Letters to the Editor
-
@ Glenn, Evan Haas
You do not find Dave Neiwert's efforts persuasive. Fair enough. I would still be interested to know what might come of a dialogue between you and Chip Berlet on this issue. He really covered this ground first starting in 1991 with the First Gulf War.
Evan,
I just posted that to poke a little fun at even the "Serious Academics" who use the term "kooks". In this case it is directed at the Austrian schoolers. Even supply siders cut them no slack. If that article you linked to is by the same Robert Locke who wrote this...
Marxism of the Right
http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html
I will be interested in reading it.
-
Principles then particulars
I think one of the things that sets Ron Paul apart is the fact that he argues from a principle first and then applies the principle to the particular. In some cases the particular fails to fit properly which is why his stand on the separation of Church and State is rather incoherent. But it puts him at the extreme opposite from HRC and from most Conservatives for that matter, who have a laundry list of viewpoints on particular issues, but are absolutely unable to come up with any consistent framework on which to base them.
The disconnect between someone who is anti-abortion but pro-war is only the most glaring example of what I'm talking about. There are many others.
What is most troubling about the Ron Paul movement however IS the association between libertarianism and racism. Frequently you'll find this defended under the label "Freedom Of Association" The fact that RP's constitutionalism fits nicely with the viewpoint of those who see the Civil Rights Act as an Unconstitutional encroachment of the Federal Government over States Rights end up meaning that racists will indeed gravitate toward his campaign whether he encourages it or not.
-
arrenfrank
Thanks. Was your mention of homunculus (one of my very favorite words) in any way an allusion to a post I made some time ago that so many neoconservatives look like homunculi?
In any event, your use of the word brought a smile to my face.
-
I find myself disappointed
I had considered Greenwald a rather reasoned and bright voice in the miasma of GOP (and even Democrat) crap but here he is, showing his spots. An unabridged libertarian lay under that false veneer of reasonableness. Just another "I got mine so screw you" me-firster.
Huge disappointment. Now I cannot read Glenn without thinking about the libertarian crap that clearly underlays his writing. You can now only be viewed and read with suspicion.
It could only be worse if you (Glenn) came out and stated you were a member of the Minutemen.
-
geez
Look, if you go through the Newiert posts Glenn links to you might notice that I contributed some of the stuff that Glenn called a smear of Paul.
Yet I see no need to start attacking Glenn for being a "libertarian", nor do I feel any animosity towards him. He doesn't find that stuff compelling and said so. What's wrong with that?
It seems clear to me that Glenn's concern is that Paul's sorely needed outspoken criticism of the Bush administration's lawlessness is being marginalized by unfair attacks on Paul's character. That's completely consistent with what he's been doing with U.T. since the start.
-
cole on paul
i like juan cole's take on ron paul (probably in part because i think my politics are similar to cole's). hope folks will read the whole thing, but here's a bit to entice:
Ron Paul's popularity does not derive only from his opposition to the Iraq War. It derives from the sanity of the American people, who love liberty and reject Bushism. The opposite of fascism is not democracy but anarchy.
http://www.juancole.com/2007/11/did-w-create-ron-paul.html
-
Ron Paul distortions
Homonculus?
How can you tell they look like homonculi?
Even Paracelsus never saw one. He had to be sniffing some fumes in that alchemy lab. Great word, tho'.
The biggest Ron Paul distortion is probably the actual level of support for him. It's all an internet manipulation. Even the 11/5 "momeybomb" stunt. It was quite a feat but it was contrived and it doesn't look sustainable. The actual target was 9 million. There is one every week until the end of the Q, with a big push for a "Ron Paul Tea Party" on 12/16.
Yesterday's "moneybomb" bombed and unless it starts to pick back up, I have no doubt it was a "flash in the pan," as they say.
-
Ron Paul a "libertarian"?
I might be tempted to support Ron Paul's candidacy myself were it not for his pretty radical (read: Christian religious right) anti-abortion posture. In fact, although I know that many self-identified "libertarians" hold similar views, I simply can't understand how those supposedly *opposed* to government intrusion into the private lives of citizens can support such a view, absent overriding religious motivations. And I believe I've heard or read recently that Ron Paul supports some sort of official legislative action to define human life as beginning at conception, a direct attack on the body of Roe vs. Wade case law, as well as a direct attack on logic.
So I suppose Ron Paul is some sort of "religious libertarian," holding that government influence is evil unless it serves to enshrine Christian religious dogma as civil law, in which case it is absolutely indispensable. And that is not the kind of libertarian I am.
-
zack_
Fine, don’t be coy, Glenn, why can’t you cite a couple of areas of disagreement with Ron Paul? If you have, I’m sorry, but I’ve missed it.
I don't do this ever. Virtually every post I write deals with one discrete issue and only that issue. I don't run around gratuitiously opining on every issue that pops up. That's true for many reasons -- I don't think my opinion without a reasoned argument has intrinsic worth; summarily opining on issues that aren't the ones I'm focused on can distract from the ones I want to focus on; and I try not to express an opinion unless and until I think my view is very well-developed and I have something of worth and some uniqueness to say on the topic.
Precisely because I'm not running for Congress, I don't need to provide a checklist of every view I have on every issue. And I never do. There is nothing unique about my Paul posts in that regard.
You’re very explicit in where you agree with Ron Paul, but when it comes to areas and issues where you might disagree with him, your normally forceful denunciations just aren’t there.
This is just not true. As far as I can recall, the only two issues I've ever expressed agreement with Paul are the two policy issues I write about most in general: (1) re-asserting Constitutional limits on presidential power (and government power generally) and (2) re-examining our imperialist and militaristic foreign policy premises. Those are the issues which are most important, to me at least, and as far as I can recall, I've confined my agreement with Ron Paul to those specific issues (the only other thing I've done is objected to distortions of his arguments -- such as his Tenth Amendment views -- without saying if I agree or disagree with them).
Dave Neiwert cited numerous bills and issues about Ron Paul’s record in Congress. If Glenn doesn’t want to at least sound like Ron Paul advocate, it wouldn’t be all that hard for him to pick a couple of those stances and say just where and why he disagrees with Ron Paul on this topic.
Why should I have to do this? When I have an opinion on something that I think is worth expressing, then I express it. If I don't, then I don't. What possible worth would some laundry list of views be ("I'm pro-X and anti-Y"). It contributes nothing to any discussion. As I said, politicians have to do that, I guess. But I never do that.
I don’t blame Glenn for not endorsing any particular candidate. He isn’t shy about saying where he disagrees with other politicians or in criticizing them when they take a position that Glenn disagrees with -- it’d sure be nice if he’d do the same with Ron Paul.
If I really favored one particular candidate, I would say so, not because I think it matters who I "endorse" - I don't - but because I think honesty would compel that. But I don't. I like some things about some candidates and dislike some things about others, and when I think I have something worthwhile to say about those things, I say them. If I don't, then I don't. That's how I've been writing since the time I first started my blog.