Tweet
I know Ron Paul is not a progressive. I know he’s anti-choice, wants to regulate female reproduction, is most probably a racist, hates social security, Medicare, etc.
I know that and hate that about him.
That said, Obama is clearly a classist who hates SS and is out to defund the program. He’s also out to kill thousands, tens of thousands, or millions of Iranians. And I am REALLY not ok with that. I’m also not OK with the NDAA. A vast majority of the issues Paul is bad on, Obama is also bad on, although Obama fakes being a good guy there. And if you disagree, imma gonna assume you haven’t been paying close attention.
Gay right and abortion appear to be the ONLY issues where they really disagree. I know, I know, RP also wants to abolish the Dep of Ed, etc. But the Dep of ED brought us NCLB, etc. And it (the department of education) didn’t exist until fairly recently. So, cry me a river there. Teacher autonomy FTW!
Anyway, I just want to drive a stake into the heart of the oligarchy. And RP, for all of his many, many faults, appears to be the most realistic scenario to do so.
I think we can recover domestic ground after the MIC is downgraded? Maybe? Hopefully?
Update I:
I’m fully aware of the recent arguments from progressives who DON’T support Ron Paul. Like the arguments Kevin and Glenn have made.
See: (Greenwald)
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/
And: (Kevin Gosztola)
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/01/09/the-contentious-debate-on-ron-paul-among-progressives/
146 Comments
{{{{crickets}}}}
Hey now! (lol)
Progressives for Ron Paul… DON’T EXIST. If they’re willing to vote for Ron Paul, they have NO CONCEPT of True Progressivism, its history, its promise, and its absolute necessity.
“progressives” for Ron Paul=Neolibs.
This kind of desperation reminds me of the MadTV Lowered Expetations clips.
It is a tough time for political junkies whose choices are so depraved that they have to make this choice.
Few people are listening to Pauls’ anti-war rant but Newt is channeling Hugo Chavez so things are a little more interesting.
Wrong, I am a progressive (shit, I’m a Trotskeyite) for Ron Paul, and not just in the symbolic way. I will write him in if he’s not on the ballot.
I have gone mad.
I must give cover to the only voice in 50 years and 5000 miles in any direction who says, for instance, “Bradley Manning is a hero”.
I’ve been fully absorbed into the Borg–gone from “hey, I don’t want him to win, I just want him debating” to “fuck it, I want him to win and I will vote for him”
YMMV
I don’t think I can be labelled, easily or accurately, but I did score high on an online test of progressivism. I intend to cast my first vote for a Republican, in the Republican primary in NJ, for Ron Paul. Even if I self-identified as a progressive 100%, though, I don’t think my voting strategy, given what we’re faced with, would be any different. Perhaps I would go the route of Michael Cavlan, just voting for Ron Paul in the primary, but not for Ron Paul in the general election, if he’s the R nominee. I consider that a rational voting strategy, also, which may not be optimal, but is close-to-optimal.
Ron Paul obviously has got big flaws, and libertarian ideas (or at least what I understand of them) regarding government regulation are looney, almost unbelievably so, as far as I’m concerned. However, as per David Sirota’s excellent article, Who’s a real progressive? Obama and Paul both hold positions anathema to liberals. Voters need to choose which ones to overlook, Paul becomes an even stronger candidate, relative to Obama, when you consider the limitations of his office.
As for the purity trolls, who forget that politics is the art of the possible, I have to wonder why they bother posting on a political blog. Well, not really. I think most of us are irrational and tribalistic (all of us are irrational and tribalistic, to one extent or another), and their rejection of Paul’s candidacy is mostly a function of that. It’s not hard to get reinforcement for their negative emotionality on a political blog.
I’ve noticed that many people who reject the Democrats, in toto, who formerly supported them, sound like nothing as much as rejected lovers, whose feelings are hurt, and who won’t forgive. This doesn’t pre-dispose them to dispassionate, strategic analysis!* Likewise, the Democratic tribalists who act as though progressives should be happy to be doormats to their corrupt party, are just full of insults for the likes of Greenwald and Sirota, and generally FAIL to address their arguments.
Sigh.
* It’s also my impression that the ‘jilted Democratic Party lovers’ (e.g., those who worked heart and soul for the Obama campaign, only to be betrayed by him) don’t, in general, work to build up an organized resistance. I don’t have time for this, but it’d be interesting to research how and why Americans came to think that it’s either OK to confine your electoral efforts to showing up to vote, twice a year; or else showing up to vote and working for a “savior” candidate, who likely is already deeply corrupted by the perceived need (which is mostly real, as things stand) to raise campaign cash. Indispensable Enemies goes into how and why both the D and R parties always demobilize their activist base, after election day, but the (research) question is: “Why does the public go along with this?”
I meant: “efforts to showing up to vote, every other year;”
” Likewise, the Democratic tribalists who act as though progressives should be happy to be doormats to their corrupt party, are just full of insults for the likes of Greenwald and Sirota, and generally FAIL to address their arguments.”
Speaking of which, see the poll and comments in my dailykos diary.
Hmmm. So, I’m guessing you’re either (1) unaware of all this? (2)Or, that you just don’t ACTUALLY care about ALL the people?
A Progressive supporting Ron Paul is an oxymoron. Just like science must be testable, predictable and reproducible, (if it isn’t any one of those three things, it’s not science), there are no progressives who support Ron Paul. If you support him, you are, by definition, not a progressive.
It’s obvious to me that I am living in a Police State. It’s obvious to me that my Capital City is the seat of an illegal military empire that is thrashing about the globe murdering people on an insane mission to rule the world by force of arms. I respect those who do not share my sense of urgency (any port in a storm) but they don’t know what time it is. My first political value is social justice AFTER liberty, democracy and the rule of law are secure.
For me the resistance currently has two fronts. OWS and the Paul campaign. I support them both. If progressives manage to open a third front I will support that also.
Recommended. Thanks for linking to the Glenn Greenwald article, which is all about why people who claim to be “progressives” are fooling themselves when they refuse to consider voting for Ron Paul. Here’s one great excerpt:
“It’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else. An honest line of reasoning in this regard would go as follows:
“Yes, I’m willing to continue to have Muslim children slaughtered by covert drones and cluster bombs, and America’s minorities imprisoned by the hundreds of thousands for no good reason, and the CIA able to run rampant with no checks or transparency, and privacy eroded further by the unchecked Surveillance State, and American citizens targeted by the President for assassination with no due process, and whistleblowers threatened with life imprisonment for “espionage,” and the Fed able to dole out trillions to bankers in secret, and a substantially higher risk of war with Iran (fought by the U.S. or by Israel with U.S. support) in exchange for less severe cuts to Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, the preservation of the Education and Energy Departments, more stringent environmental regulations, broader health care coverage, defense of reproductive rights for women, stronger enforcement of civil rights for America’s minorities, a President with no associations with racist views in a newsletter, and a more progressive Supreme Court.
“Without my adopting it, that is at least an honest, candid, and rational way to defend one’s choice. It is the classic lesser-of-two-evils rationale, the key being that it explicitly recognizes that both sides are “evil”: meaning it is not a Good v. Evil contest but a More Evil v. Less Evil contest. But that is not the discussion that takes place because few progressives want to acknowledge that the candidate they are supporting — again — is someone who will continue to do these evil things with their blessing. Instead, we hear only a dishonest one-sided argument that emphasizes Paul’s evils while ignoring Obama’s (progressives frequently ask: how can any progressive consider an anti-choice candidate but don’t ask themselves: how can any progressive support a child-killing, secrecy-obsessed, whistleblower-persecuting Drug Warrior?).
“Paul’s candidacy forces those truths about the Democratic Party to be confronted. More important — way more important — is that, as vanden Heuvel pointed out, he forces into the mainstream political discourse vital ideas that are otherwise completely excluded given that they are at odds with the bipartisan consensus. …”
And Greenwald provides links to several great interviews with/about Ron Paul. Maybe those who claim to be the only true “progressives” should do a little more research, instead of allowing their knee-jerk impulses to take over.
Just saying “If you were a REAL progressive, you wouldn’t support Paul” is the Worst Argument Ever.
I could make the same claim about supporting/voting for Obama, but that would be, well, assholish. And arrogant. And kind of stupid, really.
Nobody made any of you the Grand High Poobah of progressivism. You have no authority that I recognize to say that murdering hundreds of thousands of people and throwing US citizens in Gitmo indefinitely without due process matters less than social security (not to mention the fact that on a practical level, I doubt that Paul can actually do a lot of damage to SS, etc.)
I take personal responsibility for the fact that the NPA didn’t start sooner, and find and promote a candidate sooner. It sucks, and we all share a collective responsibility for that. But now things are what they are. And the fact of the matter is that Obama is definitely to the right of Nixon, and probably to the right of Reagan, but much more effective in his rightwinger-ness BECAUSE he claims to be a progressive.
Obama is THE textbook neoliberal. Paul is not. He’s a right-liberarian. Right-libertarians are evil in many ways, but they’re not neoliberals.
The work you’ve done with the NPA is amazing and wonderful, and I think we all should support that. For the 2016 election. For 2012, we seem screwed.
I agree that lesser-evilism is still evil. But I also think futility is futile. And I don’t think we can afford to engage in exercises in futility right now. Shit is hitting the fan. The fascists are moving in for the kill. Obama is their operative, and he’s effective because he’s a fake liberal/progressive.
It’s not uncommon in human history for governments to turn totalitarian and disappear dissidents. It’s happened over and over again. By saying “No real progressive would support Paul” you’re saying the current US government isn’t turning fascist, and/or that Paul isn’t the only realistic candidate opposing that. I completely disagree. I might just be paranoid, but that doesn’t make me “not a progressive.”
I’m pretty sure that I’m NOT paranoid about Obama’s record on war. We really are engaged in multiple covert drone wars killing many, many innocent people. I can’t make that stop mattering to me. Because…wait for it…I’m a progressive.
Why carry ANY Paul baggage; FIRST Party with Anderson in JUSTICE, instead!
In jbade’s video diary, in an almost stunningly incomprehensible comment stream, quoting me:
“athena1 January 13th, 2012 at 11:18 pm
“can’t think the PTB will ever let him be the nominee, much less the Prez.”
——————-
If things are that hopeless, then what’s the point of even talking about politics???
I agree that there are very powerful forces set against Paul (and real progressive candidates), but if the PTB are really completely all-powerful like that, then why even fight?
I’m not being sarcastic, btw. These questions really do keep me up at night sometimes, because I think the same way sometimes.”
You seem to be confusing ‘politics’ with ‘electoral politics’, IMO. Very confusing to me. I remember evidence on many of Kevin’s live-blogging Occupies that you spent countless hours ‘tweeting’ the revolution.
It seems clear that you are seriously missing the entire point of the democracy and justice movement, which exists because activists have decided en masse that electoral politics as now constructed are beside the point, which is why they refuse to be co-opted by the political class, and except for a few Occupies, refuse to make lists of demands that also be co-opted to defuse the rage over a fixed, rigged system that is smothering us to death.
The movement is about massive societal change, and restoring our democracy to reflect the will of the people, not the corporations and banks.
In case you haven’t taken note of it, Paul is a devotee of Austrian von Mises-style, in which everything is (allegedly) market-driven laissez-faire, anti-regulatory…crap, IMO. You can argue that as he wants to end the Fed, it would end some of the future bailouts, but…as far as ending ‘crony-capitalism’, Paul would not, IMO. He’s even pretty fuzzy on Citizens United, IMO, even when pressed.
He has also been clear that since he is an ardent Constitutionalist, it would mean that were Congress to declare war, he would prosecute it, but make them define its duration, etc., and use the Power of the Purse, yada, yada. Couldn’t find the exact quote, but this backs up that thinking. Dunno what that prosecution would look like. But Paul believes that the CIA should gather and analyze intel period, not engage in dark ops overthrow of government, which is great.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul355.html
As far as letting blacks out of prison (he sadly never mentions Hispanics) who are in for non-violent drug offenses, only 10% of all those are in Federal prisons. And as he appears to be a wild Federalist, we can assume, as with many issues he defers to states, he would freely endorse states prosecuting their own drug wars.
He goes far in his belief that powers not *expressly* enumerated by the Constitution are left to the states; I’m a believer in a strong federal government to protect our citizens, protect our planet and water, keep us safe from the worst excesses of capitalism (all effects of capitalism may be thus, but later on that).
When he spoke of Manning as a hero, he also said that Manning did what he did *accepting the consequences* or something like that, before asking the group he was speaking to ‘if we shouldn’t honor whistle-blowers’ like that for telling the truth. Again, dunno how to parse that; maybe he wants to give him a medal in prison? Can’t say.
You keep assuming that those who don’t support Paul *do support Obama*. Again; whew; do you have a wrong number.
You contend that Paul can’t damage Social Security, but imply that he can kill the NDAA. No, he can’t; that is law now, until it is reversed by Congress. No, he doesn’t have to *use it*, but still.
As for me, the only way in which any of these candidates are useful is to educate more Americans about the need for vast changes in the way we’re operating here, and Paul is widening the discussions for certain stripes of conservatives, which will help focus more anger on a few of of his key issues, but certainly not his domestic policies, which are abhorrent to me. Without economic justice, there is NO justice.
Paul, on those few key 4 issues, is the place where the far left and the very far right have traditionally agreed; this isn’t all that new.
So vote for him; I can’t, because I perceive him to be either amoral or immoral, (Obama is the latter to me), and while his ideology will benefit some progressive values, they are not *moral principles*, which I demand now a candidate front-loads into policy positions. Shorter: policy with incidental benefits to some…just ain’t good enough.
And I’ll keep tryin’ to stitch together increased democracy movement participation, civil disobedience, uprising and revolution as our only hope now.
Wendy:
—————-
“You seem to be confusing ‘politics’ with ‘electoral politics’, IMO. Very confusing to me.”
—————–
Well, let me clarify where I’m at with all of that.
We have a few choices here.
1) Totally abandoning electoral politics. This leaves us with
a) violent revolution (not a good idea morally or practically.)
b) non-violent revolution (this is what we’re going with for now. A revolution primarily in thought, trying to awaken the masses. But to avoid violent revolution, we will eventually have to revert to electoral politics. There is no alternative that I’m aware of with non-violent revolution.)
2) Present electoral politics. This leaves us with:
a) Obama
b) Romney
Both of them appear to be itching to send dissidents of the fake two party system to Gitmo, indefinitely, without due process.
So, tell me what YOUR vision of a non-violent revolution looks like. How does it work? What, exactly, happens? If you have a better vision, hand it over. I’m not exactly happy with what I see as our current prospects. If you can give me a better, realistic alternative idea, I’d love to know what it is, and will embrace it.
Isnt there a Ron Paul supporters site that all of you people can go to instead? I mean everyday now theres another post where people are doing some of the most amazing contortions to explain why they are supporting him. In fact the contortions are even more bizarre then those of people supporting obama.
Why not support the green party. Ron Paul has ZERO chance of being elected and would destroy the country even more if he was. Hes ALOT worse then you people make him out to be. ALOT. The green party though supports most of the policies you probably believe in. So atleast that way you wouldnt have to spend so much time explaining why youre doing what your doing and to people who really are largely tired of hearing about it frankly.
Also, about this:
————–
“And I’ll keep tryin’ to stitch together increased democracy movement participation, civil disobedience, uprising and revolution as our only hope now.”
————–
I have 2 small children, live in poverty, and have no car. In spite of that, I took my kids out (bumming a ride) to occupy memphis multiple times. Not knowing if we’d have a tent or not, not knowing if we’d get tear gassed/arrested, and not knowing if I’d be able to find a way home. It has been fucking scary as shit, and I’m the ONLY person at OM to bring their kids there to camp that I know of. But I’ve done it because I also believe civil disobedience and non-violent revolution and uprising as our best hope.
Supporting/voting for Paul does not negate ANY of that. Supporting Paul is just putting a tiny cork in one of many holes in a sinking ship as far as I can tell. Not voting, or voting Obama, or voting for a hopeless candidate is like blasting yet another hole in the ship.
And yes, I think the ship *sucks*. Part of me wants to say “screw it” and watch the damned thing just sink. But I know the lifeboats that will arise if that happens are also run by the same oligarch bastards. They are the ones with the resources. Which brings me back to the need for electoral politics.
Why do you Ron Paul supporters keep saying that people that dont support Ron Paul and frankly cant stand him are somehow Obama suporters. Ive seen this statement made several times here and i simply dont understand it. I dont support either.
“Isnt there a Ron Paul supporters site that all of you people can go to instead?… So at least that way you wouldnt have to spend so much time explaining why youre doing what your doing and to people who really are largely tired of hearing about it frankly.”
Excuse me, but the reason I find FDL indispensable is because we encourage discussion and explanation. If you are tired of reading and hearing about something you find posted, please just move on to the next thread. Don’t deprive me of the opportunity to be exposed to the ideas found in the posts and comments of writers I respect greatly.
In light of the Tea Parties having a real effect on Congressional dynamics (though Boehner is looking to exclude Tea Party aligned Congress critters wrt upcoming payroll tax cut negotiations), and in light of the Democratic activists in WI having success at shifting their government in a pro-union direction (and they have a good shot at unseating their governor), and in light of the fact that there’s been little movement in the direction of taking over the Democratic Party from below (as per Rayne’s Angry Left diaries here at FDL; PDA does some of that, but not aggressively), this attitude by many OWS participants strikes me as unreal. It is as unreal as the libertarian’s magical view of the “free market”, which somehow allows them to ignore the history of effective legislation (like Glass Steagall).
OWS should be challenged on that. Even better, OWS should be bypassed on that – the door will be left open, and OWS participants can pass through it, if they wish.
As I have written elsewhere, OWS could intervene in the electoral process as contrarians – basically voting against incumbents, whether D or R. The place where you get the most bang for your buck is in primaries.
Also, there’s an apparent contradiction between viewing the electoral process as terminally and irredeemably corrupted, and between failing to condemn both the D and R parties for enabling Wall Street theft. Which Occupy X has passed any resolution condemning both D’s and R’s for Gramm, Leach, Bliley, which did away with Glass Steagall?
Hey, athena1,
I’m not a Paul supporter, but your post and comments are very thought provoking, and I appreciate your reasoned and calm discourse. Am always glad to see your fonts.
I’d someday like to see a fair number of Dem representatives with spines again. That won’t happen with a Dem prez.
Holy crow! I spent all that time and considerate thought answering you, and what I get is more false-choice paradigm and hand-wringing, then :Hand over your vision’? Good God all-Friday, distilling all the available thought online about non-violent revolution would take more time than I’d possibly want to spend spoon-feeding you.
And you mock ‘revolutions of thought’? Why do you think the movement works so hard to educate and teach other alternatives, and imagine new community relationships, public banking, co-op businesses and their like?
I have no wish to convince you of anything; if I spend the time to publish a diary, it’s not even to convince people *here* necessarily, but others out there abroad. And to learn from others about what I write.
Use your imagination, read, study history…and vote either your conscience or your pragmatism. But at least look at Paul closely, and consider either a third party or not. The election will be long after the next attacks, IMO.
I’m outta here; gonna go down and Occupy Mancos, population 800.
Nice. You Ron Paul supporters really are some of the angriest most selfish people ive come across as well as the most abusive. I have no problem with you talking about any candidate. The problem is every post is filled with anger some of it extreme that all of us arent blindly supporting him. And rather then having a rational discussion about the issues with him you say things like “its your fault not mind”.
And you wonder why more people dont buy into your arguments. I mean seriously. I guess though you figure if you scream loudly enough at us we’ll capitulate as its obvious all of you have.
You know, when the NPA was being formed here, I supported it but also openly in the comments asked “Aren’t we reinventing the wheel here? Isn’t this what the Green Party has already done?”
And I’d support a Green Party candidate (or a NPA candidate) if they were, you know, at all on the radar. But they’re not. If they exist they haven’t been promoted at all. And I take personal responsibility for that. As all we lefties should. Shame on us.
But now things are what they are, and I just don’t believe that Paul has a zero chance at getting elected. A small chance, yes. But not zero. And his chances go up if more progressives decide that fake-progressives like Obama MUST NOT be rewarded with re-election. Which is where I’m at.
If you will read below, you will note that I am not a Paul supporter.
The only anger I detect in this thread is coming from you. And the selfish, too, I might add.
By the way i was actually trying to be polite and help Ron Paul supporters out. Youre not going to get love on this site. Sorry youre just not. I come to FDL because more then most of the people here seem to be free thinkers. So when i come across this idolization i find it ruins the discussion.
Its the same with kucinich supporters and hillary clinton supporters and pelosi supporters on this site as well. When you put blinders on to enough degree the discussion can no longer be balanced.
So if Ron Paul supporters are that passionate rather then getting ridiculed why dont they just have a site where they can have a love fest for him. Seriously. That way that can support him in peace.
Thank you, Om.
Oopsie; I forgot to say that no one knows exactly what it will look like, or what the spark that ignites more people to it will be, but the coventional signs and conditions are increasing.
I ask you to remember (if you saw it) the mass numbers of citizens who actually united to *push the police vans back across the bridge* leading into Tahrir Square. People Power. And People Power can demand one day that this government dissolve itself, and we rebuild from the people up.
Because Paul and Romney are the only even quasi-realistic alternatives. Or do you know of anyone else with a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected?
p.s. I so agree with what you wrote, “And yes, I think the ship *sucks*. Part of me wants to say “screw it” and watch the damned thing just sink. But I know the lifeboats that will arise if that happens are also run by the same oligarch bastards. They are the ones with the resources.”
So you can’t answer? You have no idea or specific vision?
Well then, stop lecturing! I actually do have a vision, and yes, it involves the electoral politics you so despise. Because that’s the only alternative to violent revolution. It is. Deal with it and suck it up. Come to Jesus, etc.
I don’t see Paul as any sort of idol. I just hate him a bit less than I hate Obama and the other neoliberals/neoconservatives. Pragmatism and alla that.
Let’s see, Wall Street fraud and corruption and Banking sector fraud and corruption decimate the economy of not only the U.S. but the entire globe.
Ron Paul decides not to regulate Wall Street or the banks; but rather to abolish the Federal Reserve. Hmmmm. Regulation is too dangerous so let’s just destroy the issuer of our nation’s currency.
Audit the Fed. Yes. Make it more transparent. Great.
Abolish it? That would not only destroy the U.S. economy but the economy of the entire fucking world. And then what, go back to the ‘gold standard’? Give me a break.
Besides, he had me when he had ‘issues’ with the Civil Rights Act.
Next.
Can you tell me by what sort of executive order Paul COULD abolish the Federal Reserve?
As commander in chief, I can see how he could stop the empire (and all empires eventually have to choose between being an empire and a domestic democracy) but I don’t see how Paul could abolish the central bank as prez?
Ron Paul is not anti-war; he in fact voted for the AUMF.
As far as being a “freedom protector, staunchly pro-civil liberties” why didn’t he bother to vote on the NDAA?
He’s not anti-war. What he in fact prefers is small for-profit aggression in the form of “Letters of Marque and Reprisals.”
Don’t believe me? Here he is (video) in his own words from the 2008 campaign cycle.
He also would prefer Patriarchy
If this is your idea of some “progressive” candidate, by all means, vote for him.
Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein have just as much of a chance of being elected as Ron Paul.
You know, losing is losing; it really doesn’t matter how much you lose by if you leave behind an organized movement ready to meet the next electoral challenge. Ron Paul is a fascist but he and his John Birch Society are not exactly a bunch of dummies— after all, they have hoodwinked what looks to be thousands of progressives across this country into building a fascist base for them. People who were first hoodwinked into supporting Obama and now hoodwinked again to support this rotten Bircher Ron Paul.
The important difference between supporting Ron Paul and supporting Rocky Anderson, and most notably Jill Stein, is that you are participating in building a progressive movement.
If you really want Ron Paul to have a chance at winning why don’t all of you Ron Paul supporters just order publications from the racist and anti-Semitic John Birch Society to pass out since Ron Paul’s victory would require a mass fascist base?
Obviously the likes of PDA, Progressives for Obama, Campaign for America’s Future are really NOT for building a progressive base in the Democratic Party or else they would get behind the campaign of a real progressive Democrat like Darcy Richardson who is challenging Obama in the primaries; plus Darcy is not only a true progressive, he is a proven vote-getter.
While those of you who are spending your time (actually wasting your time organizing a fascist movement that stands in opposition to everything you say you are for), Darcy Richardson needs 8,000 signatures by January 31 to get on the ballot in Wisconsin.
We are talking Wisconsin here. I’m sure everyone knows what has been happening in Wisconsin.
This would require only 80 people collecting signatures for one weekend.
In terms of dollars this would only cost about $7,000.00 to $9,000.00. This would cover gas, leaflets, food and lodging for 80 people for one weekend of petitioning.
For less than $10,000.00 we can put someone like Darcy Richardson on the ballot in Wisconsin.
For less than another $50,000.00 we can then develop real progressive opposition to Obama in the Democratic Primary in Wisconsin.
Think about this: 600 people contributing $100.00 each could punish Obama in Wisconsin and simultaneously be building the progressive movement; not only in Wisconsin but serve as an example of what progressives can accomplish across the country.
If the Wisconsin Democratic Party really believed in just the concept of democracy they could have placed Darcy Richardson’s name on the Wisconsin primary ballot at no cost to them or anyone. But, the Democratic Party doesn’t believe in democracy. What a dangerous thought; that voters casting their ballots at a primary election should actually have more than one person to vote for. Wouldn’t that be just the pits to have more than one candidate in a Primary Election?
When the Chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, Mike Tate, was asked to place another name on the ballot his response was, “Only Obama’s name will be on the Primary ballot… if you don’t like it, sue me.” I suppose someone is going to ask me to prove this by providing a link?
Does anyone except Obama supporters who believe Obama has delivered us into a “Wonderful New World” have any reason to believe Darcy Richardson’s name should not be placed on the Wisconsin Primary ballot? If anyone has a reason I would like to hear it.
If there are no reasons not to put Darcy’s Name on the ballot then what are we waiting for?
All it would take is 900 people contributing $10.00 each to put Darcy Richardson’s name on the ballot by January 31.
Are any of you Ron Paul supporters willing to put up the money?
How about you, metamars? You are always willing to offer to pull $10.00 out of your pocket.
I am guessing that if FireDogLake made a special appeal as was done for OWS and the New Progressive Alliance were to join in and we all made pitches on our facebook pages and put our e-mail lists into action along with make some quick visits to a few friends we could do this.
No one would be paid; all we would be doing is covering the expenses for 80 people for one weekend.
Wisconsin law stipulates that a minimum of 1,000 signatures (and no more than 1,500) MUST come from each one of the 8 Congressional Districts in Wisconsin.
If someone will volunteer to take on the responsibility of raising the money, I will volunteer to recruit 80 people to go to Wisconsin to place Darcy Richardson’s name on the Primary ballot.
Huh.
Well, THAT’S a compelling argument. That really has me re-thinking. Thanks for not just calling me a fake progressive and telling me things I obviously already know.
That new info really does leave me wondering and thinking.
They do exist but they are voting lesser evil, and are scared of Obamas recent agitation for the Iran war.
Because I am now terrified that obamaromney will start a war with iran, that will destroy civilization by closing the straights of hormuz!
I was sympathetic to this argument up until Obama proved he was one of the iran war maniacs and agitated for an Iran war. He must be stopped! Ron Paul is the only candidate that can stop the iran wars!
Rocky Anderson and Jill Stein are better but it is a lie that they have as much chance as Ron Paul since they are unknown to the public!
Can you give me more info about those candidates?
Thanks for your comment Margaret it needs to be hammered home. Libertarians are at the opposite end of the Progressive spectrum.
I am telling the truth, Dameocrat.
It doesn’t matter if you win or lose— until you lose.
And there is no way the majority of the American voters are going to be sucked in to vote for Ron Paul like some so-called progressives have been.
Thus, Ron Paul is going to lose.
Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson and Darcy Richardson can’t possibly do any worse than lose.
Anyone who thinks helping Ron Paul build his fascist base won’t be the big loss just isn’t thinking.
Hmmm. So, I’m guessing you’re unaware of all this?
Anti-NAFTA.
Anti-war.
Anti-Patriot Act.
Repeal the mandate that all Americans must carry only government-approved health insurance or answer to the IRS.
Provide tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses.
Make all Americans eligible for Health Savings Accounts.
Stop increasing the debt ceiling.
Audit the Federal Reserve.
End the corporate stranglehold on the White House.
Offer tax credits to individuals and businesses for the use and production of natural gas vehicles.
Eliminate taxes on tips.
Stop taxing social security benefits.
Make tax credits available for the purchase and production of alternative fuel technologies.
Darcy Richardson:
http://www.darcy2012.com/
Jill Stein:
http://www.jillstein.org/
Rocky Anderson:
https://www.voterocky.org/home
How odd, then, that the only candidate espousing Progressive positions is a Libertarian.
“If progressives manage to open a third front”
They are trying, but they came late to the game.
I will not cast my vote for a legacy party candidate, and I would not cast my vote for Ron Paul even were he to mount a challenge as an independent.
It is a matter of character, and Ron Paul hasn’t any. The fact that his policy positions align with progressives on a couple three issues matters none. Lesser evilism is the thinking that brought us to this juncture, pragmatism is nowadays tantamount to surrender to fascism. Or to my mind, treason.
The grievances that need to be redressed at this late point will not be rectified from the ballot box. Our democracy is dead. Citizens United and Diebold voting machines will ensure the “election” of whomsoever the PTB wish, this whole thread is a moot point. People here are still conversing as if our democracy is alive and vibrant, full of promise, uncorrupted. What fucking country you folks living in?
“An honest line of reasoning in this regard”
Most of the anti-Pauls aren’t that honest: they just hate him because he’s not one of their tribe.
Rocky Anderson? The guy who’s qualified for POTUS after two terms as the mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah (population 186,440)?
Really good thread, thanks Athena! I think all of us are on all sides of this issue simply because we want to outfox the foxes who are putting up all the roadblocks to a fair discussion of important issues, having had the microphone for so long – and even their rightful detractors have had to work within harness so to speak. That’s very hard to break out of when the carrot dangles on the stick for staying there and out in Occupy land there’s no carrot. We really do have to remember that remaining in the rut isn’t really a choice.
So far I did think it seemed good for progressives who are active enough to do this to vote in primaries and get Ron Paul front and center, but also bearing in mind that for each of us there is a given quantum of political energy – I find myself thinking that Wendy’s way is the best one – to fight for the future rather than get suckered into another swiftboat run. Been there, done that.
Very educational; thanks to all.
then a progressive who supports Obama is also an oxymoron…. and by definition, not a progressive.
“restoring our democracy to reflect the will of the people, not the corporations and banks.”
Well said! Now, of those who might be on the ballot in November, who is most likely to move us in that direction?
“end some of the future bailouts”
A few hundred billion here, a few hundred billion there: pretty soon you’re talking about real money ;^)
Bradley Manning: “should he be locked up and in prison, or should we see him as a political hero? Maybe he is a true patriot who reveals what’s going on in government.” Was that the quote you were thinking of?
“You keep assuming that those who don’t support Paul *do support Obama*.”
Well, I can’t speak for athena1, but I think you’re taking that wrongly. Not liking Paul doesn’t mean liking Obama or wanting Obama, but opposing Paul might very mean getting Obama, like it or not. Which would blow goats.
“his belief that powers not *expressly* enumerated by the Constitution are left to the states”
“His belief”? That is the way it’s written, isn’t it?
“No, he doesn’t have to *use it* (the NDAA)”
I’d call that the next best thing to eliminating it, wouldn’t you?
that would make him more qualified than Obama was in 2008.
“Isnt there a Ron Paul supporters site that all of you people can go to instead?”
Several, but echo chambers are rarely informative. Is that what you want for FDL?
“Why not support the green party. Ron Paul has ZERO chance of being elected”
Snort. And how would you estimate Jill Stein’s chances?
and your vision is clearly not worked at all – at least, so far.
“the most abusive.”
LOL! Tell you what: you collect a few quotes of Ron Paul supporters being abusive, I’ll collect a few quotes of Ron Paul supporters being abused, and we’ll see how it goes.
referring to electoral politics
“idolization”?
The support I see here for Ron Paul is hardly blind idolization: it’s cautious, reluctant, and the result of serious consideration because it’s so contrary. Progressives don’t do something as radical (no pun) as coming out for Ron Paul without a LOT of thought and soul searching.
For crying the fuck out loud, the very article you’re commenting on begins, “I know Ron Paul is not a progressive. I know he’s anti-choice, wants to regulate female reproduction, is most probably a racist, hates social security, Medicare, etc. I know that and hate that about him.”
“idolization”?
I disagree. I think OWS and the American Autumn are in the process of being highly effective. The conversation has changed dramatically. People are thinking about Wall St and inequality differently. No, it won’t make an electoral difference this year, but patience, grasshopper.
Thank you, IM.
A paul victory would put a full stop the wars, and he cant do much about the economy without congress anyway.
“he had me when he had ‘issues’ with the Civil Rights Act.”
Reflex: 1
Thought: 0
Game over….
That is doshonest too. Paul really has views that are an anathma to progressives. He is a lesser evil vote, but the iran saber rattling makes his difference a pretty important one.
AUMF: “authorize the President to use the United States Armed Forces against anyone involved with the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and any nation that harbors these individuals.”
There’s actually nothing wrong with that, the problem is that it was abused.
Paul introduced a resolution to stop the Clinton administration from deploying U.S. armed forces in Kosovo unless that deployment was specifically authorized by an act of Congress, voted against the Iraq War Resolution under Bush, and against Obama’s US support of the NATO mission in Libya. Just how hawkish does that sound to you, Kelly?
“Paul really has views that are an anathma to progressives”
That is true, but he also has views that reflect several Progressive core values, yes? I truly believe that most (and note that I say “most” rather than “all”) of the anti-Pauls are operating on reflex rather than dispassionate consideration.
Robert:
—————-
“People here are still conversing as if our democracy is alive and vibrant, full of promise, uncorrupted. What fucking country you folks living in?”
—————-
Wendy refused to provide a vision that exists outside of electoral politics. I am unable to envision anything outside of electoral politics besides violent revolution, which I find both immoral and impractical.
So, what do YOU envision? Tell me how any of this might go down.
I’ve spent the last couple of months reading literature from the late 1800′s and early 1900′s, and things were very much as bleak then as they are now. Maybe worse. I suggest reading “Our Benevolent Feudalism” and “The Iron Heel” if you disagree. (they’re free online).
We got the first progressive era. It could happen again. Democracy was no less corrupted back then. And then, as now, the only alternative was violent revolution. Actually, there is an alternative, but it’s not realistic – it’s opting out of the system and, like, living on a farm commune or something. But that’s the only alternative to electoral politics or violent revolution that I know of. If I’m just being small-minded, please enlighten me?
You are correct. Nobody here is suggesting that Obama or his sold-out party be supported, either. Obama progressives are not true progressives.
Ha! That’s rich. We’ve been there all the time. It’s Paul who is trying to co-opt Progressivism for his pro-corporate, pro-discrimination, anti-tax ends. But he won’t be mentioning any of that on the stump.
how can you suggest Jill Stein isn’t on the radar, simply because YOU insist on locking in the MSM frequencies?
Athena, I provided a link (maybe you missed it?) on your earlier diary, detailing all the anti-progressive legislation Paul has sponsored or introduced. Here it is again.
Suck it, Paulites.
Well said. Thanks RAD.
This whole “not a real progressive” angle just seems like extreme weaksause, especially coming from you, Anthony. It’s not a convincing line of argument, for one. It doesn’t address the fact that people are coming from various, different fact bases for another.
I don’t even watch TV or read CNN/MSNBC/etc online. I definitely have flaws, but being locked in on the MSM frequency is not one of them. There’s some other reason why Jill Stein is a new name for me today.
Yeah, I already knew all of that. Not compelling compared to Kelly’s info about how Paul isn’t even really as anti-war as he seems.
LOL! It’s been so lovely having such a reasoned, non-angry dialogue with you!
‘Suck it up’ and ‘Come to Jesus’ were…Pure Art, Athena.
Shorter Athena: ‘If you are not Nostradamus, STFU!’ Almost too fun, srsly. ;o)
Sigh. The key to revolutions and mass uprisings in history is *exactly* the opposite. ONE simple message of what you oppose, in which the seed of what your want changed is contained. Think about the first American Revolution; know one knew then that it would become what it did, but the same seeds are here already, and will likely grow by spring, as conditions worsen, and American suffering grows.
Think ‘Economic Tyranny’ as the objection, for instance. Keep it simple, like the (admittedly inaccurate, but very useful) 99% v. the 1%. Everyone gets it. And all the reams of op-eds that claim the movement is about rich v. poor, or ‘income disparity’, stop way short of getting it.
It’s about the fact that the wealthier the .02% or whatever becomes, they increasingly can buy the legislation that allow them to get even wealthier…without producing anything, or any jobs, or contributing to the common weal whatsoever. Americans are waking up and noticing that this country’s entire infrastructure is crumbling to dust, and opportunities to have secure work, an affordable education, pension, health care…anything…is over now. They intuitively know that the social contract has been utterly voided, and they are noticing that government doesn’t care fuck-all about that…or them.
Now, seriously. If it’s necessary for a preponderance of citizens of all self-identifying labels among the political spectrum to awaken to that fact, demands are the one of the worst things that could be put forward now. That, and of course, announcing the backing of a candidate for office, as unfortunately, the Occupy the Dream ministers seem to have done already, according to Glen Ford at BAR. Sad, sad.
From what I read, many Occupies have guest teachers explaining basic economics, the outrage of the bailouts, the rigged tax code, alternatives to this form of government, like Direct Democracy, or mixed, like Switzerland.
By now, IMO, this is way past simply reinstating Glass-Steagal, or reversing the CMFA; it’s also outrage at a two-tiered justice system in which the financially fraudulent theft of billions, collectively hundreds of trillions…is left to stand. But Mrs. Common Man is jailed for exercising her Constitutionally guaranteed free speech rights.
I’d also urge you to remember that the Tea Party was an astro-turf phony movement brought to us by the Koch Brothers; that movement is shrinking daily, the recent polls show. And recent Pew polls show a huge percentage of Americans declaring that such astounding wealth mal-distribution is a huge part of the tension in the country.
Anyway, before I get accused of ‘lecturing’ by Ms. Athena for answering a question as I see the truth of it, I’ll stop. It is, naturally, only my opinion.
;o)
I didn’t characterize Paul as a hawk in any way. I said he is not anti-war. And he’s not as first evidenced by the AUMF vote.
There’s further contemporary evidence that he is not “anti-war” as he is continually being represented by many supporters.
From RonPaul.com December 8th 2011, in his own words:
*************
Ron Paul senior adviser Doug Wead on FOX News, responding to comment that Ron Paul was “to the left of Obama” on war:
Emphasis added. The Wead statements have not been repudiated, refuted or corrected by the Ron Paul campaign.
Sound like a dove to you?
Doesn’t sound like I have anything of value to impart to you. Your analysis is essentially correct, where you fail IMO is in your conclusions; suggesting that incrementalism or lesser evilism will at least begin to propel us in the right direction is denying the severity of the situation, and the enormity of the stakes this time around. To portray what exists presently in this country as a form of democracy is self delusion. You are much smarter than that Athena.
What is left is for all of us to decide what will be the level of our committment. We must now determine what sacrifices we are willing to make to pass on a country, which is an empire that exerts hegemony on the globe, therefore bequeath a planet,that we can be……if not proud of……at least not ashamed of any longer.
You are wrong about the severity of the crisis at this juncture. It is much worse than ever before, for numerous….I believe self evident….reasons. Because of that, the stakes are very much higher, we may never have the opportunity again.
We have arrived at a true turning point. Global in its implications. Irrevocable in its nature. Frightening in its scope.
So choose.
Having a simple, main message, in no way contradicts having an electoral focus, also. Not that I’d over-value the ‘single meme’ meme, either.
While no authority on what’s happened in Latin America, I do know that most of the democracies there are closing the gap between top 1% and bottom 99%. Unlike the rest of the world (AFAIK).
HOW DID THEY DO THAT? By not even being able to muster the democratic wherewithal to do something similar to what I’d hoped OWS would have done, by now – viz., condemn both the Democrats and Republicans for Gramm Leach Bliley (overturning Glass Steagall)? My knowledge of South American politics is scant, but I have trouble even imagining that. Meanwhile, what have the encampments in Spain gotten them?
Also, you and I seems to be talking past each other. I’m very glad OWS came about, but it’s governance structure, IMO, renders it incapable of the sort of focussed, persistent civic activity that can get Americans the sorts of reforms that has been had in South America. So, while you may have pinned your hope on OWS, I’m more optimistic about a democratic flowering that OWS may well have stimulated.
That’s why I don’t particularly care if OWS EVER declares, unambiguously, that the D and R parties are systemically corrupt, and must be either taken over by the 99%, and/or abandoned. I’m personally focussed on what some might call an OWS 2.0, but the nomenclature would be more based on inspiration rather than reflect a direct evolution.
Even so, I’m not about to spare OWS from criticism, especially where it’s relevant or useful to the discussion. I’m not going to spare it criticism by not comparing it with the Latin American mostly non-violent and electorally active ‘revolutions’, nor will I spare it criticism by not comparing it with the (AFAIK non-existent) positive results from the Spanish encampments and Greek mass demonstrations.
I don’t have time for this, myself, but I’d like to suggest that suitably available diarists do an in-depth comparison of the South European OWS-like movements, and the electorally-connected South American movements. (My apologies ahead of time if I’ve mis-characterized South American movements. I’m very certain about them closing the wealth disparity, but not certain about their degree of non-violence.)
I’ve previously accused the progressive blogosphere of journalistic malpractice, because nobody (that I noticed) was doing an in-depth look at the accomplishments of the South European OWS-like movements. I repeat that charge, here and now, but I’m calling for an even larger scope. It may well turn out that an indispensable element of the success of the South Americans vs. the (so far) failures of the South Europeans is their relative propensity to engage the electoral system.
If that’s the reality, and it doesn’t suite those with an anarchist viewpoint, well, too bad.
Oh, yeah. “By now, IMO, this is way past simply reinstating Glass-Steagal, or reversing the CMFA” Nobody was suggesting that just reinstating Glass-Steagall, or reversing CMFA, was anywhere near sufficient. You sort of missed my point, entirely. It takes very little effort to CONDEMN Gramm Leach Bliley. OWS (NYC) could have done that in an hour or two, during their first week! They couldn’t even accomplish this verbal minimum! So you’re talking about an accomplished rollback of GLB isn’t even relevant to my point.
They say anything to get elected. Obama was a prime example. I would think by now we know that politicians are liars. Voting hasn’t accomplished a thing and sadly it has taken me so long to figure it out.
Yipes. “I’m very certain about them closing the wealth disparity, but not certain about their degree of non-violence”
should be
“I’m very certain about them narrowing the wealth disparity, but not certain about their degree of non-violence”
Hey Athena, thanks for writing this diary. Progressives need to sort out their feelings about Ron Paul.
Here’s my thing with Paul. He is the first candidate in my immediate memory who seems to be running as an *actual* representative of a demographic of citizens rather than a pretty-packaged slurry of church doctrine, corporatism, and vulgar nationalism. There is an appealing authenticity about Ron Paul that gives me hope that–as wrong as he is on just about every issue–there could be some salvation from oligarchy.
Now, someone please show me how Ron Paul is really a corporate tool funded and beholden to the corporate elite.
“They say anything to get elected.”
Heh: I’ve noticed that (Obama was a prime example), however Ron Paul is saying several things he knows damn well a LOT of people won’t like to hear. If his strategy was “lie your way into office then do as you please” his message would be quite different. Why would a campaigning politician take unpopular positions? One answer is obvious: are there others?
“Voting hasn’t accomplished a thing”
Perhaps because a Darth Vader clone in blue armor is essentially the same as a Darth Vader clone in red armor? Here’s a “progressive” idea: elect someone who is not a clone.
If there’s one thing we should have learned by now, it’s that we need to do something different.
Sigh; I should have known people would misinterpret “they came late to the game.”
What I meant was you waited too damn long to have a viable 3rd Party candidate in 2012.
Always aq treat to read your opinions, juliania; thanks for the vote of confidence of vision. ‘Swiftboat run’ was the purrrfect metaphor.
Hope you and yours are well in these hard times.
….“He’s not against war. He’s in favor of going to the U.S. Congress — as the Constitution says”…..
So he is against every American war since World War Two.
“Ron Paul: Yea, I think if conditions are very similar and if they believe it’s in their national security interests, that should be their decision, and not ours.”
So if other countries want war that doesn’t involve the U.S. that’s their decision.
Doesn’t sound like a pacifist. Definitely sounds like a dove.
You can google his campaign contributors, yellowsnapdragon, to see first-hand all of his ties to big-business.
Hitler, Mussolini, Franco,the Regime of the Colonels in Greece, Marcello Caetano in Portugal, Pinochet in Chile and you can go on and on— they all started out like Ron Paul; same outlook; same “perverted but folksy populism.”
Well, then make that distinction if you like between pacifist and dove; but never again say that RP is against the slaughter of millions of browns.
Because he isn’t as long as it’s not out of his pocket and the Israelis or someone else does it.
A distinction without a difference for your “anti-war” candidate as far as I’m concerned.
We really are talking past each other, MM; I will yield to you, as there are way better things to do tonight before I sleep: 5 kit grey foxes, who do, in fact, climb trees, and are a treat to watch and love apples and black-oil sunflower seeds…and Mr. wendydavis has brought out the telescope so that we might be able to see Neptune, or even the star-forming nebulae in Orion’s belt. And I need the perspective so badly. Plus a hot soak in the tub; Occupying Mancos was a wee bit more difficult today than usual, and a hot bath sounds…like heaven now. ;o)
Peace and goodwill to all of us.
wd
Athena, you state that we have two choices, working within the system or violent revolution, this is a false dichotomy. You reject revolution as immoral and condemn us to a system that is corrupt and immoral.
The Revolution has already begun and it is and will be violent, the revolutionaries are not violent the society we inhabit is viscous and violent.
It seems that many are seeking a safe way to change the status quo which is not possible with the ugly reality of our present Regime.
This type of naive wishful thinking that some Leader will help us regain our democracy is a prescription for more pain and suffering.
Right now I’m interested in the pertinent facts about who RP represents, actual people or the corporate elite. So, who funds Ron Paul and in what amounts? I’m too lazy to look on teh google myself *g*. And have his decisions as a legislator been obviously crafted by the interests of his donors?
Perhaps you want to vote for Ron Paul because you believe war is immoral, but you should know that Ron Paul does not oppose war because it is immoral. He opposes war because it is outside his world-view of small government and strict Constitutionality. Ron Paul’s world-view is non-interventionist in ALL categories, which also means no aid to victims of drought and famine in this country or any other country. In order to support a Ron Paul presidency, you would have to argue for a list of negatives that let’s others die by abuse, neglect, and starvation. It means you’d be willing to live in an America that accelerates the “survival of the fittest” meme we are already experiencing.
If the fascist South had won the Civil War, and the Confederacy had enshrined “States Rights” as Paul would have us do, women would still be getting back alley abortions, we’d still be lynching black people, gay sex would be against the law and kids would be going to segregated schools. To say the federal government has no right to protect the civil liberties of individuals, but it’s perfectly O.K. with Paul if states deny your civil liberties, contradicts how much he supposedly values the rights of individuals.
Thank you, Athena, great diary! Lots of interesting comments, too.
I think that voting for Ron Paul is like a jiu-jitsu move–using your opponent’s strength against him.
The corporations and the elites who control the Dem/Repub two-headed machine are united in wanting the wars and police state to continue, and they have already decided that our choice will be between Romney and Obama, who share almost identical goals but use different language.
Protests, no matter how huge, are ignored by the media, unless, of course, they are bogus Tea-Party events with a handful of participants. But the Republican presidential primaries are already set up, we can vote in them, and the results will be reported and discussed on national TV, which (sadly!) is what counts in the U.S. It is as if someone else has done all the organizing, fund-raising, and publicizing so that we can hold an anti-war protest that the media can not ignore! The numbers of anti-war voters attracted by Ron Paul is already being discussed in the media.
Voting in the Republican primaries could be the easiest, biggest, and most effective anti-war, anti-police state protest ever, and it would be REPORTED ON. We can use the enemy’s strength against it, and in so doing, raise awareness among the millions of our fellow citizens who depend on TV for their news.
The only reason I can think of for NOT taking the opportunity we have been handed, to vote for Ron Paul in the Repub primaries, is if we want Obama/Romney to win.
I don’t. I want the killing stopped. That’s what this is really about.
I’m skeptical of the notion that things are worse now than they were in 1900. Yes, the oligarchy is unified and global now, but the people are also becoming unified globally. Communication is easier than ever.
I’m not self-deluded. A careful look at history has shown me that our rigged democracy was equally or more screwed up in 1900. And we still got FDR back then.
I completely reject the sort of lesser-evilism where the new, supposedly lesser evil is actually just more, not less, evil (Obama).
Like Chomsky says, ignorance is our biggest enemy. And I firmly believe that ignorance is slowly but surely being overcome.
Again, I see electoral politics as the only alternative to violent revolution. And even with heavily corrupted democracy (as was the case from 1880-1929) electoral politics can work.
And there was a quiet revolution happening at that time, too, that manifested in electoral politics later.
I see your point, Kelly, and you’re right: “anti-war” iss an oversimplification.
Ron Paul is not anti-war, he is just opposed to our bombing, droning, and invading nations that are not a clear and present danger. Is that not enough for you?
@ironymeter January 14th, 2012 at 6:59 pm
No. For one thing I still need an explanation why he didn’t bother to vote on the NDAA?
Then the 19th Century idea of for-profit mini-war-mongering of “Letters of Marque and Reprisals.”
(video) In his own words from the 2008 campaign cycle.
“We must now determine what sacrifices we are willing to make”
And what sacrifices you will require of others, whether they like it or not. Revolutions are rather notorious for “collateral damage.”
Ron Paul is a socially conservative Libertarian. A reactionary. How exactly is he going to co-opt Progressivism? Is that what you guys are worried about? It’s inconceivable! It’s impossible!
If some progressives are supporting the Paul Campaign it’s because they see that we are in real trouble right now. We don’t have 20 or 30 years to build a progressive movement. We want to do something NOW that will stop or impede the Authoritarian juggernaut.
We have an anti-imperialist movement already. It’s OWS. It’s as left as it can be in terms of consciousness raising. But it’s unsatisfying to progressives because, damn it, 99% includes crap like Libertarians and white southerners and Evangelicals.
And we already have the Paul Campaign which is growing in strength and has launched a direct attack against the Oligarchy from the right. Paul is no progressive but he is not a Fascist either.
I don’t have much money. My meager financial contributions go to OWS via FDL. I stump for Ron Paul but only among my many red neck acquaintances who are Republicans anyway. I will vote for Ron Paul in the primary. I am a volunteer with a local group that is expanding community gardens in my town. In the general election, I will probably find myself voting green and I will probably have to send Jill some money before it’s over. I have no problem supporting Paul, Jill and OWS. We will all have to work together if we are going to defeat the Fascists.
“You can google his campaign contributors”
I did.
“to see first-hand all of his ties to big-business.”
I didn’t.
You want to make an accusation, produce some evidence.
Thank you, wendy, and likewise. Apologies for badmouthing foxes – must have been a tangle in the ether.
I too don’t really think violent revolution is in the cards so long as the Occupy movement keeps its nonviolent stance. It’s not leaderless; MLK really is still leading. Along with countless others, but he’s the voice.
I remember back when I liked Thom Hartmann he used the analogy of a herd of animals, antelope I think, studied to see how they made their decisions to change location. There was not, as I remember, one leader who said ‘C’mon guys, here we go’; rather each member of the herd, one by one, turned to face a particular direction and when the majority had turned, off they all went.
So, Athena, there’s the example of Nelson Mandela in South Africa, and there’s the example of the Velvet Revolution in Chekoslovakia, and there’s Poland, South America, Arab Spring – all very different scenarios, some co-opted some not – and now we seem to be getting Burma.
No set pattern and assuredly there was violence,(those poor monks!) and we’ve had violence in the Occupy standoffs, plus there’s a whole lot of dedicated people with positive energy out there. We know how all these things can go wrong and there may be a long road ahead, but so far I’m not getting inspired by staying within the electoral system as it is currently hogtied face in the dirt. I really don’t want to go through that again.
What I can see helpful in ‘supporting’ Ron Paul is just the argument he could possibly have against Obama’s war policies – but from comments here even that seems not assured, so why waste the energy? A brick wall is a brick wall.
I see everyone’s argument. Nothing is clear; they’ve crafted well those messeruppers. So meanwhile we fan out and each face a likely pasture. Then we’ll move where most of us are pointing, and that will be our revolution, the way this particular country at this particular time discovers it needs to go.
LOL. So, you’re going to drop the point you got your ass handed to you on? Okay: let’s continue to go one-by-one.
Why he didn’t vote on the NDAA? No clue: it wouldn’t have made a difference, of course, but I am surprised he didn’t make a point of it. After all, he did say, “The Patriot Act, as bad as its violations against the Fourth Amendment was, was just one step down the slippery slope. The recently passed National Defense Authorization Act continues that slip into tyranny, and in fact, accelerates it significantly.”
Anyone else going to be on November’s ballot with that attitude?
‘I have no problem supporting Paul, Jill and OWS. We will all have to work together if we are going to defeat the Fascists.’
Bingo.
“even that seems not assured”
Paul introduced a resolution to stop the Clinton administration from deploying U.S. armed forces in Kosovo unless that deployment was specifically authorized by an act of Congress, voted against the Iraq War Resolution under Bush, and against Obama’s US support of the NATO mission in Libya.
Is he a total pacifist who would never, ever fight anyone, period? No. Would such a person be a suitable Commander in Chief? No.
Look at it this way:
If Obama is reelected this year, who will get invaded next year?
If Romney is elected this year, who will get invaded next year?
If Paul is elected this year, who will get invaded next year?
It’s tough to answer the first two since there are so many possibilities, but answering the third question is easy.
Yeah, I know.
The constitution of the south omitted the stuff about providing for the General Welfare, too. Like I said, Paul gives me a lot of cognitive dissonance.
What part of “mad” are you having trouble with? Perhaps this will help, emphasis added for your guidance.
mad:adjective
1.
mentally disturbed; deranged; insane; demented.
2.
enraged; greatly provoked or irritated; angry.
3.
(of animals) a.
abnormally furious; ferocious: a mad bull.
b.
affected with rabies; rabid: a mad dog.
a.
abnormally furious; ferocious: a mad bull.
b.
affected with rabies; rabid: a mad dog.
4.
extremely foolish or unwise; imprudent; irrational: a mad scheme to invade France.
5.
wildly excited or confused; frantic: mad haste.
6.
overcome by desire, eagerness, enthusiasm, etc.; excessively or uncontrollably fond; infatuated: He’s mad about the opera.
7.
wildly gay or merry; enjoyably hilarious: to have a mad time at the Mardi Gras.
8.
(of wind, storms, etc.) furious in violence: A mad gale swept across the channel.
Word.
No worries on the foxes, dear Juliania; they can fend for themselves.
Your last graph has me pinging mightily, but I need time to sit with that vision, and connect it to other things I’ve been finding and seeing lately. Meaning: it reminds me of something I just quite get into focus. Methinks, anyway. ;o)
Sleep well; you done good here tonight. ‘Specially in regards to:
We don’t need no stinkin’ Demagogue Antelope here’. ;o)
to the need for electoral politics.
I don’t know what there is besides elections and armed struggle–(unless we do a survivalist exit in which case I wanna be on your farm…)
I don’t think it necessarily follows for those who (justifiably) scorn electoral politics in the age of Citizens United that elections are always merely the circus half of bread and circuses, potemkin elections, as it were.
Hitler! Ron Paul is just like him. Except not.
Small donations, he gets some tech in election years and he’s got some troops.
Only Barbara Lee distinguished herself in that vote, and all the other stuff you say is true.
For me, if nothing else changed as a result of a robust Paul run (which is really about the most success one can expect) except that at the end of the day it proved not to be political suicide to declare the heroism of Bradley Manning, I’d be fine.
I’m skeptical of the notion that things are worse now than they were in 1900
Our time is short now in a way it never was before, and the political and social upheavals necessary and sufficient to cope with global warming (esp on the new timetable) are profound.
eg, Naomi Klein: “It is not the job of a transformative social movement to reassure members of a panicked, megalomaniacal elite that they are still masters of the universe—nor is it necessary.”
@wendydavis January 14th, 2012 at 6:08 pm
Amen! Sounds like a plan!
I was asked by a friend what I planned to do for New Years. I told her, “sleep”.
And sleep I did! A telescope, accomodating sky, and hot tub would do wonders for me, but I have to keep waiting for such niceties.
Some day I even hope to have a dishwasher! Woo, hoo!
The Greek colonels reference is kind of off the wall, also.
Some of your logic is circular.
Most of the famines are brought on by our actions in preceding years.
Arming certain factions which causes wars, which causes massive migrations of people where they end up in camps without enough food or water, or proper irrigation. By encouraging land appropriations of their farms, and usage of GMA seed.
A lot of this “aid” is merely mitigation for our own depredations.
What is the point of rhetorical arguments that take place in the mid 1800′s?
They are entirely removed from context. We don’t live in those days. What someone would have done back then, is entirely different than what they would do today or even could do today.
As a matter of fact Democrats argued for slavery back then. The probability that we’d still be having lynchings at southern bbq picnics is almost nil.
Slavery had been outlawed in France and England and we caught up. My point is that these alternative versions of history are not even thought out. They’re more scare-mongering.
As Judge Neopolitano said- The civil rights are now part of the constitution and we aren’t going backwards and it doesn’t matter what Republicans want. They are wrong.
I probably wont vote for ron paul but i will vote for him in the primary because his anti war postions are important but in this race, it is actually Santorum who is the despicable throwback, followed by the narcissistic culture warrior: Newt Gingrich.
I wonder what would have ensued had there been a grass roots revolt when they shut down Organizing for America, which should have been the progressive hammer for disciplining blue dogs.
All that was needed was a “Bradley Manning” to copy the email list onto a Donna Summer cd
Looks like you failed to overthrow the government in your Oct 2011 revolution Mr. Dumas.
A bit condescending as well.
You want collapse so we can rebuild? A vote for Ron Paul is a vote to end Capitalism.
They’re all the same. Pol Pot, Zia ul Haq, Chairman Mao, Suharto, Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein.
Folksy… like Pinochet :)
You do realize that Ron Paul believes that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional right?
I really do wish some people would take the time to look at the guys entire conversation on issues rather than just listening to what they want to hear during campaign season.
Actually if you believe what Ron Paul says then he couldn’t stop an Iranian war as President. Paul is on the record as stating that a declaration of war is a Congressional power. Hard to suggest how he’d stop war if no longer a member of that body.
Well at least your honest. ;)
I’m pretty sure Paul has dementia. I’ve yet to come up for an explanation for his supporters. Perhaps your explanation fits best. Paul is attracting the mentally unbalanced. Those that have gotten so angry at the system that they are literally willing to go kamikaze(nevermind that they’ll take out a bunch of bystanders as well as the guilty. Acceptable losses.)
Political compass maps it out in quadrants. The term spectrum would suggest that to be on a bi polar linear scale.
Libertarian v. Authoritarian, and Left v. Right.
This puts most Dems that ran for President closer to the Republicans than Ron Paul
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
This might mean something if Obama wasnt busily attacking those programs too.
Well, if anything, true colors show very well. Thanks Athena. Seriously, thank you!
I’m glad I’m not a progressive. Never have been one. Never called myself one. Never will be one.
But look at you children reduced to name-calling and insults. Just pathetic. What a sad state. High road? WTF is that!
Please continue with your bleating and insults. And you can call me not a “real” progressive if you wish. Don’t matter to me one whit. Better if I am not confused with foolish children such as you.
What happened to ideas? Logic? Reasoning? Ooops, my bad, all that replaced by ego, arrogance, ignorance, and high-school level name calling.
I mean for fuck sakes, listen to yourself. I wouldn’t follow any of you anywhere. And I wouldn’t trust any of you to watch my back.
I do apologize to the two here who maintained some level of composure and decency. The world is all matters of fucked up, and this useless, pointless, and counter-productive bickering helps no one. It’s the fucking height of sadness, when I of all people, need to point this out. I mean for fuck sakes people, I, me, tambershall, have to point this out? WTF!?
Like I said if you think voting will change things knock yourself out. I really don’t think the MIC will allow anyone to cut off their income flow no matter what anyone promises. Obama said a lot of things people wanted to hear but he hasn’t done anything he has said. I don’t think Paul will be any different. JMHO
As one who never cared for O- Just another W (warmonger) -Bama, I disappeared from FDL for a long time after he was elected and my comments generated insults attacking me. After years of thinking the repubs and talking-heads such as Bill OReilly were so over the top in their incivility, liberals were reasonable and kind, my eyes were opened wide. If we can’t speak without resorting to insults, then why bother.
Then more recent nosing around here, I saw that this is the place to be for Occupy Info, and others have seen that OBama aint the man he pretended to be.
Just to set the record a little bit more straight on the ‘Ron Paul calls Manning a hero’ subject, I’d looked up the video, lazily transcribed it yesterday for Kris, who’d dropped in a Paul ad on my recent Manning diary.
As close as I could come, my emphasis added:
“We have a few brave souls, especially in the foreign policy area that came up, (garbled) it came up in Viet Nam, it’s xome up more recently- Wikileaks- ; information that yes, technically they’re breaking a rule, but what is the government doing? They’re breaking the law! And they’re doing these horrible things, so if we have an American citizen, and he’s willing to take it…uh…take the consequences, and practice civil disobedience ‘n say, “This is what our government’s doing, should he be locked up, and in prison, or should we…ya know, see him as a political hero? Maybe he is a true patriot, who reveals what’s going on in government.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pbSCT2SE6U&feature=player_embedded#!
Okay; you’ll get a different take on the ‘take the consequences’ bit, but being who I often am, I’d quip”
‘What? He wants to give Manning a medal while he’s in prison?’
Just sayin’; the whole thing doesn’t necessarily add up to the conventional wisdom that Paul would pardon him.
Here’s a link just tweeted by opensecrets. Ron Paul’s numbers are striking by comparison.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/select.php?cycle=2012
Your smacks at Robert *and* October2011 were pretty condescending as well, kissesfrogs. What’s up with that? Seems unlike you.
The October2011 get that they got scooped by OWS, but they’re organizing lots of actions in DeeCee around Freedom Plaza; some are not too far off. Too lazy to grab links.
I’d submit that accidentally ending capitalism by ending the Fed ain’t enough. Paul is a major adherent to Austrian Economics, full-throated laissez faire capitalism.
Obama is a warmonger. He’s Bush III.
Romney will be the same.
I think even Paul is going to pull and O if he becomes prez and he will do whatever he wants if he gets elected.
That’s a terrific link YSD: thanks.
Alan, you want to point out “all of his ties to big-business”?
I feel the same, that they say what they think will get them elected, and then do whatever their corporate donors want of them.
He does have big business donors, just in much smaller amounts than the big names. *If* RP was polling a bit better, would the corporate elite pur money into his campaign and WLAN he be bought?
*could. DYAC.
I’m sorry, YSD: I didn’t get your acronyms.
WLAN?
DYAC?
“look at you children reduced to name-calling and insults”
Irony Meter Rating: 6.5
“Like I said if you think voting will change things knock yourself out”
Thank you: I will. I gather you’re not planning to vote?
Heh: Good point.
Of course, in 2008 I said Obama was unqualified and was roundly denounced as a racist. At least I don’t have to worry about that this time.
Luv the sound of crickets….