Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Values Added: Porktastic Edition (Sarah Posner & Michael B. Dougherty) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=7209)

Ocean 12-05-2011 09:28 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 233564)
This irritates me. As a potential patient, I'm not so easily confused.

In any case, I see no reason to follow it in referring to politicians.

I don't know what the regulations are in California, and we don't have to get off on this tangent, but I see exactly why such regulation or custom would be put in place. It's very easy for many people to get confused about who is who in a health care environment. And a nurse is not a medical doctor. So anything that's done to avoid misunderstandings is a good idea. I've seen people very indignant, thinking that they are being deceived when someone who is not an physician calls himself or herself a doctor while they are in hospital or clinic.

badhatharry 12-05-2011 09:39 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 233492)
Don't miss that Paul campaign ad about Newt that Sarah and Michael reference in the diavlog.

or this one.

Wonderment 12-05-2011 09:46 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Here's an article that explores the issue and legislation introduced in various states to address it:

Quote:

Dr. Roland Goertz, the board chairman of the American Academy of Family Physicians, says that physicians are worried that losing control over “doctor,” a word that has defined their profession for centuries, will be followed by the loss of control over the profession itself. He said that patients could be confused about the roles of various health professionals who all call themselves doctors.

“There is real concern that the use of the word ‘doctor’ will not be clear to patients,” he said.

Wonderment 12-05-2011 09:54 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 233564)
This irritates me. As a potential patient, I'm not so easily confused.

In any case, I see no reason to follow it in referring to politicians.

I feel your pain (medical pun intended); I winced for years every time a pol used the honorific for Dr. Kissinger.

The upside is that with his accent the usage evoked both Dr. Mengele and Dr. Strangelove.

basman 12-05-2011 10:43 PM

Re: Values Added: Porktastic Edition (Sarah Posner & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
To onederment:

I was kibbitzing but sure I'll take that bet!

Itzik Basman

Wonderment 12-05-2011 11:01 PM

Re: Values Added: Porktastic Edition (Sarah Posner & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Quote:

I was kibbitzing but sure I'll take that bet!
Game on!

TwinSwords 12-05-2011 11:12 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 233550)
I'm sure, in the interest of being consistent in your principles, you also gag and object vehemently every time you hear someone refer to MLK as Dr. King.

I guess I never thought to question the use of the honorific for MLK, since I revere him as one of the great men of history.

Said by Ron Paul:

Quote:

Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.

Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

(W)e are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.
---

Dang. I was going to answer the rest of this, and a couple of other posts on this topic, but there's a new Bob diavlog; going to watch that, instead, and then I'll need to go to bed.

Last thing I'll say today is I don't think you really understand who's in that 7.5% of the GOP that supports Paul. They aren't all supporting him because of his peace agenda. You should look into who his followers are. Most of them appear to be Alex Jones fans, conspiracy theorists, virulent anti-Semites, and other survivalist-type far right wackos.

Remember: Paul is the one who promoted armed, anti-government militias during the 1990s and during the early years of the Obama administration. And he's the one who calls Lincoln a tyrant and objected to the end of slavery. Paul is also the one who wanted to preserve the legal framework for Jim Crow.

You've picked a hell of a guy to valorize.

TwinSwords 12-05-2011 11:18 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 233547)
this isn't right at all. I think it's wrong substantively, but that's just a different disagreement. politically, I think he views on monetary policy have a real effect on policy. I think you can attribute a lot of how the GOP field is talking about monetary policy to ron paul. when you talk about ron paul fans, a lot of people you're talking about are gold bugs, and it's one of the issues paul himself brings up the most. but when you talk about restraining the monster of entitlement spending, no one brings up ron paul right away. you talk about paul ryan. the idea to block grant medicaid didn't become a consensus GOP position because of anything ron paul did, just to take a random example.

Okay - you're right. I wasn't thinking of it that way, i.e., in terms of new ideas or relatively uncommon ideas that Paul is helping to mainstream, but if that's they what DZ was getting at (and I agree he probably was), then you're right.

I was just saying that in terms of Ron Paul's overall impact, he's going to get traction on almost everything else he believes, including his entitlements positions, long before he ever gets traction on his dead-in-the-water peace agenda.

sugarkang 12-05-2011 11:18 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 233566)

Hah. That was awesome.

TwinSwords 12-05-2011 11:21 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 233527)
While it was his fault that the words were printed, he himself was not the actual author.

Came across this tonight:

Quote:

Holland also provides evidence that Ron Paul’s campaign admitted he wrote the racist newletters and defended them in 1996 to both the Houston Chronicle and the Austin American Statesman.

Holland also notes that Paul admitted to writing the newsletters in 1996.

Quote:

His initial reaction to this issue, when it was raised by an adversary in the 1996 congressional election, was to admit to having written the columns and to defend their content as insignificant.

(Source)

sugarkang 12-05-2011 11:22 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 233576)
I was just saying that in terms of Ron Paul's overall impact, he's going to get traction on almost everything else he believes, including his entitlements positions, long before he ever gets traction on his dead-in-the-water peace agenda.

If the President has control over anything, it's our military and foreign policy more broadly. As we've seen with Obama, the President cannot move on fiscal issues without congressional backing.

So, I believe you have it exactly backwards.

sugarkang 12-05-2011 11:30 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 233578)

I've seen all that long ago. I did plenty of research before supporting Ron Paul and also cautioned Wonderment on supporting him a few months ago.

You can cherry pick all day as usual, but why not let Ron Paul speak for himself instead of relying on hearsay?

Ron Paul in his own words.

Pretty weird that he would adamantly shout "Rosa Parks is one of my heroes," but he hates MLK? No? Well, I'm sure you can rationalize anything.

TwinSwords 12-05-2011 11:30 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 233579)
If the President has control over anything, it's our military and foreign policy more broadly. As we've seen with Obama, the President cannot move on fiscal issues without congressional backing.

So, I believe you have it exactly backwards.


I wasn't talking about the impact a President Paul would have. I was talking about the impact a candidate Paul would have. Of course if Ron Paul got elected he could have much greater impact.

miceelf 12-05-2011 11:54 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 233579)
If the President has control over anything, it's our military and foreign policy more broadly. As we've seen with Obama, the President cannot move on fiscal issues without congressional backing.

So, I believe you have it exactly backwards.

I think we are talking about the impact Ron Paul is going to have as someone who ran for president, not someone who becomes president. You're right about the actual powers of the presidency, but I think the post you were responding to was assumiung that Paul would never have access to the powers of the presidency and will have political impact as a candidate, in the same way that Whatsisname made "where's the beef" last about a year longer than it otherwise would have.

TwinSwords 12-06-2011 12:05 AM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233586)
I think we are talking about the impact Ron Paul is going to have as someone who ran for president, not someone who becomes president. You're right about the actual powers of the presidency, but I think the post you were responding to was assumiung that Paul would never have access to the powers of the presidency and will have political impact as a candidate, in the same way that Whatsisname made "where's the beef" last about a year longer than it otherwise would have.

That's right. Thank you for explaining.

TwinSwords 12-06-2011 12:11 AM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 233581)
... why not let Ron Paul speak for himself instead of relying on hearsay?

This reminds me of that woman who revealed her 13 year affair with Herman Cain last week. She was being interviewed and said what she did was wrong and she was sorry for having done it.

So ... she was in an affair for 13 years -- longer than most of Newt Gingrich's marriages -- and she wasn't sorry. But once her affair became public, suddenly she was sorry. I think what she was sorry about was that her affair became public.

Likewise with Ron Paul, the openly racist defender of the Confederacy and Jim Crow who you admire so much: he published a racist and hate-filled newsletter for 20 years when he was a fringe figure in the GOP and Libertarian Party. Then, most improbably, he found himself transformed into a popular cult figure at the tail end of the Bush Dystopia, when concern about the police state, torture, and war were at an all time high. If he had known during those 20 years that someday he'd have a shot at the presidency, he probably never would have written all that racist stuff you don't mind and have no problem making excuses for. I'll bet he kicks himself every day, wishing he could take all those typically-conservative/typically-libertarian things he said back.

badhatharry 12-06-2011 12:12 AM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 233581)
Ron Paul in his own words.

Or this guy.

miceelf 12-06-2011 12:31 AM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 233589)
That's right. Thank you for explaining.

Doh, I only noticed that you had posted after I already posted. That's what I get for not reading to end of thread before responding.

TwinSwords 12-06-2011 12:45 AM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233594)
Doh, I only noticed that you had posted after I already posted. That's what I get for not reading to end of thread before responding.

Oh, no worries. It was nice to see someone else understood what I was saying.

sugarkang 12-06-2011 12:53 AM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 233582)
I wasn't talking about the impact a President Paul would have. I was talking about the impact a candidate Paul would have. Of course if Ron Paul got elected he could have much greater impact.

Fair enough.

As for the video, he exalts MLK as a hero. He also quite angrily repudiates all of the content in the newsletters. But I didn't expect that to change your mind and I see from your subsequent response that you haven't.

Sulla the Dictator 12-06-2011 03:24 AM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Tedious.

Mr. Morden 12-06-2011 05:18 AM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 233550)
Really? Can you name any mainstream political figures who have expressed these mainstream views, besides Dennis Kucinich?

What, no love for this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTO5x0rlJJo

a candidate whose campaign had some of the most inspired political advertising of modern history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rZdAB4V_j8

;)

Wonderment 12-06-2011 05:33 AM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Thanks for reminding us of Mike Gravel.

Speaking of reminding, remind the current President and Nobel Peace Prize winner of his obligations under the NPT that Gravel cited.

In the debate clip, Gravel was referring to Article VI of the Treaty. No wonder no one took him seriously.

Quote:

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Mr. Morden 12-06-2011 05:42 AM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
On Ron Paul and the use of "Dr. Paul", I don't think including the "Dr." would be a big deal for people who have a habit of referring to all politicians with such titles (e.g., "Mr. Bush", "Ms. Pelosi", etc.). But from Paul-ites who don't normally do that for other politicians, it tends to signify a kind of creepy reverence, as if the fact the fact that he has a medical degree is a reason for him to be awarded the presidency.

[And this is coming from someone with a PhD, even though, ironically, my username includes "Mr".]

Will Wilkinson had a good take on Paul, and how his "nationalist libertarianism" differentiates him from more conventional libertarians, here:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/400...2&out=00:38:57

and here:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/400...5&out=00:44:30

I've sometimes wondered if there is legitimately more support for Paul's eclectic brand of paleoconservative/libertarian fusionism than there is for more traditional libertarianism, or if Paul just happened to catch fire at the right time (running in 2008, when even the Mike Gravels of the world were being allowed into the debates).

If, in 2008, a Gary Johnson or a similar candidate with more libertarian positions on social issues like abortion and immigration had been running instead of Paul, would that candidate's anti-Iraq War and anti-Drug War commentary in the debates have gone viral as well? Would it have spawned the same kind of cult of personality that arose around Paul? Or were Paul's non-libertarian positions on some of the other social issues necessary for this to happen?

badhatharry 12-06-2011 10:01 AM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Morden (Post 233607)
Or were Paul's non-libertarian positions on some of the other social issues necessary for this to happen?

Why do you consider Paul's positions on immigration non-libertarian?It seems he's quite in line with the main stream position. And, surely all libertarians don't agree on everything. Paul's stand on abortion is based on what he sees as libertarian principles although I'm sure he's in the minority of libertarians on this one.

Quote:

Furthermore, Paul argued in this appearance that since he believes libertarians support non-aggression, libertarians should oppose abortion because abortion is "an act of aggression" against a fetus, which is alive, human, and he believes possesses legal rights.[212]

miceelf 12-06-2011 10:41 AM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 233581)
I've seen all that long ago. I did plenty of research before supporting Ron Paul and also cautioned Wonderment on supporting him a few months ago.

You can cherry pick all day as usual, but why not let Ron Paul speak for himself instead of relying on hearsay?

Given that Paul has in the past claimed the views as his own and more recently has denied and decried them, doesn't both the decision to see him as racist and the decision NOT to see him as racist entail some degree of cherry picking?

stephanie 12-06-2011 12:05 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 233565)
I don't know what the regulations are in California, and we don't have to get off on this tangent, but I see exactly why such regulation or custom would be put in place. It's very easy for many people to get confused about who is who in a health care environment. And a nurse is not a medical doctor. So anything that's done to avoid misunderstandings is a good idea. I've seen people very indignant, thinking that they are being deceived when someone who is not an physician calls himself or herself a doctor while they are in hospital or clinic.

What irritates me is this idea by medical doctors (some of whom are wonderful people, of course) that they have the sole right to a term that in fact applies to numerous others. A PhD is every bit as much a doctor as an MD. I think Wonderment's use of the term for Paul (and not others) when we aren't talking about Paul's medical expertise illustrates the oddness.

Random story: I deposed a bunch of German business executives in a case once. In Germany, as everyone probably knows, "Dr." is used much more commonly, and not just for those with medical degrees, but for those with advanced degrees in other fields. Therefore, it's common for high-level politicians and business people and even lawyers to be termed "Dr." and it seemed that most everyone we were dealing with was Doktor something or other. But during my first deposition I referred to someone (a corporate officer) as Doktor Someone and the deponent (who was a Dr. and another officer) quickly corrected me "he is not a doktor."

stephanie 12-06-2011 12:13 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Morden (Post 233607)
On Ron Paul and the use of "Dr. Paul", I don't think including the "Dr." would be a big deal for people who have a habit of referring to all politicians with such titles (e.g., "Mr. Bush", "Ms. Pelosi", etc.). But from Paul-ites who don't normally do that for other politicians, it tends to signify a kind of creepy reverence, as if the fact the fact that he has a medical degree is a reason for him to be awarded the presidency.

Yes, this is basically how I feel. I just want consistency.

(But if we want to use titles, why not use Rep. for both Pelosi and Paul? That's the relevant one when we are talking politics. I'll call Paul Dr. Paul if I decide to see him for his medical expertise. Dr. King isn't weird, because in the African-American tradition especially, but not exclusively, it's common to refer to ministers with doctorates in theology or the like as "doctor." And King was acting in his ministerial role as a civil rights leader. Plus, in the '50s and '60s our culture was more likely to use titles in general in referring to people.)

stephanie 12-06-2011 12:17 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 233614)
Why do you consider Paul's positions on immigration non-libertarian?

Free movement of people (potential workers and consumers) as well as goods (free trade) seem to me to be key aspects of libertarianism.

Abortion is actually an issue on which there's more room for dissent, it seems to me, depending on whether you see the embryo/fetus as a person.

stephanie 12-06-2011 12:20 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Morden (Post 233607)
I've sometimes wondered if there is legitimately more support for Paul's eclectic brand of paleoconservative/libertarian fusionism than there is for more traditional libertarianism, or if Paul just happened to catch fire at the right time (running in 2008, when even the Mike Gravels of the world were being allowed into the debates).

If, in 2008, a Gary Johnson or a similar candidate with more libertarian positions on social issues like abortion and immigration had been running instead of Paul, would that candidate's anti-Iraq War and anti-Drug War commentary in the debates have gone viral as well? Would it have spawned the same kind of cult of personality that arose around Paul? Or were Paul's non-libertarian positions on some of the other social issues necessary for this to happen?

Interesting question. My knee-jerk reaction is that the paleo and wacky bits are probably necessary, and more appealing to a broader number who are in the market for an alternative than a libertarian who moderates the way Johnson does (and thus appeals to people who might prefer Johnson but aren't as disaffected with the establishment).

However, like I said, this is just a knee-jerk reaction. I'd love some analysis of it by people with stronger positions, either commentators or a diavlog.

miceelf 12-06-2011 12:39 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 233630)
What irritates me is this idea by medical doctors (some of whom are wonderful people, of course) that they have the sole right to a term that in fact applies to numerous others. A PhD is every bit as much a doctor as an MD.


As a clinical psychologist who used to work in a medical center, I can relate.

sugarkang 12-06-2011 12:40 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 233617)
Given that Paul has in the past claimed the views as his own and more recently has denied and decried them, doesn't both the decision to see him as racist and the decision NOT to see him as racist entail some degree of cherry picking?

When did he claim those views as his own? I think he has responsibility for what gets printed in his newsletter in the way that a newspaper editor owns the bad articles that get printed under his watch.

And for the sake of argument, even if he were a racist before, he's absolutely repudiated the content of the newsletters in no ambiguous terms. I think people confuse the positions of weirdo Ron Paul supporters with Ron Paul the man. He does have nutty 9-11 truther supporters and other cranks, but his own positions are based on a solid understanding of history, law and economics.

I disagree with him on major issues, but I prefer to know what I'm getting up front versus getting handed a truckload of lies. Gingrich, Obama, Romney, same, same, same.

miceelf 12-06-2011 12:50 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 233646)
When did he claim those views as his own? I think he has responsibility for what gets printed in his newsletter in the way that a newspaper editor owns the bad articles that get printed under his watch.

Well, if you don't want to hear it from me or TS, perhaps you'll listen to Reason. (again, I am simply saying that you are choosing to believe the recent stuff at facevalue when it is inconstent with past stuff; not sure it makes sense in that context to fault peole who take the earlier stuff at face value and at least acknowledge the practical calculus which would support the later repudiations):


http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/ol...d-for-over-a-d

thouartgob 12-06-2011 01:01 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 233575)
I guess I never thought to question the use of the honorific for MLK, since I revere him as one of the great men of history.

Said by Ron Paul:


Quote:

Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.

Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

(W)e are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.


Ah this reminds me of Amy Wax's position with Glenn Loury. Blacks are either genetically inferior ( sailer/murray/the derb ) or their culture is inferior ( wax and the rest ). Thankfully for the conservative view of things, racism or racist tendencies have not been a problem in american culture for the last 30 or 40 years otherwise making such racially oriented charges might be a bit problematic ;)

laura 12-06-2011 01:38 PM

Re: Values Added: Porktastic Edition (Sarah Posner & Michael B. Dougherty)
 
Speed the day that the Catholic Church loses its tax exempt status as Michael predicts.

He regrets that Catholic institutions are forced to finance what he sees as abhorrent - contraception co-pays. I am furious that, as a tax payer, I am forced to finance that disgraceful and repressive church.

Wonderment 12-06-2011 03:18 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Morden (Post 233607)

Will Wilkinson had a good take on Paul, and how his "nationalist libertarianism" differentiates him from more conventional libertarians

Yes, that's interesting and quite possibly accurate. It may also be that no US politician ever manages to think of the USA as not the center of the universe. Everyone, independent of ideology, has some degree of exceptionalist delusion going on. Even the radical left often thinks of the USA as exceptionally bad among nations. With everyone spreading the Americancentric meme, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Quote:

I've sometimes wondered if there is legitimately more support for Paul's eclectic brand of paleoconservative/libertarian fusionism than there is for more traditional libertarianism, or if Paul just happened to catch fire at the right time (running in 2008, when even the Mike Gravels of the world were being allowed into the debates).
Paul caught fire on the left because he was a very out-spoken critic of the Iraq War. I knew about Paul before I ever heard of Mike Gravel (I think I vaguely remembered Gravel as a Senator). So yeah, it was timing, but definitely war and 9/11 related. People were so horrified by Bush-Cheney that there was significant renewed interest in Old School "Isolationism."

My pet "theory," for which I have intuitions and no evidence, is that a lot of Republicans really hate war and militarism, but they hate the "welfare state" left just as much. For them, Paul was a godsend.

The real trick would be for a Republican woman and/or minority candidate to rise to national prominence as an anti-militarist. Paul has very little appeal to anti-war minorities and women, who may also reject a lot of Dem. ideas.

stephanie 12-06-2011 03:28 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 233671)
The real trick would be for a Republican woman and/or minority candidate to rise to national prominence as an anti-militarist. Paul has very little appeal to anti-war minorities and women, who may also reject a lot of Dem. ideas.

A Republican woman with Paul's views would have no greater appeal to me than Paul does.

TwinSwords 12-06-2011 03:34 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 233671)
Even the radical left often thinks of the USA as exceptionally bad among nations. With everyone spreading the Americancentric meme, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Couple points:
A lot of the radical right - the Ron Paul crowd, the Alex Jones crowd, the virulent anti-Semites that surround them -- also view America as especially evil. If you talk to those people, they think America and Israel are the center of evil in the universe. Fortunately, they're a pretty small subset of the larger conservative movement. Maybe 4-5%. Maybe less.

As for the "radical left," yes, some of them, too, view the USA as especially bad, but I'm afraid the forum's conservatives will assume the "radical left" is everyone in the Democratic Party. In truth, most Democrats are patriots who love America and who really believe there is something exceptional about it.

I read a post by a history professor not long ago who said that in the teaching of the American Revolution, almost all students, left and right, agreed that the founding of the nation and the Revolutionary War were wonderful, glorious events. We all agree, except for a couple of percent on the margins, that the founding of the country was a good thing for humanity.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 233671)
Paul caught fire on the left because he was a very out-spoken critic of the Iraq War.

And of the police state, and of torture -- and because he was exceptionally disciplined at obscuring the ultraconservative extremism of the rest of his platform. Many Paultards were behind him for months before they realized he wanted to abolish democracy in America (effectively, as he would outlaw virtually all government functions). To this day, Paul remains a skilled equivocator; he knows how to manipulatively answer questions to leave possible supporters thinking he might be on their side.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 233671)
I knew about Paul before I ever heard of Mike Gravel (I think I vaguely remembered Gravel as a Senator)..

I've been aware of Paul since 1988, when my libertarian brother voted for him for president. (Paul was running on the Libertarian ticket.) This might be why I didn't fall for the reinvented Paul that became a mini-sensation in 2008.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 233671)
My pet "theory," for which I have intuitions and no evidence, is that a lot of Republicans really hate war and militarism, but they hate the "welfare state" left just as much. For them, Paul was a godsend.

You should look into who his followers really are. For the most part it's not my impression they're following him because they're pacifists. Many of his followers are from the Alex Jones crowd of militant far right activists, conspiracy theorists, and anti-Semites (or at least people who hate Israel and wish for its destruction).

stephanie 12-06-2011 03:46 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 233671)
It may also be that no US politician ever manages to think of the USA as not the center of the universe.

I think seeing this aspect of Paul as something he shares in common with Americans generally, but which is inconsistent with his ideology is misunderstanding (or wishful thinking) re where his ideology comes from. Will seemed to be getting at this -- Paul's dislike for interventionalism comes out of traditional paleo isolationism, rather like that Pat Buchanan currently shares, and not the principles of non-violence or even what is currently mainstream libertarianism wrt the security state. I think this makes more sense of his immigration views, too.

stephanie 12-06-2011 06:48 PM

Re: Ron Paul can win Iowa
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 233671)
My pet "theory," for which I have intuitions and no evidence, is that a lot of Republicans really hate war and militarism, but they hate the "welfare state" left just as much. For them, Paul was a godsend.

Relevant to this discussion is this Daniel Larison post from 2 years ago that I happened upon (in following up on a response to Walter Russell Mead I'm posting in another thread). It relates to an argument by James Joyner:

Quote:

James is right that there is no “dove” movement on the right, and unfortunately Ron Paul’s primary results showed us how few non-interventionists there were in the GOP, but I can’t completely agree with this description.... Almost all paleocons would agree that wars should be defensive and should be fought only when the national interest, which is usually very narrowly defined, requires it, but once such a war is being fought there is no single view of how limited it should be. Opposition to starting wars may not be universal, but it is close enough that one can generalize about paleocon opposition to aggressive warfare. To the extent that there is consensus among paleocons on this question, there is probably more opposition to total and unlimited warfare than there is support for it. It is common for some mainstream conservatives to invoke mass bombing campaigns in WWII as examples of tactics they find acceptable and would have no problem seeing employed again, and there is an enduring strain of Vietnam revisionism on the right that claims that Vietnam could have been won if the military had been allowed to use everything at its disposal, but for the most part paleocons don’t agree with this and often we find such arguments to be appalling.

It is true that “Jacksonians” on the right lose patience with nation-building, but they also have nationalist convictions that our interventions abroad are always benevolent and initially they are very keen to repeat the propaganda that we are fighting wars of liberation or wars against tyranny (or evil or some new form of fascism). They might support military interventions without the trappings of democratist rhetoric, but they readily re-use this rhetoric whenever they are confronted with arguments that the war in question is unjust or illegal or unnecessary. In other words, they will insist on having national security reasons for going to war, but they will embrace every argument that makes the war appear to be an expression of charity and goodwill. Where they will draw the line is when they conclude that the benevolent, “humanitarian” justifications get in the way of achieving whatever amorphous concept of “victory” they hold....

James is mistaken when he writes that “Iraq and Afghanistan will once again remind us of the limits of American power and cause Republicans to be more skeptical of future wars, both in terms of intervening to begin with and in setting realistic war aims.” The wars do remind us of the limits of American power, but it is the Jacksonians who are most averse to admitting that these limits exist. To the extent that most rank-and-file Republicans could be described as Jacksonians according to Mead’s usage, they are not going to become more skeptical of warfare, but will instead become more insistent on an increasingly aggressive and unrestrained posture around the world. Vietnam did not make Republicans less hawkish, and it was by several orders of magnitude a greater debacle than Iraq has been. On the contrary, the aftermath of Vietnam pushed many Democratic hawks into the GOP, and movement conservatives have become accustomed over the last three decades to advocating for both a larger military and for a greater willingness to use force around the world....


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.