Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Sun Jan 8, 2012, 09:26 PM Jan 2012

The folly of progressives for Paul

The folly of progressives for Paul

by Dante Atkins

Without the why, you are powerless. -- The Merovingian, The Matrix Reloaded

Political positions do not exist in a vacuum, independent of a larger context. An individual's political ideology cannot be determined simply by asking where that person stands on a series of hot-button issues and then throwing those positions onto an inflexible scorecard to determine if someone leans closer to "liberal" or "conservative." Instead, each individual point of data on a hypothetical test of ideology is, to at least some degree, predicted by an underlying narrative of values and beliefs.

Let's take, for the sake of example, the issue of pornography. In the 1980s, radical feminists like Andrea Dworkin led a movement against pornography on the grounds that it promoted the subjugation of women by men. Leaders of her ideological movement even formed alliances with the Christian right wing, who despised pornography not because they had any problem with men subjugating women—something that their ideology is in fact somewhat dependent on—but because of their repressive perspective toward anything having to do with human sexuality. Other feminist activists like Margaret Atwood criticized such alliances as ultimately counterproductive and dangerous: while there was a short-term opportunity for mutual gain on one area of interest, playing with that kind of fire could, in their view, provide undue empowerment to the enemies of the broader feminist movement. What mattered to them, after all, was not whether the Christian right had some superficial common ground on one issue: what mattered was why they held that perspective, and the ramifications of promoting people who despised just about everything else their movement stood for in the hopes of short-term gain on one issue.

So it is with the progressive movement's relationship to Congressman Ron Paul. Paul has policy prescriptions that seem on a superficial level to align closely with progressive values: most significantly, he opposes the continuing military presence in Afghanistan, and he opposes the current war on drugs—both of which are regarded by many progressives as total policy failures that should be ended as soon as possible. To "single-issue" progressives for whom either of these two issues, or perhaps the indefinite military detention provisions of the NDAA, are key concerns above all else, Paul's candidacy may initially prove attractive because he seems at first glance to be promoting issues of common cause. Paul-touting progressives are no doubt just as aware of Ron Paul's positions on women's rights, the Voting Rights Act, health care, and our country's entire macroeconomic structure; but they likely view Paul's candidacy as an opportunity not only to promote their own favorite issue, but also perhaps to stick a proverbial finger in the eye of President Obama, who they feel has not met their expectations.

<...>

Progressives and Ron Paul may agree on how to handle Afghanistan. What they don't agree on is whether they care about other people dying. On the campaign trail, President Obama said that he's not opposed to all wars; he's opposed to dumb wars. That is an inherently progressive ideology. Intervention—peacekeeping at best, outright war at worst—is a strongly founded progressive value and always has been. For progressives, the question of whether or not to intervene hinges not on whether interventionism is inherently good or bad; rather, the question is whether on balance, the intervention will bring about a net positive result. Progressives now often oppose our intervention in Afghanistan because we are spending fortunes doing more harm than good for an objective that is poorly understood, even if it is obtainable. However, few sensible progressives would argue, for instance, that fighting the Nazis was a bad idea. Ron Paul, does not have anywhere close to that level of progressive humanist values: he simply does not want any of his time and resources spent on preventing others from dying, no matter whether that intervention seems to be a good idea from a progressive perspective or not. Consequently, he opposes our continued presence in Afghanistan, but also thinks that saving the Jews from extermination at the hands of the Nazis was none of our business.

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/08/1052502/-The-folly-of-progressives-for-Paul

23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The folly of progressives for Paul (Original Post) ProSense Jan 2012 OP
Kick! n/t ProSense Jan 2012 #1
A tip MFrohike Jan 2012 #2
Seriously, ProSense Jan 2012 #4
His valid points MFrohike Jan 2012 #7
Wait ProSense Jan 2012 #8
Your last sentence is why it sucks MFrohike Jan 2012 #9
You ProSense Jan 2012 #10
Credibility? MFrohike Jan 2012 #11
Seriously ProSense Jan 2012 #12
. MFrohike Jan 2012 #13
So ProSense Jan 2012 #14
The beginning of your citation hold the points of attraction MFrohike Jan 2012 #15
But ProSense Jan 2012 #17
What? MFrohike Jan 2012 #18
Which ProSense Jan 2012 #19
Clarity MFrohike Jan 2012 #20
Well, ProSense Jan 2012 #21
Claims MFrohike Jan 2012 #22
This article does not go far enough, it doesn't show how Ron Paul's foreign policy... joshcryer Jan 2012 #3
I ProSense Jan 2012 #5
k&DUrec n/t JTFrog Jan 2012 #6
knr Zorra Jan 2012 #16
KICKED, BOOKMARKED & HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!! Liberal_Stalwart71 Jan 2012 #23

MFrohike

(1,980 posts)
2. A tip
Sun Jan 8, 2012, 10:19 PM
Jan 2012

When you see a serious article beginning with a quotation from the Matrix, it's going to be terrible. Seriously, that article is a mishmash of pop history and bullshit. If you want a serious article to refute Ron Paul, this ain't the guy.



ProSense

(116,464 posts)
4. Seriously,
Sun Jan 8, 2012, 10:26 PM
Jan 2012

"Seriously, that article is a mishmash of pop history and bullshit."

...I can distinguish the valid points from the Matrix quote.

MFrohike

(1,980 posts)
7. His valid points
Sun Jan 8, 2012, 11:18 PM
Jan 2012

He buttressed them with poorly chosen historical examples, which did not remotely support his claims, and the kind of weak reasoning I'd expect to see on cable news. Rather than engage Paul on his perceived, key word perceived, strengths, he chose to attack him on wacky shit that is easily refutable to an audience with little or no historical knowledge. This article makes me think of Krugman's line about Gingrich, "He sounds smart to dumb people."

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
8. Wait
Sun Jan 8, 2012, 11:31 PM
Jan 2012
He buttressed them with poorly chosen historical examples, which did not remotely support his claims, and the kind of weak reasoning I'd expect to see on cable news. Rather than engage Paul on his perceived, key word perceived, strengths, he chose to attack him on wacky shit that is easily refutable to an audience with little or no historical knowledge. This article makes me think of Krugman's line about Gingrich, "He sounds smart to dumb people."


...what? "Engage Paul"? It's a diary simply stating why it's silly for progressives to hype Paul. The point can be summed up in the few examples of Paul's actual positions and where they run contrary to progressive views beyond the superficial.

Cable news outlets influence a lot of people, far too many than they should. I doubt anyone reading this is going to confuse it with indepth intellectual analysis.

MFrohike

(1,980 posts)
9. Your last sentence is why it sucks
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 12:38 AM
Jan 2012

Ron Paul will eventually fade away into obscurity. We will be stuck with his cult of personality for longer. It's better to tear down his perceived strengths in order to attack a fundamentally bullshit view of the world. It may be enough to simply paint Paul as the loony, racist, conspiracy-theory-driven guy with the goofy eyebrows for him to lose.* The problem is that doesn't deal with the cult. Well, I should say the hangers-on and those potentially sucked into this maelstrom of wishful thinking and adamant refusal to ever deal with the world as it is as opposed to how he'd like it to be. That will require far more and yesterday would have been a late start on it.

*I honestly think Ron Paul's hit his ceiling at any rate. He has a very, very dedicated base but he simply comes off as too loony for people at the present time. The same was true of Barry Goldwater. He lost, but we all lost when his disciple Ronald Reagan kept the torch burning and eventually won. I don't know whether Paul is really just Lyndon LaRouche or Barry Goldwater, but I think it's better to attack the areas he's considered strong with the primary goal of showing that his views, and all neoclassical views, are failed visions of the economic world and need to be discarded. His is the most radical and ideological which makes it quite perfect for that task.

Dante Atkins is pretty terrible writer. He needs to learn how to coherently organize an argument rather than just throw a bunch of shit on the wall and hope something sticks.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
10. You
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 10:00 AM
Jan 2012

"Ron Paul will eventually fade away into obscurity. We will be stuck with his cult of personality for longer. It's better to tear down his perceived strengths in order to attack a fundamentally bullshit view of the world."

...keep insisting that the piece doesn't touch on Paul's "perceived strengths" when a few are mentioned. That "cult" you mentioned isn't going to disappear by continuing to give Paul an ounce of credibility. I suspect his supporters will find value in Rand. It's incredible that he ever became a U.S. Senator.

MFrohike

(1,980 posts)
11. Credibility?
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 12:27 PM
Jan 2012

If you attack him solely on the newsletters and a few votes from years ago, it sounds like the same old bullshit. If you show his economic/monetary viewpoint is not just wrong, but dead wrong, you ultimately whittle his influence down to the hardcore, drink-the-koolaid-daily cultists. Show his supporters, more than a few of whom are employed by government, that his ideas will put them on the breadlines because that's exactly what they did in the past (I would say unemployment line, but we know Ron would nix that).

When I speak of his perceived strengths, I don't mean to liberals and further left. I'm talking about everybody else. There are a lot of people in this country who think Ron Paul must know what he's talking about because 1) it's different than anything else they've heard before and 2) he keeps talking about it. He's almost like a model diagram of a right-wing economic policy mouthpiece. That makes him perfect for discrediting the rest of them. They don't attack him on his ideas for taxation, spending, and the like. It would be a smarter move to link his ideas, and by extension theirs, to the hot topic of income inequality.

I get why people like him. He offers radical change at a time when great change is desperately needed. I just don't think mass starvation and vastly empowering unelected, unaccountable individuals is really the smart plan. I'd prefer if Ron moved somewhere like Somalia so he could experience his "paradise of freedom" firsthand.

I can't stand Rand. I thought he was a smarmy bastard from the start, but I knew he had a good shot with all his bumper stickers I saw when I lived in Kentucky. He actually makes Bunning look slightly less insane, which is just astounding.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
12. Seriously
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 12:45 PM
Jan 2012

"If you attack him solely on the newsletters and a few votes from years ago, it sounds like the same old bullshit. "

...are you saying that the piece only criticizes Paul on "the newsletters"? I mean, did you read the OP? Here, where is the reference to the newsletters in this paragraph:

So it is with the progressive movement's relationship to Congressman Ron Paul. Paul has policy prescriptions that seem on a superficial level to align closely with progressive values: most significantly, he opposes the continuing military presence in Afghanistan, and he opposes the current war on drugs—both of which are regarded by many progressives as total policy failures that should be ended as soon as possible. To "single-issue" progressives for whom either of these two issues, or perhaps the indefinite military detention provisions of the NDAA, are key concerns above all else, Paul's candidacy may initially prove attractive because he seems at first glance to be promoting issues of common cause. Paul-touting progressives are no doubt just as aware of Ron Paul's positions on women's rights, the Voting Rights Act, health care, and our country's entire macroeconomic structure; but they likely view Paul's candidacy as an opportunity not only to promote their own favorite issue, but also perhaps to stick a proverbial finger in the eye of President Obama, who they feel has not met their expectations.


"When I speak of his perceived strengths, I don't mean to liberals and further left. I'm talking about everybody else. "

What? The piece isn't titled: "The folly of 'Everybody Else' for Ron Paul."


MFrohike

(1,980 posts)
13. .
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 01:02 PM
Jan 2012

Those aren't points of attack, they're points of attraction.

If people are ready to deal with his most dangerous aspects, they can educate everyone else.

Here's a piece that nails a part of the libertarian stupidity I can never remember to slap around.
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/03/race_liberty_and_ron_paul/singleton/

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
14. So
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 01:23 PM
Jan 2012

"Those aren't points of attack, they're points of attraction."

...you couldn't find any reference to "the newsletters" in the paragraph? You consider these "points of attraction":

So it is with the progressive movement's relationship to Congressman Ron Paul. Paul has policy prescriptions that seem on a superficial level to align closely with progressive values: most significantly, he opposes the continuing military presence in Afghanistan, and he opposes the current war on drugs—both of which are regarded by many progressives as total policy failures that should be ended as soon as possible. To "single-issue" progressives for whom either of these two issues, or perhaps the indefinite military detention provisions of the NDAA, are key concerns above all else, Paul's candidacy may initially prove attractive because he seems at first glance to be promoting issues of common cause. Paul-touting progressives are no doubt just as aware of Ron Paul's positions on women's rights, the Voting Rights Act, health care, and our country's entire macroeconomic structure; but they likely view Paul's candidacy as an opportunity not only to promote their own favorite issue, but also perhaps to stick a proverbial finger in the eye of President Obama, who they feel has not met their expectations.


MFrohike

(1,980 posts)
15. The beginning of your citation hold the points of attraction
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 02:07 PM
Jan 2012

If you hadn't noticed, more than a few people like his positions on foreign policy and the drug war. Those two issues are points of attraction for many on the left. We've gone over Paul enough for you to know that I'm not one of his fans. I think his primary appeal, across the political spectrum, is that he offers an alternative vision for the country, in much the same way as Ross Perot did in 1992 (his 1996 run didn't have the same spark). It's clear and compelling and wrong.

Granted, the newsletters are not specifically mentioned in the paragraph. Given that they are a constant presence on DU, I would hope you could forgive me for mentioning them.

There is only one issue that I think makes him attractive to the left, though it underlies multiple issues. That is civil liberties. He constantly speaks about a "loss of our freedoms" to the encroaching power of government. The attraction of this is no surprise. Consider it blowback from the Bush years. You can't expect people to spend most of a decade bemoaning the gradual encroachment of the national security state and then magically turn it off just because the president has a (D) next to his name. Rather than waste time trying to prove he's a liar, it would be better to show how his vision of government will simply give undemocratic groups the power to attack civil liberties. It's possible to reproach government for its failings and realize that simply removing government from the equation is counterproductive, at best. Attack the idea, not the man. The man is old and won't be around forever. The idea can keep floating out there for whichever idiot picks it up next.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
17. But
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 02:14 PM
Jan 2012

"The beginning of your citation hold the points of attraction"

...the other points are not.


"There is only one issue that I think makes him attractive to the left, though it underlies multiple issues. That is civil liberties. He constantly speaks about a "loss of our freedoms" to the encroaching power of government. The attraction of this is no surprise."

So you're rejecting the piece on the basis that it isn't well-written and offering up justification for the very point the piece rejects?

Ron Paul believes people are free to treat blacks as second class citizens and everyone is free to die without health care.

Please, spare me the claim that he values "civil liberties."

MFrohike

(1,980 posts)
18. What?
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 02:28 PM
Jan 2012

You picked a pretty bad paragraph to make your point. It mixed the points of attraction for Paul with a passing mention, not specific at all, of his downside. I should be fair. You didn't pick a bad paragraph, you picked a bad article. That paragraph was emblematic of the piece as a whole. It's a discussion of some of his perceived strengths with a passing mention of his weaknesses, with little or no discussion of those weaknesses. Throw in the Matrix quotation and some bad history and you've got trash masquerading as serious analysis.

The piece doesn't reject him on civil liberties. The piece essentially says "yeah, he says good stuff about this, but he says bad stuff about other stuff but I'm too lazy to develop a coherent argument to refute the bad stuff." I could get that from the man in the street. Kos occasionally has good articles, but that one sucked. Period.

You have a comprehension problem. I've never defended Paul on anything. When I speak of him, I use very specific language. I talk about his points of attraction for the left and the country at large and his perceived strengths. I use those phrases for a reason. I use them so no one will misunderstand my critique of how he's been attacked. I think it's short-sighted and far too personality focused, which is a general failing of modern politics as it is. You can spend all day attacking Ron Paul the man, but unless you actually attack his positions separately from him, it does no good. When I mention Barry Goldwater, I do so for a reason. He lost in 1964 by the largest landslide in popular vote history. His ideas are still here. Effectively, the battle was won and the war was lost. The same can happen with loony old Ron Paul if people choose to worry about the present while blinding themselves to the future.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
19. Which
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 02:43 PM
Jan 2012
You picked a pretty bad paragraph to make your point. It mixed the points of attraction for Paul with a passing mention, not specific at all, of his downside. I should be fair. You didn't pick a bad paragraph, you picked a bad article. That paragraph was emblematic of the piece as a whole. It's a discussion of some of his perceived strengths with a passing mention of his weaknesses, with little or no discussion of those weaknesses. Throw in the Matrix quotation and some bad history and you've got trash masquerading as serious analysis.


..."point" was that, the one about "the newsletters" not being mentioned that you previously acknowledged:

"Granted, the newsletters are not specifically mentioned in the paragraph. Given that they are a constant presence on DU, I would hope you could forgive me for mentioning them."



"The piece doesn't reject him on civil liberties. The piece essentially says "yeah, he says good stuff about this, but he says bad stuff about other stuff but I'm too lazy to develop a coherent argument to refute the bad stuff." I could get that from the man in the street. Kos occasionally has good articles, but that one sucked. Period."

No "period." The piece specifically contrasts Paul's opposition to the war and his objection to the war on drugs as coming to the same conclusion for the wrong reasons. Specifically, Paul's position is no intervention whatsoever.

If you want to argue that he could have made his point with a stronger argument, fine, but you cannot argue that he didn't try.

You have a comprehension problem. I've never defended Paul on anything. When I speak of him, I use very specific language. I talk about his points of attraction for the left and the country at large and his perceived strengths. I use those phrases for a reason. I use them so no one will misunderstand my critique of how he's been attacked. I think it's short-sighted and far too personality focused, which is a general failing of modern politics as it is. You can spend all day attacking Ron Paul the man, but unless you actually attack his positions separately from him, it does no good. When I mention Barry Goldwater, I do so for a reason. He lost in 1964 by the largest landslide in popular vote history. His ideas are still here. Effectively, the battle was won and the war was lost. The same can happen with loony old Ron Paul if people choose to worry about the present while blinding themselves to the future.

What does that have to do with the piece?

You're awfully defensive. I said nothing about you having "defended Paul on anything."

You said: "There is only one issue that I think makes him attractive to the left, though it underlies multiple issues. That is civil liberties. He constantly speaks about a "loss of our freedoms" to the encroaching power of government. The attraction of this is no surprise."

And I responded:

So you're rejecting the piece on the basis that it isn't well-written and offering up justification for the very point the piece rejects?



MFrohike

(1,980 posts)
20. Clarity
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 03:02 PM
Jan 2012

There is only one issue that I think makes him attractive to the left, though it underlies multiple issues. That is civil liberties. He constantly speaks about a "loss of our freedoms" to the encroaching power of government. The attraction of this is no surprise. Consider it blowback from the Bush years. You can't expect people to spend most of a decade bemoaning the gradual encroachment of the national security state and then magically turn it off just because the president has a (D) next to his name.

The two sentences following your citation of me are an explanation of the Paul phenomenon in regards to civil liberties. It may be inconvenient to point it out, but it's nothing but the truth.

Yes, Atkins did try. He did a lazy job of it. I'd rather he didn't try and let someone more able do the job. The best way I can describe his effort is half-assed. A half-assed job is usually worse than doing nothing, so I would prefer that he either whole-ass the job next time or just not bother.

Justification? What am I justifying? Justification is a synonym for excuse with moralistic overtones. I'm not making excuses. I am explaining. When I point out that Paul gets traction on his talk of civil liberties because the left spent most of a decade yelling and screaming about Bush, what excuse am I making? The only reason that he gets play on the issue is the fact he's using the word liberty instead of the word safety. You don't have to like that, but reality doesn't much care what any of us likes.

Defensive? Yes, clearly that must be it. I'm sure it's not that I carefully delineate exactly what I'm saying because of the general gotcha tendency on this board. I'm sure that I'm not careful so that I can keep the lines of debate open instead of allowing them to be closed with a simple epithet: Paul-lover or something similar. This forum is full of people who love to read what they want instead of what's written and who will jump to conclusions faster than a jackrabbit. All that does is close minds and keep the old status quo arguments and thinking chugging along. Rather than have a debate of personalities, I'm a bit of an idealist who would prefer an actual debate of ideas. I must be crazy.

I reject the piece because it's poorly written, poorly reasoned, and abysmally argued. It's a half-assed job and I'd prefer if he'd stick to his day job. Combine that with my paragraph on justification and you have the answer to your question.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
21. Well,
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 03:09 PM
Jan 2012

"Clarity...Yes, Atkins did try. He did a lazy job of it. I'd rather he didn't try and let someone more able do the job."

...I got that from your first comment. You didn't like the piece. What I don't get is why you tried to claim he didn't address the issues (as your comment above concedes) and then threw the newsletters into the argument?

Defensive? Yes, clearly that must be it. I'm sure it's not that I carefully delineate exactly what I'm saying because of the general gotcha tendency on this board. I'm sure that I'm not careful so that I can keep the lines of debate open instead of allowing them to be closed with a simple epithet: Paul-lover or something similar. This forum is full of people who love to read what they want instead of what's written and who will jump to conclusions faster than a jackrabbit. All that does is close minds and keep the old status quo arguments and thinking chugging along. Rather than have a debate of personalities, I'm a bit of an idealist who would prefer an actual debate of ideas. I must be crazy.


What does that have to do with this discussion?

Oh, and to my previous comment, current opposition to the Afghanistan war isn't unique to Paul. It also wasn't an intervention, and he voted for that war.

MFrohike

(1,980 posts)
22. Claims
Mon Jan 9, 2012, 08:24 PM
Jan 2012

I never said he didn't address issues, I said he did it in passing. Your quoted paragraph was a great example. It pretty much breezes through the high points and low points with no effort to describe them at all. I'll give this one more shot.

I'll use the example of "women's rights" as Atkins said. He didn't explain what he meant, and I have to wonder if he even knew. Sure, Paul is personally opposed to abortion, but he seems strangely unwilling to hit that subject dead on unless he's in a friendly audience. Atkins could have said that Ron Paul wants to remove the right to abortion from the federal constitution thereby giving every state its own chance to ban or retain it. He could have then pointed out that when rights end up in the hands of the stats, historically, those rights end up non-existent. He could have used it as a primer on the danger of the states' rights doctrine, which all of the GOP candidates endorse, not just Ron Paul. This is just one example of what he could have done.

The article is trash because it's lazy. You're being lazy by harping on the newsletters, which I conceded. Would you prefer sackcloth and ashes to express my sincere regret at one mistake in this entire discussion? I'm not sure how I'd get them through the internet, but maybe if I shove them in the air vent on the back of my computer, we can make it happen. I'd hope you could maybe see past my human error and prove the old saying that while to err is human, to forgive is divine.

I should have just said the article sucks and left it at that. I think our subthread here is longer than the rest of it.

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
3. This article does not go far enough, it doesn't show how Ron Paul's foreign policy...
Sun Jan 8, 2012, 10:22 PM
Jan 2012

...is ultra-nationalist to the core. Consider his views on NAFTA, which xenophobically trash trade policy as leading to an EU-style North America. His anti-internationalism goes so far as to decry internationalism and foreign aid to the impoverished, under the auspices of "too much taxes."

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
5. I
Sun Jan 8, 2012, 10:37 PM
Jan 2012

"This article does not go far enough, it doesn't show how Ron Paul's foreign policy...is ultra-nationalist to the core.

...don't think this diary was meant to be all inclusive as much as it tried to make a point. Still, Paul's position on everything is anti-federal goverment/intervention, or as you say, from a foreign policy perspective "ultra-nationalist."

His philosophy is you're free and on your own. His position on the war on drugs is no different, and as for any help for people affected by his decisions, well like his opposition to health care there is always charity.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=137223

Ron Paul: 'Entitlements are not rights'
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-entitlements-are-not-rights/2012/01/08/gIQAbDsJjP_video.html

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The folly of progressives...