Home Politics

the challenge from the far left

frankfrank Posts: 13,292 AG
to seriously consider Ron Paul:

Ron Paul’s Challenge to the Left
A Question of Morality
by John V. Walsh / July 29th, 2011

On the question of war and empire, the Republican presidential candidates from Romney to Bachmann are clones of Obama, just as surely as Obama is a clone of Bush.

There is, however, one exception, Rep. Ron Paul (R, TX) the only contender who is a consistent, principled anti-interventionist, opposed to overseas Empire, and a staunch defender of our civil liberties so imperiled since 9/11. These are not newfound positions for Paul, come upon along the campaign trail or via a focus group, but long standing convictions, rooted in libertarian principles and verified by countless votes in the House and speeches on the Floor. You can take them to the proverbial bank. Nothing approaching this phenomenon has been seen in a major party since George McGovern. And even McGovern did not identify, let alone oppose, the U.S. as an Empire.

Paul must be taken seriously; he is not a candidate without real prospects. In New Hampshire, he is running third in the Republican race behind the chameleonic Romney and the looney Bachmann. And in the latest national Rasmussen poll, Dr. Paul runs 37% to 41% against Obama, clearly within striking distance of victory. Interestingly when Paul is put up against Obama, as opposed to others, the percentage choosing Obama drops. Paul has money from his grass roots “money bomb” fundraising and he has an enthusiastic base, especially among the under 30 set.

The question must be asked, what is to be done by the antiwar Left? This question may be put in a variety of ways. The Left often acknowledges its obligation to those in developing countries, people of color over the planet whose standard of living and life itself is held back by the depredations of the U.S. Empire. If the Left acknowledges such a primary obligation, does it not need to support an antiwar candidate like Paul when there is no other around? Look at Libya with thousands killed by NATO bombing and the infrastructure of the African country with the highest Human Development Index being systematically destroyed. It is a war that is undeclared by Congress, therefore in violation of the Constitution and thus an impeachable action. Or Iraq where a million have been killed and four million displaced. Paul takes an unequivocal stance to stop this killing. How can the Left justify withholding its support?

Is not the very first obligation of the Left above and beyond all else to stop the killing, done in our name and with our tax dollars? Is any other stance moral? And does not the Paul candidacy need to be seen in this light?

The Left has complained for decades that it is unable to reach much of the American public with a message of peace. In large part that is due to a cultural gap – the “progressive” Left does not speak in the same language as much of the country. Nor does the Left share the same worldview as many Americans. Ron Paul does, and he can reach, in fact, has reached these people with a solid anti-intervention message. Paul does not ask that his base change its worldview but simply to understand that anti-interventionism is a consistent part of that view. Paul speaks in straightforward terms. Let us stop poking our nose into other nations’ business and stop wasting our money doing so. He reaches people never before touched by an anti-war message. How can the Left pass up the chance to help such a candidate?


But what of other issues – like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security which the libertarian Paul wants to phase out, albeit gradually. Paul, the country doc, knows full well how people of little means rely on these programs and he proposes no sudden termination of them. But this author and others on the Left want to extend those programs. How do we square that circle? I contend it is no problem, because Paul is committed to preservation of civil liberties and the prerogatives of Congress. I am confident that under those conditions, where the discussion is open and free, my views on these social democratic programs will prevail. I am sure that my Libertarian friends feel the same way. And what more can we ask for in a democracy? Under Paul I do not have to worry about being locked up for my views. I am confident of that under Paul; I am not with any other candidate. Certainly not with Barack Obama.

On the other hand the only way that popular entitlement programs can be scrapped is by taking the decisions out of the hands of our elected officials and putting them in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. That is precisely what Obama is trying to do in the case of Medicare with his so-called “Independent Payment Advisory Board.” Congress will effectively be out of the loop, and so we will be unable to affect the decision with our votes. And Obama has already signaled that he is willing to cut these fixed benefit (aka “entitlement”) programs, incurring the wrath even of the usually placid AARP. As Alexander Cockburn has remarked, the only way to end Medicare is by pretending to save it – that is, by stealth. That is the way of Obama – but not of Paul.

The slogan “No Justice, No Peace,” has often been used by the Left; and for the developing world it is quite appropriate. But in the heart of the Empire it is the other way around: “No Peace, No Justice” – in that order. Until we get the monkey of Empire off our back, neither the desire for lower taxes nor the desire for better social benefits are likely to be realized. The Left cannot afford to ignore this fact or the Ron Paul candidacy. At the least it must be discussed. To simply avoid the question and look the other way as the wars and slaughter continue simply does not qualify as a moral stance.


:applause

Replies

  • MenziesMenzies Posts: 19,289 AG
    If he runs you should vote for him! :thumbsup
    Maybe if we tell people that the brain is an App, they will start using it.
  • CaptBobBryantCaptBobBryant Posts: 5,716 Officer
    Menzies wrote: »
    If he runs you should vote for him! :thumbsup

    Ummmmm he is running and yes I am alot more are voting for him...

    Look at all the straw polls...RP takes each one....

    As far a someone who represents the views of many without pandering to the few....it is RP....

    He is only unelectable if people refuse to look beyond Red and Blue and refuse to vote for the only person with the answers to solve many of our problems, which I must remind you have been caused by Red and Blue
    National Association of Recreational Anglers - Add Your Voice
    https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
  • Grady-ladyGrady-lady east of the river, west of the woodsPosts: 5,282 Admiral
    Frank...

    There is a lot of 'moral' introspection going on among the far left lately. While you were gone, I posted some articles from a liberal website. I respect an honorable and open adherence to one's views, whether I share them or not.

    This is a thought provoking piece, the author comes across as sincere in his convictions...taking it at face value. Honestly, I believe most of us have a lot more in common than the 'ruling class' would have us believe. I agree in principle with several of the authors points...

    "Paul is committed to preservation of civil liberties and the prerogatives of Congress. I am confident that under those conditions, where the discussion is open and free, my views on these social democratic programs will prevail. I am sure that my Libertarian friends feel the same way. And what more can we ask for in a democracy? Under Paul I do not have to worry about being locked up for my views. I am confident of that under Paul; I am not with any other candidate. Certainly not with Barack Obama.

    ...On the other hand the only way that popular entitlement programs can be scrapped is by taking the decisions out of the hands of our elected officials and putting them in the hands of unelected bureaucrats. That is precisely what Obama is trying to do in the case of Medicare with his so-called “Independent Payment Advisory Board.” Congress will effectively be out of the loop, and so we will be unable to affect the decision with our votes..."


    I think an open and free discussion, allowing our system of government to work the way it is designed to work is all we can ask (need ask) of a democracy.

    ps - I enjoyed your trip photos, glad you and your family had a good time!...Welcome home.
    I find my peace out on the sand...Beside the sea, not beyond or behind. R.A. Britt

  • CyclistCyclist Posts: 23,340 AG
    For the life of me I will never understand why some think Paul has a horse in this race. His ideals would destroy America.
  • bswivbswiv Posts: 8,084 Admiral
    Cyclist:

    What you said about Paul, that his "ideas would destroy America", strikes me as much the same that has been said from the left about Bush and any number of other folks on the right........while at the same time it is the same thing that has been said by many on the right of Mr. Obama and any number of other folks on the left.

    With that in mind, and highlighting the undeniable fact that under Mr. Obama the vast majority of Bush's policies have been maintained, which of course highlights the fact that there is scant difference between the two, and again noting that the left said Bush was destroying America, and sense Obama now basicaly equals Bush, we are left with a choice to make.

    Intellectual consistency dictates that you either admit that the policies of Bush were never going to destroy America or you have to admit that Obama's policies are going to destroy America.

    Or you are left with the uncomfortable position of admitting that Bush's policies were never going to destroy America any more than Obama's policies are going to destroy America.

    So pick one logical outcome and then act upon it.

    I for one, and I am not alone in this, believe quite strongly that a continuation of the Bush/Obama policies are very bad for America therefor I will vote for Dr. Paul.

    You on the other hand will continue to root for your "team" with no attention to ideas or ideals........a sad thing coming from a avowed champion of the left.

    Have courage man. Admit you backed someone who is not good for the country, as many of us on the right have now realized in retrospect to our support in the past of Establishment Republicans, and vote for someone who will be a actual CHANGE!!!!
  • sailfish2sailfish2 Posts: 4,319 Captain
    Good stuff bswiv!
    Hoping for better luck next time...... and got it.

    WINNING!
  • CyclistCyclist Posts: 23,340 AG
    bswiv wrote: »
    Cyclist:

    What you said about Paul, that his "ideas would destroy America", strikes me as much the same that has been said from the left about Bush and any number of other folks on the right........while at the same time it is the same thing that has been said by many on the right of Mr. Obama and any number of other folks on the left.

    With that in mind, and highlighting the undeniable fact that under Mr. Obama the vast majority of Bush's policies have been maintained, which of course highlights the fact that there is scant difference between the two, and again noting that the left said Bush was destroying America, and sense Obama now basicaly equals Bush, we are left with a choice to make.

    Intellectual consistency dictates that you either admit that the policies of Bush were never going to destroy America or you have to admit that Obama's policies are going to destroy America.

    Or you are left with the uncomfortable position of admitting that Bush's policies were never going to destroy America any more than Obama's policies are going to destroy America.

    So pick one logical outcome and then act upon it.

    I for one, and I am not alone in this, believe quite strongly that a continuation of the Bush/Obama policies are very bad for America therefor I will vote for Dr. Paul.

    You on the other hand will continue to root for your "team" with no attention to ideas or ideals........a sad thing coming from a avowed champion of the left.

    Have courage man. Admit you backed someone who is not good for the country, as many of us on the right have now realized in retrospect to our support in the past of Establishment Republicans, and vote for someone who will be a actual CHANGE!!!!

    Are you saying that bush did not nearly destroy America? Where have you been? Obama is picking up the pieces. If Kerry had been president, there would have been no Iraq and Afghanistan wars. America would be in much better shape.

    Sure Obama has been forced to do things that he would not have done on a million years. He is between a rock and a hard place through no doing of his own.

    FACE IT AND BELIEVE IT, WE WILL BE DEALING WITH THE BUSH ERRORS FOR DECADES.

    Intellectual honestly would be you folks admiting that bush was an utter and complete disaster, instead - you blame Clinton and Obama and ignore the facts.

    Wake up.
  • bswivbswiv Posts: 8,084 Admiral
    Cyclist:

    Read more carefully.................
  • frankfrank Posts: 13,292 AG
    source.
    http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/07/a-question-of-morality-ron-paul%E2%80%99s-challenge-to-the-left/
    Cyclist wrote: »
    For the life of me I will never understand why some think Paul has a horse in this race. His ideals would destroy America.

    form hi campaign site
    http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/

    please tell us which of his ideals would destroy America
  • chubascochubasco Posts: 18,386 AG
    Cyclist wrote: »
    Are you saying that bush did not nearly destroy America? Where have you been? Obama is picking up the pieces. If Kerry had been president, there would have been no Iraq and Afghanistan wars. America would be in much better shape.


    Wake up.

    disaster.jpg
    Chubasco.jpg
  • doobiedorightdoobiedoright Posts: 644 Officer
    Cyclist wrote: »
    Are you saying that bush did not nearly destroy America? Where have you been? Obama is picking up the pieces. If Kerry had been president, there would have been no Iraq and Afghanistan wars. America would be in much better shape.

    Sure Obama has been forced to do things that he would not have done on a million years. He is between a rock and a hard place through no doing of his own.

    FACE IT AND BELIEVE IT, WE WILL BE DEALING WITH THE BUSH ERRORS FOR DECADES.

    Intellectual honestly would be you folks admiting that bush was an utter and complete disaster, instead - you blame Clinton and Obama and ignore the facts.

    Wake up.


    If you think not responding to the events of 9-11 would of been a good thing then you are mistaken!
    In fact not responding to the cole and embasy bombings is what gave us 9-11!
    Arabs only understand strength!
    Weakness which kerry defently would of shown would have only invited many more attacks!
  • Deep DropperDeep Dropper Posts: 2,895 Officer
    The majority of the attackers were Saudis and funded by saudi's. Yet we invaded a country that had nothing let me repeat the mother of all walkbacks

    Q: What did Iraqi have to do with that?

    BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

    Q: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.

    Bush: Nothing.

    Invading Iraq invited more attacks
  • frankfrank Posts: 13,292 AG
    If Kerry had been president nothing would have been different, Afghanistan and Iraq wars have nothing to do with 9/11 other than it being an excuse to invade
  • IchthusphileIchthusphile Posts: 2,462 Officer
    bswiv wrote: »
    Cyclist:

    What you said about Paul, that his "ideas would destroy America", strikes me as much the same that has been said from the left about Bush and any number of other folks on the right........while at the same time it is the same thing that has been said by many on the right of Mr. Obama and any number of other folks on the left.

    With that in mind, and highlighting the undeniable fact that under Mr. Obama the vast majority of Bush's policies have been maintained, which of course highlights the fact that there is scant difference between the two, and again noting that the left said Bush was destroying America, and sense Obama now basicaly equals Bush, we are left with a choice to make.

    Intellectual consistency dictates that you either admit that the policies of Bush were never going to destroy America or you have to admit that Obama's policies are going to destroy America.

    Or you are left with the uncomfortable position of admitting that Bush's policies were never going to destroy America any more than Obama's policies are going to destroy America.

    So pick one logical outcome and then act upon it.

    I for one, and I am not alone in this, believe quite strongly that a continuation of the Bush/Obama policies are very bad for America therefor I will vote for Dr. Paul.

    You on the other hand will continue to root for your "team" with no attention to ideas or ideals........a sad thing coming from a avowed champion of the left.

    Have courage man. Admit you backed someone who is not good for the country, as many of us on the right have now realized in retrospect to our support in the past of Establishment Republicans, and vote for someone who will be a actual CHANGE!!!!


    Ahhhhh yes, it's coming into focus. "How do you know when a point is made..."

    Watching the dancing initiated by your common sense argument I doubt he got your point. Though it is obvious to any person with even the slightest speck of pragmatic thought that you are correct, the take away is he will never admit it no matter how well you present it.

    My guess is he'll be out fishing throughout the remainder this thread. Sometimes they'll post six pages of gibberish claiming victory, but my experience is they just never return to threads.
  • Grady-ladyGrady-lady east of the river, west of the woodsPosts: 5,282 Admiral
    Cyclist wrote: »
    If Kerry had been president, there would have been no Iraq and Afghanistan wars. America would be in much better shape.

    ...that's not entirely correct...

    Senator Kerry voted to authorize both wars in '01 and '03, he ran for Prez in '04.
    Now, if you want to make the hypothetical argument that America would have been better off with a President Al Gore...please do. Should be quite entertaining.

    Word of advice...if you're going to spread misinformation, make sure you get at least a few of the 'facts' straight. ;)


    (I suspect that Ron Paul would be one of the very few who might have kept us out of Afghanistan and Iraq)
    I find my peace out on the sand...Beside the sea, not beyond or behind. R.A. Britt

Sign In or Register to comment.