the Anti-Imperialist League of the late nineteenth century were much closer to the Ron Paul philosophy than anything Marx, Lenin, or Luxembourg ever wrote. This is not necessarily because that philosophy is a better one, but it is certainly better received in a capitalist nation like the US. The most positive thing I can pull out of the Ron Paul phenomenon is that the people of the United States want something radically different. In a capitalist society, radical capitalism is as far as many folks will go — and that’s essentially what libertarianism is.

But, say the supporters of Paul who consider themselves progressive or left, he has promised to end the war. My immediate response is, so have Kucinich and Mike Gravel, so why not lend them your support? At least on the slight chance they got elected they wouldn’t want to turn the country into a greater paradise for predatory capitalism than it already is. My more thoughtful response is that nothing — especially nothing as important as ending the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan — can be solved simply by voting another face into the White House. Getting rid of the current one and replacing him with someone who has at least expressed a desire to end those adventures is certainly a step in the right direction, but only a widespread and mobilized movement willing to use a multitude of tactics is going to accomplish that. On the other hand, do I think it’s the end of the world if Ron Paul gets your vote (or gets elected)? Of course not. In fact, a vote for Ron Paul is certainly a better use of the franchise than a vote for almost any of the other candidates currently running. For better or worse.

Ron Jacobs is the author of The Way The Wind Blew: A History of the Weather Underground and Tripping Through the American Night, and the novels Short Order Frame Up and The Co-Conspirator's Tale. His third novel All the Sinners, Saints is a companion to the previous two and was published early in 2013. Read other articles by Ron.

44 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Jeanette Doney said on January 7th, 2008 at 8:19am #

    Being anti-war is not enough? I find that statement to be elitist and arrogant. I have never agreed with a candidate 100%. I do not agree with Ron Paul 100%, I do not agree with all of his many different supporters, Libertarians, liberal libertarians, GOP, Democrats, Greens, all there…100%. We are all making compromises and working together, UNIFING FOR PEACE ON EARTH..want to help stop global warming?…stop the WARS! You’re compromising your vote FOR WAR.

  2. Ron Jacobs said on January 7th, 2008 at 8:36am #

    actually, i’m not. I will vote for Kucinich, who is as antiwar as Paul if not more….also see my last paragraph. One more thing, you note, i don’t say voting for Paul is a waste–I only say that there’s a lot of baggage that goes along with that vote that progressives might want to consider before they cast that vote.
    My more thoughtful response is that nothing — especially nothing as important as ending the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan — can be solved simply by voting another face into the White House. Getting rid of the current one and replacing him with someone who has at least expressed a desire to end those adventures is certainly a step in the right direction, but only a widespread and mobilized movement willing to use a multitude of tactics is going to accomplish that.

    this, to me, is the arena where we all join forces to end the war.

  3. Shabnam said on January 7th, 2008 at 8:59am #

    Kucinich has already asked people to vote for Obama on Bill Moyers show on PBS.

  4. ron said on January 7th, 2008 at 9:12am #

    wrong. in fact, Kucinich only said that folks should caucus for Obama in Iowa if there weren’t enough Kucinich caucusers since he didn’t spend much time there. Here in western NC, there’s quite a movement for Kucinich and he is on the primary ballot. I think the important thing is for folks to vote antiwar no matter what and that might make a difference in terms of how the Dem convention treats the antiwar delegates.

  5. Marcelle Cendrars said on January 7th, 2008 at 9:54am #

    Thanks for the article, Ron. People, however, need to resort to their “street sense” here, if they have any. First of all, we really need to back off from putting so much energy into the presidential pocket. Secondly, anyone putting in a good word for Obama should be required to check in at the out-patient clinic. Ditto for anyone thinking –beyond casting a vote of personal conscience– that a vote for Dennis will do anyone else much good. Thirdly, as per what Ron points out in the article, we are obliged to address ALL the wars, NOT JUST THE IRAQ WAR. The war that’s been waged along the border is every bit as real as what’s going on in the Middle East. And it’s slated to get much worse…as it proceeds from its mid-19th century origins. Please don’t quote figures for me on this. I’m fully aware of the official figures for finance and body count vis-a-vis Iraq vs. Mexican casualties/tension. The point is that any candidate who is so dismissive (to use a “kind” word) of The Mexican War cannot be relied upon to take us down a path of peace. I really wish that the editors at DVoice would choose to post my “Five ‘Negative’ Reasons to Vote for Ron Paul.” It would be a good supplement to Ron Jacobs’ efforts/accomplishments here.

    It’s not a perfect article, but appropriate for the moment.

    Blessings,
    Marcelle

  6. Joshua Frank said on January 7th, 2008 at 10:03am #

    Kucinich has not said he won’t endorse the Democratic nominee if that person turns out to be pro-war. Paul, on the other hand, has not ruled out a third party run and has said he won’t support the Republican candidate if they don’t come around on the war. Obviously that means he won’t be supporting the Republican candidate. That’s a huge difference between Paul and Kucinich, at least tactically.

    Let’s be honest. Paul is not going to win this election, but his campaign could put a lot of pressure on the two major parties if he runs in the General Elections. He has a ton of money and a lot of grassroots support, much more than any left candidate at this point, or in the past 8 years for that matter. Perhaps even more than Nader in 2000.

    That’s significant and it shouldn’t be ignored. I certainly don’t like many of Paul’s economic positions, but I think we all should put our ear to the rail and listen for the message I think Iraqis would want us to hear: that we must vote to end the war.

    If Mayor Bloomberg runs he’ll likely get in the debates because he has so much bank behind him. This could open the door for another candidate to enter the debates too, either a Nader-type or Paul. If Paul continues to bring in the amount of money he’s raking in I think he’d have a great shot at getting in the debates. He’d force both big party nominees to address his rather flawless foreign policy agenda.

    We don’t live in a democracy and the electoral system is fucked beyond repair. So let’s not get caught up on Paul’s more outlandish fiscal ideas and let’s instead focus on what he can do for us. Ron Paul, at this point, is in the best position to monkeywrench the system as Stan Goff put it. He could potentially force Obama, Hillary, Romney, or whomever, to take on the war in the generals. This also means the potential war with Iran. I certainly don’t think a Nader candidacy or the like could raise the kind of cash Paul has. He’s started early and has momentum. Kucinich, sadly, has been running for 9 years and in polling at 1%. He’s a dead end.

    Paul’s future in unknown. But, like I’ve said time and again, we ignore the potential gains of his movement (i.e. making the war the primary issue of election ’08) at our own peril.

  7. Marcelle Cendrars said on January 7th, 2008 at 10:07am #

    “However, the Libertarian hatred of labor unions and public education, opposition to universal health care and their generally objectivist (as in Ayn Rand) approach to human societal relations leaves me cold.”

    This is an instructive excerpt from Ron’s piece. The part about “universal health care” should be of great importance to one and all. Anyone who has sat for hours in an Emergency Waiting Room –interesting, disgusting “term,” yes?– for a serious problem demanding immediate attention knows in their bones that none of this discussion should be focused on the notion that a given candidate is not 100% this or that. A candidate worthy of our support must cover certain bases. That would include a deep concern for universal coverage AND The Mexican War.

    The health treatment in this country goes much deeper than the problem of certain numbers not having coverage. Even if one has coverage that’s sufficient…the quality of the care is highly suspect…to say the least. “Reorientation/education” of medical professionals –the need for it– has to be acknowledged midst the discussions ’bout our need for coverage.

    With Ron Paul’s “philosophy” you’ll have docs either NOT telling you “What’s Up” or NOT knowing “What’s Up” if they can get away with it as card carrying capitalists…and where will that leave us?

    Blessings, Marcelle
    P.S. Post my “Five ‘Negative’ Reasons….”, will ‘ya, editors?

  8. Binh said on January 7th, 2008 at 10:16am #

    I salute you Mr. Jacobs! It’s about time leftists stopped daydreaming about an anti-war left and far-right alliance benefitting the progressives in this country. It’s very disappointing to see Goff, Frank, and many others joining the Ron Paul (counter)revolution. I couldn’t agree more when Jacobs writes: “What the support for Ron Paul among potentially progressive voters signifies to me is the failure of today’s left to enunciate an anti-imperialist position better than that put forth by the libertarian right.”

    Josh Frank in his reply to Jacobs says: Ron Paul, at this point, is in the best position to monkeywrench the system as Stan Goff put it. Supporting Ron Paul is the best way to monkeywrench the opposition, not the system. You can’t pretend that a Presidential candidate has only 1 position or look at only 1 or 2 issues – people running presidential campaigns have to take positions on all kinds of issues, from domestic to foreign policy.

    I will never, ever vote for a man like Ron Paul. As I said in my blog, “If you want an anti-war candidate who is against raising the minimum wage, against a woman’s right to choose, against protecting the environment, a candidate who opposes gay marriage, who votes against civil rights bills, who supports oil companies’ right to drill where ever they please, opposes giving undocumented immigrants any legal rights, thinks mines are safe enough, and welcomes support and money from neo-Nazis, Ron Paul is your man.”

  9. Marcelle Cendrars said on January 7th, 2008 at 10:19am #

    “Pressure” on the Big Players…applied by Ron Paul. You cannot be serious…to think that these candidates determine whether or not the Iraq War will go this way or that. Not at this juncture, not with the stakes at hand…which Chomsky has done a very good job delineating, distinguishing the difference between our motives in Vietnam vs. Iraq, what the powers that be would have to “give up” to withdraw from Iraq vs. what they had to consider vis-a-vis Vietnam. No, this Mid-East battle is going to be fought to the knife…without fundamental change being forced.

    The debates about the likes of Ron Paul bringing about “pressure” serve the powers that be very well. Like debates about 9-11 conspiracy…they keep the rabble busy, distracted.

    Furthermore, when one speaks well of Ron Paul in terms of “foreign policy” without acknowledging The Mexican War…which he has taken a disgusting stance on…well, that speaks for itself.

    Since Joshua has entered a comment here…I trust that he knows about my plea –my begging– vis-a-vis “Five ‘Negative’ Reasons to Vote for Ron Paul.” What’s the problem? Again, it’s not a “perfect” article, but certainly germane at this juncture.

    Hugabaloo,
    Marcelle

  10. Shabnam said on January 7th, 2008 at 10:44am #

    You are right that Kucinich has recommended Obama for Iowa but the way he presented the case, it seems to me, he recommends Obama over Edwards for his supporters for the future decision making. I agree with you that Kucinich must be the choice. I hope he reaches the required threshold to be the nominee.
    http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01042008/watch3.html

  11. Gary Lapon said on January 7th, 2008 at 10:46am #

    Ron,

    Thanks for adding your voice to the anti-Paul camp. I also understand (I think) the frustration that has led many of the Left to support Paul, but I think that embracing him will only increase that frustration.

    Josh Frank argued a few days ago that the Left needs to reach out to “rednecks” (I assume this means working class white people from the South?). Of course we need to organize with working class whites from the South, as well as working class people of all races, genders, nationalities. It’s plain that Frank (and other Lefties drawn to Paul) are frustrated with the weakness and lack of organization on the Left, which has resulted in the inability to build a strong anti-war movement. But supporting Paul will only further weaken the Left. A couple of reasons:

    (1) The Left is tiny. The majority of people with Left views are not organized, nor are they actively engaged in struggle. Our first priority should be to organize those people who already have progressive ideas. With a stronger Left, we won’t find ourselves in a situation where the only major anti-war voices on a national level are reactionaries like Paul or people like Kucinich who tell their supporters to vote for pro-war candidates (Kerry once, now Obama).

    (2) In terms of the potential to bring change, I’ll take struggle over elections any day. That said, looking back at the last couple of years, one notices that the largest demonstrations (by far…probably the largest in US history) have been for immigrant rights, primarily attended by Latinos. Similarly, some of the most promising labor struggles (the Cygnus strike, the CIW, etc.) have been led by Latino immigrants. Ron Paul is vehemently anti-immigrant. By supporting him, the Left will succeed in alienating a huge (and quickly growing) segment of the population that has shown a willingness to struggle for real positive change.

    The protests over the Jena 6 case, as well as marches against police brutality and the impressive efforts of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty and the DRIVE movement have shown that many African-Americans and allies are outraged at the racism in our society and are looking to change it. Paul is racist against blacks: (http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5?). An excerpt:

    “The criminals who terrorize our cities–in riots and on every
    non-riot day–are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white
    oppression is responsible for all black ills, to “fight the power,” and to
    steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible.”

    It’s no mystery why people like David Duke support Ron Paul, nor does the argument that he’s racist rest only on guilt by association. Then there is the abortion issue, which has been covered in past posts here.

    Anyways, the bottom line is that arguing that the Left should support Paul because the war in Iraq should be the most important issue is the equivalent of telling immigrants, blacks, and women that their well-being really isn’t all that important, that issues that impact them can be put on the back burner (or pushed off of the stove, in the case of a Ron Paul presidency) when politically convenient. The Left cannot afford to alienate such people, who have time and again shown the ability and propensity for struggle, in order to reach out to the stereotypical (an ignorant, classist view) right-wing “redneck” (we should first reach out to the progressive “rednecks”).

    Nor does it make sense to view the war in isolation, putting other progressive issues in the background. We cannot wait to struggle for abortion rights, immigrant rights, or a society free of racism. As King wrote:

    “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct-action campaign that was “well timed” in view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.” ”

    The war disproportionately affects working class people, Blacks, and Latinos: they’re disproportionately represented within the military (because of the poverty draft), and they would benefit the most from social services that could be funded with defense dollars. A Left that includes movements against racism, xenophobia, and sexism would only strengthen anti-war sentiment and organization. Rather than being a shortcut to ending war, supporting Ron Paul will only make building such a Left more difficult.

  12. Marcelle Cendrars said on January 7th, 2008 at 11:46am #

    Bravo, Gary!
    Loving best, Marcelle Cendrars

  13. Marcelle Cendrars said on January 7th, 2008 at 11:58am #

    Ciao, bambini! Looks like Alice posted the piece I’ve been going blah blah about at http://www.pscelebrities.com/whitelightblacklight/2008/01/five-negative-reasons-to-vote-for-ron.htm
    It’s the “Five ‘Negative’ Reasons to Vote for Ron Paul” article. Merci mucho to Alice. Cheers for the day, MC

  14. Binh said on January 7th, 2008 at 12:33pm #

    Gary Lapon wrote: the bottom line is that arguing that the Left should support Paul because the war in Iraq should be the most important issue is the equivalent of telling immigrants, blacks, and women that their well-being really isn’t all that important, that issues that impact them can be put on the back burner (or pushed off of the stove, in the case of a Ron Paul presidency) when politically convenient.

    Translation: they need to stay in the back of the bus where they belong because the war in Iraq is more important. That’s where the twisted logic of leftists supporting Paul leads. The irony is that Goff who supports Paul often claims to be more anti-white supremacist and anti-sexist than the rest of the left, particularly its Marxist element.

  15. Marcelle Cendrars said on January 7th, 2008 at 12:50pm #

    The Goff guff claiming all that’s been delineated by Binh here has long ago been discredited. But, just like the electoral system (and the build up to elections that the Goff article draws its energies from) has not registered among concerned citizens as the Scam it is…Goff’s rep continues to be given much more credence, many more heartbeats than it deserves.

    There IS an alternative to discussing the pros and cons of Kucinich vs. Paul, pulling apart the nooks and crannies of the various pretenders to The Throne. But…readers are going to have to take the ambtious step of getting in touch with me…to discuss what can be done.

    I remain in this quarter for that purpose only, the “hope” that a few core individuals will take me up on my offer for something other than a) pure talk and b) action which follows old fly paper on the wall models…to which too many of us seem STUCK. Unstuckingly yours, Marcelle

  16. ron said on January 7th, 2008 at 12:53pm #

    face it, there is no easy way to get out of this mess we find ourselves in…

  17. Brian L said on January 7th, 2008 at 1:03pm #

    Josh Frank wrote in his comment: “I certainly don’t like many of Paul’s economic positions, but I think we all should put our ear to the rail and listen for the message I think Iraqis would want us to hear: that we must vote to end the war.”

    While we’re “listening” we should listen to what Ron Paul might say to those Iraqis we care so much about. He might say, “Hey (insert racial epithet)! Why don’t you stop blowing up the pipelines of the oil companies so they can freely loot the oil resources of your land.” To any Iraqi refugees, he might say, “Get the F#$k out of our country (insert racial epithet).”

    To any Iraqi’s looking for reparations for the destruction we’ve caused, or to any minority veterans (who are over-represented in the military ranks) looking for healthcare, from PTSD, depleted uranium, IED attacks, or battle woundshe might say, “Government spending cannot solve your problems, only the free market can….(insert racial epithet)!”

    If you honestly wanted to ask any Iraqi’s what they thought of the US elections and Ron Paul, they might say, “Why don’t you stop electing pro-business, racist politicians and get busy building an antiwar movement to help us ‘get the US the F#$k out of our country!'”

  18. HR said on January 7th, 2008 at 1:23pm #

    The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is NOT the only important issue facing us. There are plenty of domestic issues as well, that are as important, more important in my mind — like it or not. People here are dying of malnutrition and from lack of access to health care, from police brutality, and from the actions of a justice system that has been broken for decades. As was the case 40 years ago, I cannot actively embrace a peace movement wearing blinders, one which is willing to sell out on every other issue save their pet one.

    Keep in mind that most of the opposition to the war that is cited in polls comes from people who are upset that we didn’t win, people who were among the first to slap on the insipid car magnets and antenna flags and first to label as traitors anyone who opposed the atrocity from the beginning.

  19. Marcelle Cendrars said on January 7th, 2008 at 1:36pm #

    Yes, no “easy” way, but –for sure– another way to be tried that has not yet been put to the test. That would be my contribution, delineating that model.

    If we accept the clear message (that’s been demonstrated in front of us throughout our lifetimes) that the U.S. ways and mean-spirited policies and practices at home and abroad will NOT change enough with a change of Administration…then readers have — I think it’s fair to say — nothing to lose (except time on the pontificating podiums to which so many seem attached) by taking me up on my offer to push and tweak in a new way.

    It would take three years, but we stand to create a watershed moment. In the meantime, the effort would not preclude addressing the carnage at home and abroad as per whatever you’re doing at present.

    Serious as cancer and cluster bombs,
    Marcelle

  20. The Fanonite said on January 7th, 2008 at 3:37pm #

    It is.

  21. Alice said on January 7th, 2008 at 10:21pm #

    Ron Paul is anti-choice.

    “ I am strongly pro life. Life begins at conception … but, I do not believe this should be a federal matter. All issues of life and violence and crime and murder are dealt with at the local level. ”

    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/

  22. Alice said on January 7th, 2008 at 10:24pm #

    –“My more thoughtful response is that nothing — especially nothing as important as ending the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan — can be solved simply by voting another face into the White House.” – -Ron Jacobs

    ..Agreed.

  23. Alice said on January 7th, 2008 at 10:27pm #

    (apologies if i’m posting incorrectly…)

    http://www.warscholar.com/Timeline.html
    A MILITARY HISTORY TIMELINE OF
    WAR AND CONFLICT ACROSS THE GLOBE
    3000 B.C. to A.D. 1999

  24. Alice said on January 7th, 2008 at 10:32pm #

    I have healthcare coverage, and I find it all highly suspect…true Marcelle…the ONE item I require is not covered by dental or medical and that is a mouth guard for grinding my teeth…

    Alos, I have the coveted vision insurance as well, and the cost to have an exam and glasses at WalMart, all at my own cost, is less than what my portion of my insurance is if I do it at a plan doctor for the exam and glasses.

  25. Rich Hutnik said on January 7th, 2008 at 10:55pm #

    What I am surprised about is that the hard left would get behind Paul. Paul is libertarian, and conservative. I guess being against the drug war and war in general got hippie left wingers behind Paul. The appeal of personal freedom also. But to ignore Paul is libertarian, is to miss the boat.

    Anyhow, this being said, the dollar is going through a meltdown. Please tell me where the money will come from to balance the budget AND do universal health care? The window is closing real fast on that. I don’t see it at all.

  26. jesus was a monkey said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:32am #

    big tick for brian l. binh ditto. i agree with what you’re saying in general Marcelle Cendrars but i must disagree with what u say about 911 truth being a red herring issue to entertain the rabble. well, i guess i’m one of the rabble then 😉 but i don’t find it a side issue at all. it’s germaine to raising the consciousness of anyone and everyone who will examine the issue closely and test the physical evidence.

    it goes like this. once you realise 911 was a false flag op, you know, entirely a put up job made in the usa, that means the entire imperialist project abroad which is justified by the 911 false flag attacks are, ipso facto, also BOGUS, BULLSHIT, WRONG, WITHOUT A GENUINE BASIS and so on… making the conceptual leap into 911 truth is probably the most radicalising step most ordinary people will ever make.

  27. The Fanonite said on January 8th, 2008 at 7:10am #

    The war in Iraq and Afghanistan is NOT the only important issue facing us. There are plenty of domestic issues as well, that are as important, more important in my mind — like it or not.

    Yep. Whats an Iraqi’s life worth compared to my pension.

    And then we have Barack Obama trying to convince us racism is dead. With ‘progressives’ likes these, who needs the KKK?

  28. Deadbeat said on January 8th, 2008 at 7:59am #

    And then we have Barack Obama trying to convince us racism is dead.

    And then we have “leftists” trying to convince us that the war in Iraq is about oil. While I agree with Ron’s objection to supporting Paul and his assessment that the reason for the interest in Paul is due to the failures of the left he doesn’t explain why the left is in a state of disarray.

    The left decided to self destruct rather than coalesce against the war. This is why I disagree with Ron when he says there is no easy way to get out of this mess we find ourselves in…. The problem is the duplicity, denials, and dishonesty on the left. The solution is obvious but IMO there is little resolve on the left to honestly confront their denials.

  29. B. J. Sabri said on January 8th, 2008 at 8:45am #

    Ron,
    The answer to your rhetorical question is an absolute yes. The American imperialist system is politically hermetic whereby all positions of power and its symbols come from specific sources that have for objective the perseverance of the structures that produced and elevated them in its hierarchy. It is [the system] also refractory to change, rigidly structured on almost all levels of societal mechanisms including the culture and ideology that sustain it, and depends for continuation on capillary, persistent indoctrination to refuse progressive change on domestic as well as on international level. Most importantly, however, this system and the population it controls, is caught in self-reproducing cycles that has been going one during all past 230 years of existence. However, while some of your other concerns are understandable, and while Ron Paul is a product of this system, dismantling the pervasive ideology and culture of war today, war tomorrow, and war forever is a dialectical necessity to remove the first layer of the system and its homicidal nature. Ron Paul provides such opportunity regardless of other issues. Progressive Americans must not go on requiring that anti-war candidates satisfy all platforms and programs. That requirement would obscure the primary issue: elminating wars of the American global agenda requires a small change in the right direction. Any argument against anti-war candidates because of minor, manageable, domestic issues is inevitably, a call for the continuation of the system as we know it.

  30. Jen said on January 8th, 2008 at 9:05am #

    *The left decided to self destruct rather than coalesce against the war*

    So true.

  31. Marcelle Cendrars said on January 8th, 2008 at 9:13am #

    Alice’s contribtions are wonderful.

    Review http://www.pscelebrities.com/whitelightblacklight/2008/01/five-negative-reasons-to-vote-for-ron.htm
    to get another angle on what’s going on here.

    The 9/11 issue is no different than many other instances in which the U.S.
    “authorities” and powers have been caught with…pants down, bloody gun in hand. The point that I was making is that when The Real Players see us going blah blah incessantly over stuff like FDR setting up Pearl Harbor or dealing with the question of who shot JFK…it make them happy…’cause it keeps us busy, and distracted. We will NOT make further inroads w further discussion of the like. Rather, we will waste precious time doing so.

    Much too much of that talk comes about not because of an intelligent perception of the fact that people will “come around” if they only know the facts that a given leftist knows, but, rather, because that given leftist is off and running…proving that he/she knows something that “the other” doesn’t know.

    The Hispanic students that my colleague met with yesterday in an effort to form solidarity in California –as per my Dream Party article here– know in their bones the rotten to the core capability of U.S. powers, and they’d like to see the likes of “us” use our precious time to form solidarity with them, not go over old ground.

    The 9/11 POINT should be that whether or not a given leftist can convince “others” that so and so was responsible…the POINT is that so and so is CAPABLE (in terms of mental set, attitudinally, in fact) of doing such dastardly deeds. Less time on a given specific, a little time on testing the waters w those who you’re trying to “organize” will be time better spent. Are you trying to organize? Or are you involved in arguing and the like? Or something else? Good questions.

    Where will the $$$ come from for stuff like health coverage? Don’t get distracted by all the talk about the ECONOMY. You can’t save yourself in that regard. What you can do is to reject old flypaper on the wall “stuckness” in old models…and get involved in something truly new…something along the lines of what I’ve written about on this site.

    The U.S. cannot fight any wars without the support of the state of California. I am involved in a movement to take over the state…vis-a-vis placement of a governor in Sacramento who will make a difference. Ron Paul would divert money spent on Iraq to spending $$ to battle poor Mexicans on the Border, placing landmines –perhaps– in the way of starving immigrants. If you like that scenario vote for Ronnie. The Guv Thing is very complex, but easily becomes attractive and understandable with a private meeting with me; it can’t be sound-bit here…and requires in-person contact, not the written word i public.

    The pro-choice issue that Alice has rammed home is significant. So are many other issues put on the backburner by the Pauline People who would have us believe one can end the slaughter in Iraq, the drain on the economy compliments of the military in the Middle East…without addressing other issues simultaneously. It’s not a matter of a candidate being PERFECT. Rather, it’s a clear case of not wanting to put power in the hands of someone who’s so callous about certain segments of the population at home and abroad.

    All of you people –incuding the person who’s getting eyeglasses or whatever at WalMart -yeech!- contact me at moc.oohaynull@ardnecb to get to a walk the walk stage. LOve, MC

  32. ron said on January 8th, 2008 at 1:04pm #

    deadbeat,
    there is NO EASY WAY–there never was and because of the very duplicity and denials by someone the left (and their belief in the Kerrys and Obamas of the world) that you write of, the way has become even more difficult.

  33. B. J. Sabri said on January 8th, 2008 at 1:29pm #

    Jen says, “The left decided to self destruct rather than coalesce against the war”

    That may be true, but the fundamental problem is, there is no Left (in the revolutionary sense) in the United States. In the U.S., it is very possible that some progressives feel they are leftist, but leftist in relation to what, Republicans, Democrats, or someone else?
    It is rather odd that in most cases, segments of the so-called American Left could be domestically leftists, but arch-imperialist internationally. This is not strange because on international level many agendas drive how people can classify themselves. Take for instance what is considered the top exponent of the American Left: Noam Chomsky. While NC, being an ambivalent critic of the American Empire on both fronts: domestically and internationally, is decidedly a leftist (in the American sense), he, nevertheless and tacitly is allying himself with the bogus wars on terrorism by using specific language items that are characteristic of the Neocon establishment. I could even conclude that, considering that the term, “left” is currently vague and devoid of any substantive meaning, we have to revise it – entirely.

  34. Deadbeat said on January 8th, 2008 at 3:32pm #

    Ron says…
    deadbeat,
    there is NO EASY WAY–there never was and because of the very duplicity and denials by someone the left (and their belief in the Kerrys and Obamas of the world) that you write of, the way has become even more difficult.

    It’s a matter of perspectives Ron. Understanding WHY it is “hard” makes it extremely easy. Your article ignores the WHY.

    As B.J. Sabri writes…
    That may be true, but the fundamental problem is, there is no Left (in the revolutionary sense) in the United States. In the U.S., it is very possible that some progressives feel they are leftist, but leftist in relation to what, Republicans, Democrats, or someone else?

    The Liberals are not leftist Ron. Clearly they are limited to Kerry and Obama. That is the limit of their principles.

    However the “left” that went ahead and supported Kerry and the ABB/Safe State strategy in 2004 did so for UNPRINCIPLED reasons.

    In fact, I’d say that the people who are attracted to Ron Paul this year are MORE principled than the “left” who supported Kerry because they REALLY want to see an end to the war and the curtailment of militarism.

    The “left” has not provided the people with an honest assessment of the current political landscape and decided to sabotage themselves rather than build an anti-war movement. With 75% of the U.S. population against the war on Iraq it should be EXTREMELY easy to build a movement. Any popularity for both Paul and Obama has very much to do with the vacuum (“failure”) created by the left as you point out in your article.

    But Ron you know full well that there was clearly momentum for the anti-war movement in 2003. What happened Ron? You don’t offer an analysis to that question. This is the “sins of omission” that I am referring to.

    As BJ Sabri continues …
    Take for instance what is considered the top exponent of the American Left: Noam Chomsky. While NC, being an ambivalent critic of the American Empire on both fronts: domestically and internationally, is decidedly a leftist (in the American sense), he, nevertheless and tacitly is allying himself with the bogus wars on terrorism by using specific language items that are characteristic of the Neocon establishment. I could even conclude that, considering that the term, “left” is currently vague and devoid of any substantive meaning, we have to revise it – entirely.

    How do we revise it Ron? The very people who have come to represent the “left” (not Liberals) have betrayed those very principles of Marx, of Luxemburg whose principles that you hold so dear.

    Unfortunately the only member of the left that has really spoken out in clear terms recently has been James Petras. Why aren’t there more like him holding the left accountable and calling out those who have diverted and obscured analysis? If he can do it surely there are others who can. It’s quite easy. It means having the resolve to be honest with your audience.

    The truth rings clear to people and the people know when you are not being straight with them.

  35. ron said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:30pm #

    I agree with your summation that those who support Paul are more principled than those who supported Kerry or support Obama now. As for the why–that’s a matter for debate that will go on for years. The intention of my piece was to let folks who care about voting and consider themselves on the left side of the spectrum what else they might be voting for when they vote for Paul.

  36. Lloyd Rowsey said on January 8th, 2008 at 5:04pm #

    That’s a nice post, Deadbeat.

    But do these sorts of discussions going from considered expressions of differences with an article’s author sometimes involved, to increasingly egotistical and pre-fabricated position-declarations…do these sorts of discussions characterize internet exchanges about domestic politics in Britain, say, or Mexico or Canada? If Tricky-Dick Cheney sits in DC gloating that “not-to-worry, given time, and lord knows there’s time, they will just dissolve in squabbling, AGAIN,” would it matter? Do you get the feeling that the most trenchant comment you could post is just repeating what you posted two weeks ago, but drifted away from slightly in the interim?

    I was looking for a nice Fauvist painting and ran across the name of Louis Valtat about a week ago, and lo and behold, the Internet turned one up at the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art. There I spent an hour downloading from their beautiful collection of Impressionist and 20th century European and American Art. And I began to feel differently about the 2003 outrages of those who lamented the destruction of Iraq’s museums. In 2003, I was simply outraged by the Chipmunk’s incredible stupidity and so outrageous violatations of international law. (So outraged that I included the word “fuck” in my entry in my college’s 40th Anniversary Report at the time.) But thinking last week that any day now, the fool might wake up and decide it’s time, time to hit Iran, and…and…that’s it, squabblers. No more Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art, and all bet’s are off.

    Iraq was Sinbad the Sailor’s land; most of us met Sinbad when we were growing up and loved him, right? And his home was in Baghdad, if I’m not mistaken. Is it just good bye Baghdad, hello another nothing Left in America?

    I thought Marcelle Cendrars had been selling her own program short, saying we have to point for three years from now. Now I wonder. While the words of a long-disappeared Vietnam Vet friend — an electronics expert on a destroyer off the coast, he was — come back to me. “Without hope…there is no hope.”

  37. Lloyd Rowsey said on January 8th, 2008 at 5:16pm #

    Or am I confusing this thread with another?

  38. jesus was a monkey said on January 8th, 2008 at 6:18pm #

    @ Marcelle Cendrars:
    in terms of which movement is the more dynamic and radicalising, then the 911 truth movement wins hands down, esp in the last year-six months, when it has reached an almost critical mass.

    i don’t know if you’ve checked it out recently but things such as the truth squads, architects/engineers, pilots, students, academics and many other groups and individuals not traditionally associated with “left causes” are now active, impassioned and involved in advocating the cause.

    and make no mistake, 911 truth by logical extension is an anti-war, anti-imperialist, anti-fascist movement. the left in the usa, and in gb and australia and elsewhere in the anglo-saxon world, are , as usual, the last ones to get it. this is no more exemplified than in the person of the master sleepwalker, chomsky, himself.

    on last checking the only established grouping on the left that had a half decent analysis of 911 and its importance in understanding the entire picture of war, global capitalism and approaching fascism, are the dear old trots at world socilaist web site (but they can’t quite bring themselves to say “false flag”).

    we don’t really need to go out and start a new movement, or breath life into the dead carcass of the anti-war movement, 911 truth movement is already that movement and growing rapidly.

    in the ideological vacuum of the left’s non-involvement in 911 truth it’s left to the likes of the right wing activist alex jones to educate the cadres.

    i can’t overstate that the left needs to wake up to itself and get a handle on this issue. a proper handle, understand what the truth movement is saying and stop rejecting it out of hand as a trivial side issue.

    for the left to be so uninvolved in a growing, happening movement as 911 truth is a big mistake.

  39. Marcelle Cendrars said on January 8th, 2008 at 6:53pm #

    There’s stuff to do before three years pass, but I’m looking to others to tell me what that is; my focus was on 2010, the first “certain kind of governor that’s never been before” getting into the powerful seat in Sacramento through –and this is very important– unprecedented means, replacing mainstream news shows once he/she is in, among other things. I have ideas to implement prior to 2010, but that agenda is my main focus; my other ideas are relatively weak compared to that one…at present. Discussion on all welcome…in person.

    I’d like a simple sentence or two from the person who had something negative to say about Chomsky. Want to get the position stated clear.

    Must run, but I do hope people will give me feedback on the Ron Paul piece (link cited above) at moc.oohaynull@ardnecb, and give me other stuff here.

    Best, M

  40. Deadbeat said on January 8th, 2008 at 8:19pm #

    Lloyd Rowsey writes…
    But do these sorts of discussions going from considered expressions of differences with an article’s author sometimes involved, to increasingly egotistical and pre-fabricated position-declarations…do these sorts of discussions characterize internet exchanges about domestic politics in Britain, say, or Mexico or Canada? If Tricky-Dick Cheney sits in DC gloating that “not-to-worry, given time, and lord knows there’s time, they will just dissolve in squabbling, AGAIN,” would it matter? Do you get the feeling that the most trenchant comment you could post is just repeating what you posted two weeks ago, but drifted away from slightly in the interim?

    Look Lloyd,

    I’m not sure what you are driving at with your commentary but my response to Ron was clear and concise. Ron stated that there is “no easy way out.” I disagree. What is difficult is identifying the problem. The solution is fairly easy.

    My premise is that the “left” has spent more time diverting people’s attention from confronting serious issues. That makes the left appear untrustworthy. I’m sorry if I may sound repetitive to you but unfortunately it is the same issue and the same omission.

    I certainly would not disabuse you if you expressed and repeated the same discontent over a particular issue (for example Ron Paul) that is the purpose of this blog and there may be new or infrequent readers who happen upon DV that you may want to consider as well.

    Thus, your remark about “ego”, IMO, is irrelevant to the topic at hand that you’ve needlessly interjected into this discussion. If you disagree with the content of my remarks then simply express the points where you disagree and we can debate them.

    Thank you.

  41. Deadbeat said on January 8th, 2008 at 8:26pm #

    I’d like a simple sentence or two from the person who had something negative to say about Chomsky. Want to get the position stated clear.

    Here’s a few links however the article are more comprehensive than a few sentences.
    Jeffrey Blankfort01

    Jeffrey Blankfort02

    Double Standards

  42. Lloyd Rowsey said on January 9th, 2008 at 12:27pm #

    Deadbeat. Your and my differences are of emphasis. Because I couldn’t agree more with your (most) basic premise: “that the ‘left’ has (wasted)…time diverting people’s attention from confronting serious issues.” And I agree that your posts in this thread have been clear and concise (although I don’t know what IMO means.)

    Nonetheless, now that you’ve framed the question so precisely, I should add that: we disagree on what constitute “serious issues” which the left has waffled on. (And we disagree on many subsidiary matters, for example, Noam Chomsky’s contributions and whether Ron Jacobs believes that “liberals” are “leftists”.)

    What is less subjective, however, is the perception that reality is constantly changing. And this perception places a greater burden to re-examine on persons who assert that they are simply restating an opinion, than the burden to re-examine on persons who assert they are stating an opinion occasioned by new facts. Which in a way renders irrelevant the factor of new readers’ requiring to be provided with history. And which applies how, to the issue of the left’s waffling on “serious issues.”? In my case, the heavier burden is on me to re-examine my opinion that waffling on its anti-war sentiments has been the cause of the left’s appearing untrustworthy. In your case, the burden is on you to re-examine your opinion that waffling on its other-than-anti-war sentiments has been the cause of the left’s appearing untrustworthy.

    I tried to meet my burden by telling a true story about the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art. Elsewhere, I’ve tried to meet the same burden with a poem. In this post, I’m trying to be analytical and rational, in response to your challenge of that nature, but it is because of self-perceived limitations in my analytical and rational abilities that I’ve tried to meet my burden to re-examine my opinion of the left’s waffling by a process that resulted in a story and in a poem. To the extent that these “creative” results were ambiguous (and I know that they were) or misleading, I’m sorry.

    In struggle, my friend

  43. Alice said on January 9th, 2008 at 9:26pm #

    They would be voting for ani-choice for women and their bodies…

  44. Lloyd Rowsey said on January 10th, 2008 at 8:48am #

    And they will be voting for many other essentially unspeakables also, Alice. My argument as an at-least temporarily pro-Paul radical is that: (1) his continued presence in the Republican race will shake out for us the extent and depth of anti-Iraq-war sentiment, knowledge about which is truly crucial to radicals; and, (2) he simply cannot win, anyway, whether he is forced out, drops out, or is assasinated.