Letters to the Editor
-
Glenn, you are intrepid, and I daresay playing a very important role in recapturing democracy in America
I admire this column so much. I picked up my copy of the Dec. 24 issue of The Nation. They have a similar article on Paul that suggests the only reason worth paying attention to in his campaign is that he represents "old Right wing populism." The article sort of disses Justin Raimondo, which is pretty ironic given that antiwar.com was and remains an important resource for those opposing the Iraq war and U.S. policy in the Middle East.
What I find fascinating and troubling is that the article ignores the context of an increasingly authoritarian anti-democratic government as an important piece of the context in which Paul's popularity, limited but compelling, has arisen.
What's also odd is that if you try to point this out, you are automatically accused of supporting Paul, even if the writer knows very well that you don't. Another way of saying this is, "Does Klein really think you supported Paul's candidacy?" Why does analysis get turned into polemic and distortion of what analysts say?
As an academic I find THAT a very troubling sign of how deeply anti-intellectual is our current moment. Or better, how anti-intellectual is our public discourse about politics.
-
for the sake of completeness, Dana Goldstein responds...
RON PAUL ROUND 2: THE DEFINITIVE (I HOPE) TAKEDOWN.
Dear Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald,
I don't have a problem when people with whom I sometimes agree laud Ron Paul's original opposition to the Iraq War (a position he shares with Barack Obama, of course) or his long-running stance against American imperialism (Dennis Kucinich, too, has been there, done that). What does disturb me, though, is the rather uncritical idolatry of Paul that has flowered, even among self-described moderates and liberals. Andrew, your "endorsement" of Paul lends credibility to his entire agenda, not just those parts of it you highlighted in your post. And Glenn, I am not a pro-choice essentialist who believes no other issue, including the disastrous war in Iraq, should inform one's choice of a candidate. Rather, I situate Ron Paul's anti-choice extremism -- he believes a fetus has all the rights of an individual from the moment of conception -- within his illiberal, race-baiting, anti-gay, and corporatist history. I will document this characterization, but first, bear with me while I share a personal anecdote...
-
DON'T FEAR THE FREEDOM
If those that wail and whine against a Paul Presidency would consider the truth of his positions, they will see he has his own personal beliefs, which may or may not conform to theirs, but he doesn't advocate inposing those beliefs on ANYONE else.
Instead, Dr. Paul would allow Freedom and the Constitution to ultimately decide these matters, which is to say, the INDIVIDUAL American Citizen will have the lion share of autonomy over ALL aspects of their personal lives, not just those involving reproductive rights.
NO OTHER Candidate from either Party, besides the much maligned Dennis Kucinich, has promoted a Citizens Rights position over the continuation of Illegal War, Occupation, Domestic Surveillance, and Police State Tactics over Civil Liberties.
I would suspect that if the Americans now attacking Ron Paul over abortion or his religious beliefs, would HONESTLY apply those same standards to their own choice for President, they would find that they were lying to themselves, and that Dr. Paul is indeed the only viable candidate left that holds Americas best interests at heart.
I have NEVER voted for a Republican in my life, but I have reregistered as a Republican so I can vote for Dr. Paul in our closed Primary election. I truly believe that if we fail to elect him, our Nation will continue it's slide into what Bushco has constructed, which is a Fascist Dictatorship.
Don't fear the Freedom, America, you'll catch on in no time at all.
-
What's that about Kucinich
Glenn, why do you say about Kucinich "if one wants to count him"? If he's running for president and has the right position, then count him. That seems like a no-brainer to me.
-
Ron Paul's campaign is about rule of law, not abortion
Andrew, your "endorsement" of Paul lends credibility to his entire agenda, not just those parts of it you highlighted in your post.
That's simply wrong. Ron Paul is known for his opposition to the war in Iraq and his demands for a return to constitutional law. Those are the reasons he has a voice in this debate - he's the only option for conservative Republicans who believe that their party has gone off the deep end towards authoritarianism.
His other views are barely known and simply don't separate him from the field at all. Every Republican has declared an intention to outlaw abortion - Paul doesn't even go so far as Romney - who wants to pass a constitutional amendment against it.
Despite that, Ezra Klein wrote several posts describing why Romney would be the best Republican for the job. How he can expound on Romney's virtues and then scold Glenn for making the argument for Paul is something I can't understand.
-
Is reading really that fucking hard?
So few of our pundits seem able to do it at all. Jesus does it take some sort of genius-level intelligence to simply read something and follow along?
Pro-tip: Sound out the words!
-
Don’t Tread on Me.
Great column Glenn.
The Democratic Party has utterly failed to end the Iraq War and to impeach Bush and Cheney for their crimes.
This is one former Democratic Party member who is just plain fed up and plans on voting for Ron Paul in New Hampshire for various reasons including his principled stand on Iraq and US imperialism.
He would immediately withdraw US forces from Iraq - unlike the top three Democrats who use phrases like ‘phased withdrawal,’ to mean that they don’t plan on immediately withdrawing all forces – it very well may take years.
As Glenn and others have pointed out, although Paul personally opposes abortion, he would not make it a federal crime. Can this be any clearer?
And have you heard the top three Democratic candidates talk openly of curtailing US imperialism as Paul does? Or ending the War on Drugs?
On the Democratic side, their top candidates would continue federal laws which make it a crime for adults to grow marijuana on their own property. Do I hear liberal Democrats scream and holler about that?
Mostly what I hear from the Democrats is what they plan on the government giving me such as health care. But the only think I want from the government is to leave me alone.