The Bromance (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

[Bloggingheads]

[BornAgainDemocrat]

They will be back! Made my night. Seriously.

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat

They will be back! Made my night. Seriously.

Agreed. That news just helped rescue the end of 2011 for me. Anything these two can give is very much appreciated.

But, I hope John still does Up with Chris Hayes. There's an art to that format, too.

[Wonderment]

Rather he is running with some very important ideas, the most compelling of which is his critique of US foreign policy. He is the ONLY figure on the national stage at present who questions US liberal and neo-con interventionism, militarism and brutal global hegemony.

He is THE antiwar/pro-peace candidate for 2012, in the tradition of Dennis Kucinich in 2008 and 2004 and Ralph Nader in 2000. That's why our inclusive non-partisan peace culture respects Paul, even with all his warts.

He will never be the Republican candidate for president much less win a national election, but his ideas will influence generations of Republican, Democrat and independent voters to come.

President Obama managed to get one war right; Paul has basically gotten all US wars right. That's a major intellectual and spiritual accomplishment that overshadows whatever murky homophobic or racist baggage Paul may have or whatever kooky ideas he may hold about the gold standard and the Fed.

Don't let the mainstream War Party media make this about Ron Paul, the person. Paul the person matters very little. What matters a great deal is the eye-on-the-prize foreign policy vision for the future. The ideas, not the person, are becoming part of the national conversation. That's a good thing.

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Rather he is running with some very important ideas, the most compelling of which is his critique of US foreign policy. He is the ONLY figure on the national stage at present who questions US liberal and neo-con interventionism, militarism and brutal global hegemony.

He is THE antiwar/pro-peace candidate for 2012, in the tradition of Dennis Kucinich in 2008 and 2004 and Ralph Nader in 2000. That's why our inclusive non-partisan peace culture respects Paul, even with all his warts.

I would argue that Paul is just one narrow stream of the broader deluded Jeffersonian torrent, that creates illusory moral dichotomies between good and evil, and then assigns facts to the tally. Whatever value I find in the facts, e.g. drone attacks, torture, waste, the NDAA, doesn't require me to accept Paul's vision. I can argue against each point, and probably do more good. Paul's vision is just laziness required to fit an argument into a sound bite.

Originally Posted by Wonderment

He will never be the Republican candidate for president much less win a national election, but his ideas will influence generations of Republican, Democrat and independent voters to come.

It already is part of the national dialogue - it's Jefferson redux. That's the problem. The task is to refute it.

Originally Posted by Wonderment

President Obama managed to get one war right; Paul has basically gotten all US wars right. That's a major intellectual and spiritual accomplishment that overshadows whatever murky homophobic or racist baggage Paul may have or whatever kooky ideas he may hold about the gold standard and the Fed.

By analyzing war with charged moral arguments, you undermine any chance to defend or criticize the use of force in any meaningful constitutional, moral, or political sense. You then raise the chances of warfare for the worst reason, grudging necessity with no prudence involved.

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Don't let the mainstream War Party media make this about Ron Paul, the person. Paul the person matters very little. What matters a great deal is the eye-on-the-prize foreign policy vision for the future. The ideas, not the person, are becoming part of the national conversation. That's a good thing.

Again, Americans don't want to debate the topic. It's far easier to nestle snugly in the dogma.

[seethruit]

Well said. But unfortunately Paul's other distracting hobby horses and crazy notions make it far too easy for journalists, pundits, and "serious minded" folks to dismiss his spot-on critique of US foreign policy. Not that they would pay much attention in any case, even from a less flawed vehicle.

What I really appreciate from Glenn and John is their fearless and unstinting converation - I can never predict what either one will say or think. Such a welcome respite from political correctness and received wisdom. I sure hope that the two will continue through the transitions at Bloggingheads.

[Florian]

Good news for bhtv. Maybe it will last a bit longer. Because John and Glenn have mastered the medium---and concision, I agree, is very important--they are always worth listening to, even when, especially when, they disagree. Of course, their "bromance" is essential as well to their performance.

Interesting neologism, btw.

[bbenzon]

Good stuff guys, looking forward to more in 2012.

[TwinSwords]

John McWhorter seriously thinks that a neoconfederate defense of slavery and defense of the legal framework of Jim Crow make Ron Paul an interesting intellectual? I think they make him a monster, but also extremely popular in the Republican Party.

It was the "peace candidate" himself who published and possibly wrote the following.

If you live in a major city, you’ve probably already heard about the newest threat to your life and limb, and your family: carjacking.

It is the hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos. The youth simply walk up to a car they like, pull a gun, tell the family to get out, steal their jewelry and wallets, and take the car to wreck. Such actions have ballooned in the recent months.

In the old days, average people could avoid such youth by staying out of bad neighborhoods. Empowered by media, police, and political complicity, however, the youth now roam everywhere looking for cars to steal and people to rob.

What can you do? More and more Americans are carrying a gun in the car. An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example).

I frankly don’t know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.

And this gem:

According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with “‘civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.” It also denounced “the media” for believing that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.” To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were “the only people to act like real Americans,” it explained, “mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England.”

Ron Paul is also the monster who said that healthy 30 year olds who require emergency medical care should be left to die if they don't have insurance.


(Video)

If these are your values, by all means, support Ron Paul.

[graz]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

John McWhorter seriously thinks that a neoconfederate defense of slavery and defense of the legal framework of Jim Crow make Ron Paul an interesting intellectual? I think they make him a monster, but also extremely popular in the Republican Party.

It was the "peace candidate" himself who published and possibly wrote the following.




And this gem:



Ron Paul is also the monster who said that healthy 30 year olds who require emergency medical care should be left to die if they don't have insurance.


(Video)

If these are your values, by all means, support Ron Paul.

Pay no attention to THE man behind the curtain. The great and powerful peace candidate Paul has spoken. Disregard his ideas in toto. Just click your heels together and say: there's no peace like Paul's ... there's no peace like Paul's ...

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by graz

Pay no attention to THE man behind the curtain. The great and powerful peace candidate Paul has spoken. Disregard his ideas in toto. Just click your heels together and say: there's no peace like Paul's ... there's no peace like Paul's ...

The more I find out about this fellow Paul, the more I dislike him. I'm glad he won't make it anywhere near a true candidacy. Whatever he says about the military will be ignored and forgotten in no time. However, he's recruiting and giving voice to white supremacist groups and he is validating the sinister self serving philosophy behind the so called libertarian cause. Disgusting.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Ocean

The more I find out about this fellow Paul, the more I dislike him. I'm glad he won't make it anywhere near a true candidacy. Whatever he says about the military will be ignored and forgotten in no time. However, he's recruiting and giving voice to white supremacist groups and he is validating the sinister self serving philosophy behind the so called libertarian cause. Disgusting.

I would think you'd love having this fellow near the true candidacy, as would TS and graz.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I would think you'd love having this fellow near the true candidacy, as would TS and graz.

Even if you were right -- and you're not -- we wouldn't "love having this fellow near the true candidacy" for the same reasons you would. And that's what makes us different from you.

I've been reading some comments on various blogs around this Ron Paul controversy, and it's not surprising how many Republicans say "the newsletters make me want to vote for Ron Paul even more!"

Or "if Ron Paul didn't write the newsletters, I want to vote for whoever did!"

This is just what the Republican Party is.

As the blogger Driftglass recently observed:

A Brief History of the Modern GOP.

The Right built a Party to bring this guy's people ...



... into the showroom.

They created a whole teevee network to do it.

And an entire publishing industry.

And a coast-to-coast radio empire.

And a refurbished hillbilly religion.

They welcomed every stray bigot, spit-flecked snake-handler, bug-eyed Bircher, dreg and douchebag into the Party of Lincoln with candy and flowers and promises of make their wildest, paranoid fantasies come true.

And they succeeded, and in this Year of Our Lord 2011 every facet of the Crazy Diamond they designed and created has been on glittering display for everyone to see.

They got what they paid for -- a headless, shrieking, rage-drunk electoral mob that is impervious to reason -- and it scares the shit out of them because the kind of people that headless, shrieking, rage-drunk electoral mobs rally around are not exactly the kind of people that genteel dumbass Centrists are going to warm to.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

Even if you were right -- and you're not -- we wouldn't "love having this fellow near the true candidacy" for the same reasons you would. And that's what makes us different from you.

Incoherent comment. Not worth responding to.

in no way should this response be construed as a response.

[graz]

Originally Posted by Ocean

The more I find out about this fellow Paul, the more I dislike him. I'm glad he won't make it anywhere near a true candidacy. Whatever he says about the military will be ignored and forgotten in no time. However, he's recruiting and giving voice to white supremacist groups and he is validating the sinister self serving philosophy behind the so called libertarian cause. Disgusting.

Indeed. He may not become the Republican candidate. Yet he is giving voice and gaining legitimacy for a whole host of vile and pernicious ideas that are festering in the core of his chosen party. The push back against him is not surprising. It's not personal. The politics demand it!

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by graz

Indeed. He may not become the Republican candidate. Yet he is giving voice and gaining legitimacy for a whole host of vile and pernicious ideas that are festering in the core of his chosen party. The push back against him is not surprising. It's not personal. The politics demand it!

Nothing is personal I would say. We wish him a long and healthy life, away from politics and any position of power. He's a human being after all, it just so happens that his ideas stink!

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Ocean

Whatever he says about the military will be ignored and forgotten in no time.

Whats that supposed to mean? Maybe I agree that anyone who speaks out against a murderous war machine will be forgotten in the pathetic mainstream culture and media that dominates US politics. Imagine if the US actually talked to her so called enemies.

Originally Posted by Ocean

However, he's recruiting and giving voice to white supremacist groups and he is validating the sinister self serving philosophy behind the so called libertarian cause. Disgusting.

Can you elaborate on him recruiting white supremacist groups? Surely its about what he says himself and what he advocates regarding policies etc. As far as I'm aware he's the only one in the rebublican race who has stated the inherent discrimination in the courts system towards blacks and hispanics which he's criticized for from his own party.

I'm not a fan of the libertarian philosophy he espouses but Paul has been one of the main critics of the oligarchic control the corporate and financial system has had over US politics for decades now, and thus why he receives little financial support from these oligarchs.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Baz

Whats that supposed to mean? Maybe I agree that anyone who speaks out against a murderous war machine will be forgotten in the pathetic mainstream culture and media that dominates US politics. Imagine if the US actually talked to her so called enemies.

Yes, that's what I mean. That whatever he says that goes against the aggressive interventionistic pro-military proclivity that has taken deep root in both parties but even more so in the Republican party, will be ignored and forgotten quickly. Media and mainstream culture are equal partners in this phenomenon.

Can you elaborate on him recruiting white supremacist groups? Surely its about what he says himself and what he advocates regarding policies etc. As far as I'm aware he's the only one in the rebublican race who has stated the inherent discrimination in the courts system towards blacks and hispanics which he's criticized for from his own party.

I'm referring to this.


Whether he likes the endorsement or not, the racist message endorsed in his newsletter legitimizes the kind of supremacist talk that has been shunned (for good reasons) from higher level political figures.

I'm not a fan of the libertarian philosophy he espouses but Paul has been one of the main critics of the oligarchic control the corporate and financial system has had over US politics for decades now, and thus why he receives little financial support from these oligarchs.

I can only tell you what I hear from him these days. This is the message he wants to give as a candidate.

Would any candidate ever be able to hold on to the principles you cite? I don't think so. That's why some candidates are just that. If they go heavy against the establishment (corporate and financial oligarchies, military industrial complex, for example) they are not viable. If they go heavy against certain groups (minorities for example) they are also less viable.

Paul is walking a thin line trying to give voice to some raw ideas which mobilize underrepresented groups, for both good and bad causes (from my perspective), such as white supremacists, and racists, anti-government, anti- social safety net, anti- universal health care, on one hand. And then he also expresses anti-interventionism sentiments, and may have expressed anti corporate power ideas in the past.

As you can see each political base can pick and choose which message to listen to and which one to ignore. The bottom line, he's not a viable candidate, and he lacks enough leadership to be a game changer. So, he's just a "fill-in" figure that keeps people busy talking about him while he has no significant base that can embrace all of his ideas. If he wants to be more viable, he will have to sell out to the base of his party. Which of his ideas do you think he will give up and which ones will he emphasize if it came to that?

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Ocean

I'm referring to this.


Whether he likes the endorsement or not, the racist message endorsed in his newsletter legitimizes the kind of supremacist talk that has been shunned (for good reasons) from higher level political figures.

He's done everything he can to shun these racist remarks Ocean, what more can a man do? I disagree that it legitimizes the ideas expressed in the newsletter, it only legitimizes those ideas to the people who think this way already.

Originally Posted by Ocean

Would any candidate ever be able to hold on to the principles you cite? I don't think so. That's why some candidates are just that. If they go heavy against the establishment (corporate and financial oligarchies, military industrial complex, for example) they are not viable. If they go heavy against certain groups (minorities for example) they are also less viable.


Paul is walking a thin line trying to give voice to some raw ideas which mobilize underrepresented groups, for both good and bad causes (from my perspective), such as white supremacists, and racists, anti-government, anti- social safety net, anti- universal health care, on one hand. And then he also expresses anti-interventionism sentiments, and may have expressed anti corporate power ideas in the past.

As you can see each political base can pick and choose which message to listen to and which one to ignore. The bottom line, he's not a viable candidate, and he lacks enough leadership to be a game changer. So, he's just a "fill-in" figure that keeps people busy talking about him while he has no significant base that can embrace all of his ideas. If he wants to be more viable, he will have to sell out to the base of his party. Which of his ideas do you think he will give up and which ones will he emphasize if it came to that?

I don't ignore the social policies he advocates which for the most part I'd be on the opposite side of, but I'm assuming the white house could have a more immediate impact on certain foreign policy issues (being the commander in chief) than on certain domestic issues, but I may be wrong about this.

But as long as people continue to say these types of people aren't viable candidates because certain special interests don't support them then this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and you're stuck with spineless cronies who are bought and paid for by big business.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Baz

He's done everything he can to shun these racist remarks Ocean, what more can a man do?

There are ways of thinking or perhaps certain mistakes made by neglect (neglecting to know what other people are writing under your name), that can't be undone. Once they're done, they're done.

Was he really so clueless about what was being written under his name? Or did he kinda know, but kinda looked the other way, or kinda didn't give it much thought because it wasn't something that rang repugnant to him? I don't know, but those are the kinds of things that I would be wondering about.

I disagree that it legitimizes the ideas expressed in the newsletter, it only legitimizes those ideas to the people who think this way already.

No. There are people who already have made their minds strongly one way or the other.

But there are many people whose ideas and prejudices are somewhat latent. They go under the radar. And it depends on how much stimulation they get they will bring them back to surface or they will bury them more. And there are many people who fall in that category. That's why all this code language, subliminal messaging (so to speak) works in interesting ways.

It's the same phenomenon that we talked about a few days ago when we talked about using the term "evil" to refer to other countries, or leaders or movements. It taps on deep beliefs that because they aren't fully brought to awareness, they are more difficult to be challenged or questioned. A whole set of associations are attached to them and many aspects are assumed instead of being analyzed.

I don't ignore the social policies he advocates which for the most part I'd be on the opposite side of, but I'm assuming the white house could have a more immediate impact on certain foreign policy issues (being the commander in chief) than on certain domestic issues, but I may be wrong about this.

Well, yes, I disagree with that. The executive has become increasingly more powerful. Short of the constant filibuster exercised by the current Republican legislators, the White House can influence heavily domestic and foreign policy.

But most importantly, even if we talked about foreign policy only, how much support do you think Paul would get from his own party? The effect of his anti-interventionism talk is a chimera.

But as long as people continue to say these types of people aren't viable candidates because certain special interests don't support them then this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and you're stuck with spineless cronies who are bought and paid for by big business.

In this case this is not about self fulfilling prophecies. This is common sense. Paul's ideas about war and military intervention are far from those of his party. He's being used to tap on this sentiment because people are fed up with the economy and they're starting to see how much wealth has been drained by these senseless wars. But we can't allow ourselves to be fooled thinking that the Republican Party will have a sudden transformation. That kind of change, if it comes, it will be slow and gradual and won't come from Republicans.

I don't know why you thought that the right term for your description above was "spineless". Those who avoid wars and try non-violent means of conflict resolution are called "spineless". Those who think that there's an obligation to care for those who are in need, or old, or who think that the death penalty is wrong are called "spineless". And of course, it's almost automatic that Democrats or liberals in general are called spineless. So what now? Being bought by big money is being "spineless"? I could think of all kinds of other names, but spineless seems to be directed elsewhere and most importantly, coming from the Party of War, Oil and Wealth.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Ocean

There are ways of thinking or perhaps certain mistakes made by neglect (neglecting to know what other people are writing under your name), that can't be undone. Once they're done, they're done.

We can't know with certainty what Ron Paul knew about the content of his newsletters. His current claim is that he was oblivious to the content until years after they were published. But in several interviews in both print and on video, he talked about his newsletters proudly, and even defended the content in some specific instances. It was only much later, in the context of the 2008 election, when his candidacy had the potential to appeal to a lot of anti-war and anti-police state Democrats, that Paul made a tactical decision to distance himself from his racist background. His motive for lying is obvious and should cast great doubt on his current claims.

Paul has been a devoted political activist promoting libertarian extremism his entire life. It just doesn't pass the smell test that he wasn't aware of what was in the newsletter he owned, and which he was actively promoting, publishing, and selling -- the newsletter that was written in his own name and which purported to reflect his own views.

In Jamie Kurchick's reporting from 2008 we learned that Paul would take stacks of his newsletters around with him on the lecture circuit during the 1980s and 1990s to sell them on tables and sign up new subscriptions. In my view, it's just impossible that he was doing this but didn't know what those newsletters contained.

[Ocean]

Also, with the kind of sentiment that was being passed on in the newsletters it's highly unlikely that no one would have brought it up to his attention at the time.

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by Ocean

Also, with the kind of sentiment that was being passed on in the newsletters it's highly unlikely that no one would have brought it up to his attention at the time.

Precisely. Obviously no one really believes he didn't read the newsletters he owned, or know what he was publishing, selling, and promoting all over the place.

There was a time not long ago you could shine a spotlight on racists and they would scatter like cockroaches. But those days are over. Now they are defiant and proud.

[cragger]

Paul has a credibility problem in trying to deny knowledge of the racist screeds published in his newsletters. It's not as though it's just a matter of hypersensitive reaction to an objectional word or turn of phrase popping up a time or two over the years. Since blatantly racist material was a recurring theme in newsletters he specifically published under his name (e.g. The Ron Paul Political Report), not just in some outside publication that also carried his writings on occasion, the most benevolent spin that can be put on it would seem to be that he was an unprincipled hack willing to publish anything under his name with complete disregard to the contents so long as there was a buck in it.

[Wonderment]

Originally Posted by cragger

Paul has a credibility problem in trying to deny knowledge of the racist screeds published in his newsletters. It's not as though it's just a matter of hypersensitive reaction to an objectional word or turn of phrase popping up a time or two over the years. Since blatantly racist material was a recurring theme in newsletters he specifically published under his name (e.g. The Ron Paul Political Report), not just in some outside publication that also carried his writings on occasion, the most benevolent spin that can be put on it would seem to be that he was an unprincipled hack willing to publish anything under his name with complete disregard to the contents so long as there was a buck in it.

Agreed and largely uncontroversial. Now, moving on to the issues....

[TwinSwords]

Originally Posted by cragger

Paul has a credibility problem in trying to deny knowledge of the racist screeds published in his newsletters. It's not as though it's just a matter of hypersensitive reaction to an objectional word or turn of phrase popping up a time or two over the years. Since blatantly racist material was a recurring theme in newsletters he specifically published under his name (e.g. The Ron Paul Political Report), not just in some outside publication that also carried his writings on occasion, the most benevolent spin that can be put on it would seem to be that he was an unprincipled hack willing to publish anything under his name with complete disregard to the contents so long as there was a buck in it.

Well said.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Ocean

There are ways of thinking or perhaps certain mistakes made by neglect (neglecting to know what other people are writing under your name), that can't be undone. Once they're done, they're done.

See, just can't resist. I thought so. This kind of nitpicking is way too alluring.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

See, just can't resist. I thought so. This kind of nitpicking is way too alluring.

Are you talking to your mirror, badhat?

[Florian]

Originally Posted by Ocean

Are you talking to your mirror, badhat?

Mirror, mirror on the wall......Your comment made me do a google search and look what I found:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHgshn0vIW0

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Florian

Mirror, mirror on the wall......Your comment made me do a google search and look what I found:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHgshn0vIW0

Hey, that was an interesting finding!

But let's leave our friend badhat alone. The angrier she gets the sweeter we become.

Happy New Year! Bonne année et bonne santé !

And to you too, badhat!

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Ocean

Are you talking to your mirror, badhat?

No sweetie, I'm talking to you. And pointing out your habit of making broad proclamations about future behavior, such as I'm going to ignore your posts from here forward...and I'm not going to comment on Ron Paul any more and just not being able to muster the will to follow through. There must be a clinical word for this behavior that you could dig up...

I call it crying wolf.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

No sweetie, I'm talking to you. And pointing out your habit of making broad proclamations about future behavior, such as I'm going to ignore your posts from here forward...and I'm not going to comment on Ron Paul any more and just not being able to muster the will to follow through. There must be a clinical word for this behavior that you could dig up...

I call it crying wolf.

That, however, is not what you said. You said that Ocean was nitpicking, not that she had broken her promises (to say nothing further about Ron Paul and nothing to you). Her comments on Ron Paul were well-thought out. Perhaps you would like to respond to the substance of what she said?

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Ocean

There are ways of thinking or perhaps certain mistakes made by neglect (neglecting to know what other people are writing under your name), that can't be undone. Once they're done, they're done.

Was he really so clueless about what was being written under his name? Or did he kinda know, but kinda looked the other way, or kinda didn't give it much thought because it wasn't something that rang repugnant to him? I don't know, but those are the kinds of things that I would be wondering about.



No. There are people who already have made their minds strongly one way or the other.

But there are many people whose ideas and prejudices are somewhat latent. They go under the radar. And it depends on how much stimulation they get they will bring them back to surface or they will bury them more. And there are many people who fall in that category. That's why all this code language, subliminal messaging (so to speak) works in interesting ways.

It's the same phenomenon that we talked about a few days ago when we talked about using the term "evil" to refer to other countries, or leaders or movements. It taps on deep beliefs that because they aren't fully brought to awareness, they are more difficult to be challenged or questioned. A whole set of associations are attached to them and many aspects are assumed instead of being analyzed.

This is an interesting topic for another time Ocean, I think Pauls actions and his own words are more relevant than newletters years ago that he may or may not have known about. But the election marketeers will appreciate the time wasted on this sort of stuff.

Originally Posted by Ocean

Well, yes, I disagree with that. The executive has become increasingly more powerful. Short of the constant filibuster exercised by the current Republican legislators, the White House can influence heavily domestic and foreign policy.

But most importantly, even if we talked about foreign policy only, how much support do you think Paul would get from his own party? The effect of his anti-interventionism talk is a chimera.

In this case this is not about self fulfilling prophecies. This is common sense. Paul's ideas about war and military intervention are far from those of his party. He's being used to tap on this sentiment because people are fed up with the economy and they're starting to see how much wealth has been drained by these senseless wars. But we can't allow ourselves to be fooled thinking that the Republican Party will have a sudden transformation. That kind of change, if it comes, it will be slow and gradual and won't come from Republicans.

Ok, but its a choice between a lifelong anti-interventionist like Paul, Obomba and other rebublican hawks who want to increase the war machine...simple. The president can't be forced by the party to declare war as far as I'm aware. What I meant by self-fulfilling prophecy is when I hear people say things like..."I'd like to vote for such and such...but he has no chance of winning".

Originally Posted by Ocean

I don't know why you thought that the right term for your description above was "spineless". Those who avoid wars and try non-violent means of conflict resolution are called "spineless". Those who think that there's an obligation to care for those who are in need, or old, or who think that the death penalty is wrong are called "spineless". And of course, it's almost automatic that Democrats or liberals in general are called spineless. So what now? Being bought by big money is being "spineless"? I could think of all kinds of other names, but spineless seems to be directed elsewhere and most importantly, coming from the Party of War, Oil and Wealth.

On you're last point I think we should all have realised by now that neither party has a monopoly on "War, Oil and Wealth". If you think this is the case then you're delusional. Obama got more funding from the financial oligarchs than McCain did in the last election.

So the far right have a monopoly on the word "spineless"?

[cragger]

As noted in an earlier post, I think Ron Paul's disavowal of the racist garbage published in his newsletters rings hollow. I also think his storming out of an interview in a huff when asked about them indicates someone temperamentally unsuitable for office, and consider about half of his ideas completely nutty. Drop a net over him and keep him away from sharp objects-grade bonkers. Would definitely not want to see him be President. However, and this relates to the attacks Wonderment suffered in praising Paul's anti-militarism, some of the things he says have merit and dismissing him and those things out of hand because we can point to some aspect of his thinking or his past that is repugnant serves to eliminate significant issues from discussion.

Democrats joining Republicans in wearing blinders and marching in lockstep with whatever politician gets onto the ballot and has a D or R after his or her name isn't something to celebrate. At some point voters may have to try to choose the lesser of two evils and try to prevent the greater, but denying that it is still an evil seems likely to be something that guarantees that things continue to get worse. Every candidate currently running for the Presidency is repugnant, and that emphatically includes the incumbent. I don't want to see any of these people in office.

Glen Greenwald puts it plainly:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/prog...aul_fallacies/

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by cragger

As noted in an earlier post, I think Ron Paul's disavowal of the racist garbage published in his newsletters rings hollow. I also think his storming out of an interview in a huff when asked about them indicates someone temperamentally unsuitable for office, and consider about half of his ideas completely nutty. Drop a net over him and keep him away from sharp objects-grade bonkers. Would definitely not want to see him be President. However, and this relates to the attacks Wonderment suffered in praising Paul's anti-militarism, some of the things he says have merit and dismissing him and those things out of hand because we can point to some aspect of his thinking or his past that is repugnant serves to eliminate significant issues from discussion.

Democrats joining Republicans in wearing blinders and marching in lockstep with whatever politician gets onto the ballot and has a D or R after his or her name isn't something to celebrate. At some point voters may have to try to choose the lesser of two evils and try to prevent the greater, but denying that it is still an evil seems likely to be something that guarantees that things continue to get worse. Every candidate currently running for the Presidency is repugnant, and that emphatically includes the incumbent. I don't want to see any of these people in office.

Glen Greenwald puts it plainly:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/prog...aul_fallacies/

Thoughful and provocative article by Glenn. Thank you for posting.

The bottom line is that we all pick our battles and choose our goals. According to those selections, we choose our narratives.

Glenn chooses speaking the "truth", calling it as it is no matter what side, and promoting a certain kind of dialogue. He also compares Ron Paul's best words (to liberals), in complete isolation from the rest of his party, as if this had some association with reality, to Obama's worst results, in complete isolation of the tensions and conflicts of negotiating policies with multiple opposing parties (domestic and foreign parties). There's nothing wrong with his choice, except that it compares two sets of data that aren't really comparable.

Sometimes it's possible to align, promises, ideas, candidates and parties without conflict. That's not the case here. When we discuss these issues we need to be careful about what we are discussing.


Unfortunately, and as you (and Glenn) say, we will be forced to choose the lesser of two evils. And as unattractive as that choice may seem to be, we shouldn't neglect to recognize its importance. We're not talking about minor issues. The greater evil can be disastrous to our country, at least from a liberal's perspective. And part of the risk is that it could further impair our ability to regain lost ground in those areas that we're so unhappy with even under a Democratic Presidency.

When you look at a Republican candidate like Ron Paul, even if we recognize that he may align (true or perceived/superficial alignment) with some of the liberal goals and principles, he resides within a party that is so antithetical to the same, that it seems rather pointless to consider his words as having much impact on his partisan fellows. And that statement doesn't even address Paul's own position of many other topics that are in deep contradiction with liberal principles.

So, we have to conclude, that we (Democrats, liberals and progressives) can't honestly support someone like Ron Paul on most issues, and that those very issues that we may want to support him on, are the ones that are highly unlikely to be promoted within his own party. In practice they would be cancelled out.

What do we support then? An aberrant position within his party? A dissenting voice with echoes that ring compatible with our frustrated liberal wishes?

It seems like a siren's call luring liberals to wreck the Democratic boat.

I don't have to support or love everything that Obama does or stands for to know what my choice is. Perhaps I have come to hold a more pragmatic position, in great part forced by the poverty of choices and by the great risk of letting this country continue in a direction that would ultimately, in my opinion only generate greater misfortune and problems.

This is a battle that will have to be fought a little bit at a time. But from a strategic perspective, there's a time and a channel to point out one's own party shortcomings, and a time to shut up and join forces with those who are less antithetical to one's principles and goals. Let's be careful about identifying those phases and acting accordingly.

[Baz]

Originally Posted by cragger

Glen Greenwald puts it plainly:

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/prog...aul_fallacies/

Greenwald laid it out brilliantly...thanks for the link.

"Ron Paul’s candidacy is a mirror held up in front of the face of America’s Democratic Party and its progressive wing, and the image that is reflected is an ugly one; more to the point, it’s one they do not want to see because it so violently conflicts with their desired self-perception."

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by cragger

I also think his storming out of an interview in a huff when asked about them indicates someone temperamentally unsuitable for office, and consider about half of his ideas completely nutty.

Except your opinion of the interview was manufactured by the powers at be. Try watching the full interview. The Democratic Party has been engaging in Fox News tactics for the past few years and justifying it to themselves as if they were the only legitimate wielders of power.

It's not necessary to endorse Ron Paul. There are many understandable and legitimate reasons why someone wouldn't. What's not legitimate is the systematic marginalizing of a candidate through misdirection.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Except your opinion of the interview was manufactured by the powers at be. Try watching the full interview. The Democratic Party has been engaging in Fox News tactics for the past few years and justifying it to themselves as if they were the only legitimate wielders of power.

It's not necessary to endorse Ron Paul. There are many understandable and legitimate reasons why someone wouldn't. What's not legitimate is the systematic marginalizing of a candidate through misdirection.

The "last few years"? I think you're only cognizent of it because they're targeting your guy. FOX news is a reaction to them, not they to it.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

The "last few years"? I think you're only cognizent of it because they're targeting your guy. FOX news is a reaction to them, not they to it.

Partially agree. The reactions happen on both sides, but the Roger Ailes Fox era was first to do blatant propagandizing. Prior to this, the liberal media existed, but only because they were liberals, not because they were pushing a liberal agenda.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Partially agree. The reactions happen on both sides, but the Roger Ailes Fox era was first to do blatant propagandizing. Prior to this, the liberal media existed, but only because they were liberals, not because they were pushing a liberal agenda.

I don't think there is a functional difference. Consider the 1992 campaign. On what planet would a fair media carry Democratic attacks about Bush breaking campaign promises when the violation was a compromise with Democrats? Or literally any of the media coverage of the 1995-1998 political battles? What kind of media treats Bob Dole as a ridiculous figure, with a ruined arm from combat with Nazis, while acting as if John Kerry was Hector reborn?

The game is rigged.