From Glenn Greenwald’s Salon site: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/08/16/elections/index.html
There are many reasons why the media is eager to disappear Ron Paul despite his being a viable candidate by every objective metric. Unlike the charismatic Perry and telegenic Bachmann, Paul bores the media with his earnest focus on substantive discussions. There’s also the notion that he’s too heterodox for the purist GOP primary base.
But what makes the media most eager to disappear Paul is that he destroys the easy, conventional narrative — for slothful media figures and for Democratic loyalists alike. Aside from the truly disappeared former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (more on him in a moment), Ron Paul is far and away the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war presidential candidate in either party.
How can the conventional narrative of extremist/nationalistic/corporatist/racist/warmongering GOP v. the progressive/peaceful/anti-corporate/poor-and-minority-defending Democratic Party (?) be reconciled with the fact that a candidate with those positions just virtually tied for first place among GOP base voters in Iowa?
Not easily, and Paul is thus disappeared from existence. That the similarly anti-war, pro-civil-liberties, anti-drug-war Gary Johnson is not even allowed in media debates — despite being a twice-elected popular governor — highlights the same dynamic.
However much progressives find Paul’s pro-Life views to be disqualifying (even if the same standard is not applied to Good Democrats Harry Reid or Bob Casey), and even as much as Paul’s domestic policies are anathema to liberals (the way numerous positions of Barack Obama ostensibly are: war escalation, due-process-free assassinations, entitlement cuts, and whistleblower wars anyone?), shouldn’t progressives be eager to have included in the discourse many of the views Paul uniquely advocates?
After all, these are critical, not ancillary, positions, such as: genuine opposition to imperialism and wars; warnings about the excesses of the Surveillance State, executive power encroachments, and civil liberties assaults; and attacks on the one policy that is most responsible for the unjustifiable imprisonment of huge numbers of minorities and poor and the destruction of their families and communities: Drug Prohibition and the accompanying War to enforce it.
[The irony is that ] GOP primary voters are supporting a committed anti-war, anti-surveillance candidate who wants to stop imprisoning people (dispropriationately minorities) for drug usage; Democrats [DailyKos, etc. ], by contrast, are cheering for a war-escalating, drone-attacking, surveillance-and-secrecy-obsessed drug warrior.
The steadfast ignoring of Ron Paul — and the truly bizarre un-personhood of Gary Johnson — has ensured that, yet again, those views will be excluded and the blurring of partisan lines among ordinary citizens on crucial issues will be papered over.
That’s precisely the opposite effect that a healthy democratic election would produce.
__
We need to help out and support Ron Paul in the GOP Primaries, because he is the only person today on the political stage that is willing to put these very serious issues (anti-War, anti-Empire, anti-NAFTA, anti-Corporatism, anti-Central-Bank-Monopoly, anti-Drug-War, anti-Torture, anti-Police-State, etc.) out on the table for public discourse.
If Barack Obama is to be challanged from “the Left” on all these serious issues, it will come only from a Ron Paul GOP Nomination (whereas a Mitt Romney, Perry, or Bachmann nomination will only push Obama further to the right).
I want to see that public debate.
I want to see the Empire (and Obama) squirm as the truth is told.
This Country will never grow-up without such a public debate.
Vote in the GOP primaries for Ron Paul!



65 Comments

The GOP has done cross-over voting before to influence the outcomes of Democratic Primaries.
So why shouldn’t we?
Vote in the GOP Primaries for Ron Paul, and force the debate on these issues!
recommended and tweeted.
interesting approach and hell yes the GOP cross over in primaries all the time. I was a Democratic election judge for 5 precincts in the 2008 primary here in Texas and it was crazy and they were very rude people. I had to call the constable no less than 14 times that day. That day was a nightmare from Tim Burton’s imagination–only instead of cartoons, the people were real.
IN CA, only registered Repubs are allowed to vote in the primary.
And it remains to be seen whether Pauls’ message will hold in NH,etc.
Bottomline is that the Repub Wall St. faction doesn’t want him and the tea party faction of the Repubs don’t think he’s theocratic enough.
BUT Glenn’s comments about the media are ‘on point’.
Ah, think you’re wrong about that. In the last election the voters approved an “open” primary bill with the top two voter getters, regardless of party affiliation, advancing.
I’m in CA-36 and the primary for Jane Harman’s replacement was open, with something like three Dems, four GOPers, and a handful of various indies on the ballot.
Although I hate open primaries, in this case a chance to vote for Ron Paul just to ratfuck the Dems has lots of appeal to me. Plus, I’d actually take Ron Paul over Zero.
Appreciate the correction but Proposition 14 puts the top two vote-getters in primary races for congressional, state legislative and statewide offices, regardless of political party, in a face-off in the general election, not Presidential primaries.
“FAR AND AWAY”
“FAR AND AWAY”
“FAR AND AWAY”
It seems it would follow that Ron Paul is actually the most progressive candidate among the Republicans or Democrats.
It seems it would follow that FDL, which fancies itself quintessentially progressive, should support Ron Paul.
Unless, there are more important issues in 2012 than the wars, the surveillance-state, Crony-capitalism, and the drug-war.
GREENWALD HAS SUPPLIED THE PREMISE. THE CONCLUSION SEEMS INESCAPABLE: FDL FOR RON PAUL
“I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.” — Barack Obama, 2007
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga/
In 2008, Barack Obama received more campaign donations from the military industrial complex than all other presidential candidates. See here: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=D&cycle=2008&recipdetail=P&mem=N&sortorder=U
I tried warning my fellow “progressives” about this empty suit back in 2008, but they were hypnotized by the man’s skin color and silly speeches. Ridiculous.
I’d like to add to that … that Ron Paul received the most donations from actual Military servicemen ( the cannon fodder) back in 2008.
So if we are to really “support the troops”, it then follows that Ron Paul should be granted the chance to stop all these futile (and corrupt) Foreign Occupations, Wars, and reckless Empire expansion overseas — which has bankrupted our own Country, destroyed our own Economy, and killed and/or injured more Americans than any “terrorist” ever has, ever could, or ever will.
And if FDL came out for Ron Paul, it would send the MSM, Wall Street, the Republicans, and the Democrats into extreme fits of hysteria. But we can’t have that can we? Or can we? Maybe somebody can start a web site: fdlersforronpaul.com or firebaggersforronpaul.com. Chop chop. The hour is getting late.
Agreed! I always thought of myself as an “FDR Democrat”, but at this point I’d vote for Ron Paul if he’s the GOP nominee. The ongoing foreign policy catastrophes means foreign policy trumps all other issues.
I’m a progressive whose favorite Presidents were FDR, and John Kennedy (fathered the Medicare legislation which passed in ’64, had the U.S. Treasury print DEBT-Free “United States Notes” in ’63, and sought to withdraw from Vietnam, reform the CIA, and call off the Arms Race).
But I have learned a lot by listening to Ron Paul. The biggest threat to our well being is the Orwellian Warfare State and Central-Bank-Monopoly grip over our Nation (and our Economy). Most all of the corruption that is around us flows from those two sources.
If we could ever smash those two tyrannies down to the ground, it would then be possible to remake our Country again. We would then no longer have to be the victims of a repeating parade of false choices, and the literal destruction of the middle-class.
“IN CA, only registered Repubs are allowed to vote in the primary.”
Why not change your registration to Republican and change back again after the primary is over? It’s not hard to do.
“Bottomline is that the Repub Wall St. faction doesn’t want him and the tea party faction of the Repubs don’t think he’s theocratic enough.”
All the more reason for the left to get behind him.
show me where paul would control the banks and other oligarchies any better that any other republican. from what i see libertarians believe in liberty from regulations for corporations just like they do in personal matters. what we need is more regulation not less for corporations. he would roll over for the MOTU in a new york second. thanks for the goooood laugh.
FYI:
I was banned from DailyKos (that bastion of “liberalism” and “free speech”), but if someone here wants to cross-post this Diary over at that site (word-for-word, of course) be my guest.
I don’t support/ won’t support Paul. The enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
Sorry.
The enemy of the murderous and plundering MIC, FED-Wall-Street, CFR, and Corporate think-tank system…..is indeed your friend (whether you realize it or not).
But don’t take my word for it, listen to Ralph Nader:
Watch Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwIZ4syCFLc
Then you are sadly misinformed, and do not know Ron Paul’s (very consistent) voting record.
Watch Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwIZ4syCFLc
In fact, Ron Paul is the author of the book “End the Fed” (Central Bank Monopoly). This is the root structure of the corrupt Banking system, and Wall Street Corporate oligarcy.
And Ron Paul is the only person on the political stage who will also end NAFTA, end the Drug Wars, stop taxpayer Corporate subsidies, defund the corrupt “Chamber of Commerce“, and of course save Trillions of dollars by terminating the Wars, and Occupations.
__
You must first ask yourself, why is the second-place (and statistically first-place tie) finisher of the Iowa Straw Poll being totally ignored by the major U.S. News Media?
Answer: Precisely because Ron Paul represents a genuine threat to the Establishment.
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88LwXY5IoBU
Great stat and good find. Very telling. But given the subject matter of this diary, it’s worth noting that Ron Paul was #5 in Defense contributions in 2008. But he dropped out of the top 20 subsequently. Also, he didn’t make the top 20 in 2006 either.
What happened in 2008?
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?ind=D&cycle=2008&recipdetail=H&mem=Y&sortorder=U
Why would a woman vote for Paul? He has the same position on abortion as Bachmann and he is anti-social security and medicare. He says they are unconstitutional. I don’t think I could register as a republican and cross-over. Paul has some positive things going for him but I need my reproductive freedom and a safety net.
“You must first ask yourself, why is the second-place (and statistically first-place tie) finisher of the Iowa Straw Poll being totally ignored by the major U.S. News Media?
Answer: Precisely because Ron Paul represents a genuine threat to the Establishment.”
Here is a recent Pew Research Study that backs you up. Even Donald Trump has received significantly more coverage than RP.
http://www.journalism.org/numbers_report/are_media_ignoring_ron_paul?src=prc-tweet
Casey and Reid are anti- abortion but they only have 2 votes in the senate. An anti-abortion president that would appoint more anti-abortion court members is not something I care to see again. Rand Paul did not fall far from the tree.
There are far better alternatives to Paul. None of those alternatives are Democrats or Republicans.
That being said, Paul would be an improvement over Obama, as crazy as that sounds.
Ron Paul is one of the biggest deregulatory ideaologues in congress.
If you look beneath the surface, a lot of his ideas are downright scary.
If Paul actually had a chance to create a “jobs” program, we’d be in a depression in a hurry.
Has anyone else noticed how some of the media outlets seem to be distorting Ron Paul’s face during interviews? The most vivid example I have seen is in an interview with Piers Morgan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY3V6ECJLOE
Compare this to an interview with Larry Kudlow (without distortion).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItL_Nj4bwlY
This Fox interview also shows some distortion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ02eTOla4Y
Please note that both interviews took place in the same setting.
Yep. As a female I find the idea that a man feels he has a right to legislate my uterus and I find it particularly offensive since this one would not only legislate a PERSONAL decision but has made it his crusade to suggest entities like corporations do not belong being encumbered by legislation.
He’s on record as opposing civil rights in principle even as he agrees that we have made advances as a result of it.
Nope, Ron Paul is not even close to someone I would vote for in good conscience.
This is also badly misinformed.
Ron Paul is not a “bomb thrower”. He simply advocates that abortion is not the decision of the Federal Government. States can decide the issue.
And Ron Paul is Corporatisms (Corporate Monopolies) biggest nightmere. He would end NAFTA, end taxpayer-looted Corporate subsidies, close the corrupt Chamber of Commerce, defund the Military-Industrial-Complex, end the Central Bank Monopoly, etc.
Ron Paul addresses the root causes here, and not the mere symptoms. This is why some people get confused. But less inefficient and squirrely regulations is a healthy thing for the Economy, but you then balance that by getting rid of the crooked Corporate-Collusion, and Bank-Monopoly-Wall-Street complex. This then creates a fair marketplace, where honest small-businesses can thrive (and create jobs).
Is Obama going to do any of those things? No
With Ron Paul, there would be no Goldman Sachs and no J.P. Morgan anymore (they’d all go Bankrupt as they deserve to do). There would also be no Halliburton or Blackwater. Think about that!
Get the picture?
And Ron Paul would end the Patriot Act, free the Whistleblowers, jail the War Criminals, and re-establish The Bill of Rights. There is no one better for Civil Liberties than Ron Paul.
“Group think” in fact is the cause and the source of racism. Ron Paul defends the rights of all individuals as individuals. That’s what freedom is really all about.
Yes, this is a very big problem.
Yes, and it is deliberate.
Once again, this tells us all which candidate The Establishment is most threatened by — and therefore where our votes should be going.
Those who dare tell the truth (Mike Gravel, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, Cynthia McKinney) will always get shafted by the Mainstream Media — but it is they, and not Obama, who stick up for our interests,
Shouldn’t we then stick up for theirs, and help our own cause.
This is also misinformed.
Ron Paul is Corporatisms (Corporate Monopolies) biggest nightmere. He would end NAFTA, end taxpayer-looted Corporate subsidies, close the corrupt Chamber of Commerce, defund the Military-Industrial-Complex, end the Central Bank Monopoly, etc.
Ron Paul addresses the root causes here, and not the mere symptoms. This is why some people get confused. But less inefficient and squirrely regulations is a healthy thing for the Economy, but you then balance that by getting rid of the crooked Corporate-Collusion, and Bank-Monopoly-Wall-Street complex. This then creates a fair marketplace, where honest small-businesses can thrive (and create jobs).
Is Obama going to do any of those things? No
With Ron Paul, there would be no Goldman Sachs and no J.P. Morgan anymore (they’d all go Bankrupt as they deserve to do). There would also be no Halliburton or Blackwater. Think about that!
Get the picture?
If yo utruly want to have an impact on the next election; crossover and become a republican for a day during the republican primaries. Vote Ron Paul and oy ucan then go third party if yo udont support Obama and Paul.
Good point! Recommended. I wish more people were making this point, and urging at least citizens who aren’t registered to register as an R, and vote for Paul.
I was sufficiently outraged by watching Jon Stewart’s piece on the media ignoring Ron Paul that I quickly posted in Ron Paul forums, and pointed them to a diary of mine about numerous ways of doing public outreach, with the invitation to translate into their frame of reference. I hope Paul kicks the ass of the Republican Party, and their war loving candidates. I also contacted Ron Paul’s campaign, directly.
Maybe Glenn Greenwald would like to give his birth control.
What is further to the right than an Ayn Rand supporter.
What is a better choice than Paul VS Obama in 2012?
Agreed.
http://republican4aday.com/
I signed up for a free Ron Paul for President bumper sticker here: http://www.bullion-and-coin.com/ron-paul-2012/
I ordered five Ron Paul for President bumper stickers for $5 here: http://www.ronpaulstickers.com/
And I donated to Ron Paul for President here: http://www.ronpaul.com/
The Democrats have rewarded my decades of loyalty and support with one sell-out after another. I want to see the end of all the wars, including the War on Drugs, the end of the imperial presidency, the restoration of the U.S. Constitution and habeas corpus, and the end of NAFTA, etc. So ironic that Ron Paul, a Republican, is the one who shares my goals.
Very informative video. Thanks
You, and everyone else, are going to need a whole lot more than that if the Federal Reserve Dollar becomes worthless, and Ron Paul is the only person out there addressing that core, economic, life-threatening issue.
But to answer you’re question, why would a woman vote for Ron Paul?
1. Ron Paul won’t get your sons & daughters needlessly slaughtered or mamed in corrupt Military Adventurism (Obama has, and will never stop).
2. Ron Paul will save Trillions of Dollars that are now wasted away overseas, and will prevent the Bankruptcy of America. This, more than anything that Obama has or ever will do, shall make it possible for a social saftey net to continue to exist. Obama will only guarantee its ruin.
3. Ron Paul, unlike Obama, also won’t Bailout Corporate plunderers, and loot the money off of American citizens to ensure billion dollar bonuses for rich CEOs.
4. Ron Paul will end the futile “War on Drugs” which creates the underground market and crime, wastes billions, and needlessly imprisions millions of people.
5. Ron Paul, unlike Obama, will restore Civil Liberties, restore The Bill of Rights, terminate The Patriot Act, and return our Country to a law abiding Nation again.
6. Worrying and being obsessed with abortion is like worrying about Iran having Nukes. It ain’t happening. But even if you are worried: a) Ron Paul is not a “bomb thrower”; he simply advocates that abortion is not the decision of the Federal Government, and that States can decide the issue, b) Since birth control exists in abundance, there are simply far more important issues here to deal with than this (matters of War and Economic ruin), c) Adoption is the more humane and ethical way of handling an unwanted birth anyway.
7. Ron Paul will end NAFTA, and these other corrupt “managed Trade” policies that have totally destroyed American Manufacturing. An economic renaissance will never be possible without doing this? Will Obama end NAFTA? answer: No.
8. Lastly, watch this Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwIZ4syCFLc
Here’s a great rant about Ron Paul’s “underdog” status.
Watch Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNxGoacJ8ac
What is further to the right than a Democratic president who appoints catfood commissions to destroy Social Security and Medicare?
Nice try! He actually introduced a sanctity of Life amendment while in Congress. His position on choice is dangerous. As a woman I would never vote for someone who felt it was HIS right to determine what medical risks I should have to undertake.
Here’s the Act for those of you believing the BS being spouted about Paul believing choice should be a state issue.
http://www.covenantnews.com/abortion/archives/034987.html
No progressive in their right mind should ever vote for such an anarchronism. That said, point taken that the ‘mainstream’ wants nothing to do with him or his ideas, and a fair airing of such are certainly in the country’s best interest.
Truly a testament to the sad state of affairs that progressives would even consider President Paul to be an answer to our current predictament. Some clusterfuck!
Because the Democrats wont let him. He’s not a perfect candidate, but at least there would be pushback with his social policies. These are wedge issues that the Democrats and Republicans use to divide us, fundraise on then and never deliver a darned thing.
I need to check out more, but IIRC I heard him say we could afford these programs if we’d end the damned wars, and it’s a discussion we could have. Someone needs to approach Ron Paul and see what he would be willing to move left on to get wider progressive support.
Even to cross over, register as a Repug to push him up for the Republican nomination, even if he didn’t win against Obama he would be campaigning and debating from the left. .. *Awkward*
Honestly, is anyone going to need a Dem voter registration if you don’t hold a seat or a position, right?
@freesociety, don’t be trying to tell us that abortion is not an important issue and adoption is more humane anyway.
Hang that up now. It won’t sell, and it’s crap. It may not be important to you but it was a hard fought right that saves women’s lives.
I don’t think it’s a good idea that you take liberties like that- what FDL is for.
FDL belongs to Jane Hamsher and she is a democrat. Until she says it, please don’t push that. Those damned smear merchants are forever busy.
Ending the Fed is not what was asked, Wall street has to be regulated by the SEC and the DOJ and these have to be cleaned up and funded. We need serious and specific answers.
@freesociety. You don’t listen.
Abortion is the issue. Stay on point.
The states cannot decide because that would mean removing or subtracting from our civil rights that are enshrined in the constitution. That is not consistent with restoring civil rights.
Letting states decide is the Jim Crow plan for women’s rights to have say over what happens to our bodies.
Understand?
He would have to make a deal with us.
This is a no deal, without a specific deal from Paul for recall of his election.
the election
As a liberal of more years than I want to count, I also find it strange and ironic that I’m supporting Ron Paul. These are strange times, though, and I believe Ron Paul is the best and most viable candidate we’re going to have.
The Ron Paul campaign is asking people to donate tomorrow. This will be a money bomb in honor of his birthday (which may sound hokey, but I’ve pledged to contribute).
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/pages/mbpledge.html?pid=0818
Who, then, do you consider to be an answer to our current predicament? Surely, not someone who isn’t even on the radar screen. Certainly not someone who is so invested in Wall Street and the MIC that he puts corporate greed over country?
I am a progressive, I am in my right mind, and my mind is made up. I’m supporting Ron Paul. I won’t mock you for your choice, and I would appreciate if you don’t mock me for mine.
@ shek
“He would have to make a deal with us.”
George Bush didn’t make a deal. Romney isn’t going to make a deal.
I agree with you that abortion is an issue and must be addressed directly. And I wish Ron Paul would make a deal with you and I hope he does. I don’t think abortion is that big a deal with his followers. But if choice is your only or your first issue you may be stuck with Obama. And Obama is not going to win the election.
Those who say Paul is a racist are just wrong. Those who believe he is a corporatist are just wrong. But those who say he is anti-choice are correct. I am going to vote for him in the primary. I have said in jest “if he tries to bring back steam boats the Senate will just have to say no”. In all seriousness, the congress will have to protect “Roe” whether it’s Ron Paul or Rick Perry.
How about if he makes himself available to the left to answer some questions. If he wants my vote he has to earn it.
I will say it again. I would like to see Jane solicit “questions for Ron Paul”, add a few of her own and forward them to Paul’s camp. She could then post his answers with her usual helpful commentary.
Look, sorry about inadvertantly questioning the state of your mind – the statement was rhetorical, not diagnosis.
Sure, Paul seems to be the only current candidate who questions American imperialism; point taken – but his reasoning seems more like a candidate from the 1910′s than from the 2010′s. Which pairs nicely with his whole Gold Standard schtick, also right out of the turn of the century, and not the last one! Paul is classic American Populism – simple, provincial, retrograde; William Jennings Bryan, we hardly knew ya!
And, no, I can’t just pull a super alternative candidate out of my hat. NOBODY can. A lot of us actually didn’t know how empty/vicious the Democratic party had become. Now we know, and it’s probably going take a while to rebuild/build our stock of legitimate leaders.
That Ron Paul looks good to some progresives is really nothing more than further confirmation of how bereft the Left in the US has become. Sorry, but I’ve got my sights set on something better, and we WILL get there, just maybe not by January, 2013…
I second this.
Your lack of knowledge is impressive.
In fact, Gold is the one thing left that still retains any value today, while fiat, Bankster-created currencies are plummeting all around the World. More and more we see Foreign Countries dumping U.S. Treasury bonds, and investing in Gold. The Dollar has declined exponentially, and for you to think that there is some sort of safety in the Dollar .. or that a currency stablized by Gold is “crazy” is itself ludicrous and not demonstrated by the facts.
Gold was worth $250 in the year 2000.
Gold is now worth $1850 in the year 2011.
Gold has outperformed the Dow Jones, Nasdaq, S&P 500, U.S. Dollars, U.S. Treasuries, and all Foreign paper currencies as well. To be more accurate, it is the Federal Reserve Dollar that has sunk like a stone, while Gold has merely been a stable store of value….something you cannot get from your bank account today.
Moreover, a U.S. Dollar from 1912 is today worth just 2 cents in Federal Reserve Dollars. So 98% of the value of the Dollar has been totally destroyed over the past 100 years. So now what do you want your money to be held in: Dollars? or Gold?
The Monetary System (corrupt) is the issue, and Ron Paul is right, and has been proven right. It is also just simple common sense. For Gold has always been money for many, many Centuries. It retains its value, while printed paper dollars (backed by nothing) have always lost out in the end.
“Your lack of knowledge is impressive.” Thanks!
Obviously you are passionate about monetary theory. But that doesn’t mean you have all the answers, either. NOBODY does. Not even the great Ron Paul!
As far as how to peg the value of anything to anything – Good luck on that one! NOBODY has figured this out. If it’s even possible. Well, maybe you’ve got it figured out, and if so, THAT is impressive. Not even Marx, JS Mill, or Marshall were able to crack that nut…
I certainly agree that American economy is ridiculous and thoroughly corrupted. The answer is not to somehow “stabilize” it; if that could even be done – see Nixon, 1973. The answer seems to have something more to do with cleaning up the corruption – a long process, but without it, ANY economy will be easy pickings for those who care to to screw over the less powerful/violent/self-serving…
Ah, either way, appreciate the post…
So vote for him now in the Primaries, and help to make him the GOP nominee, and then you can square him up side-by-side directly with Obama on issue after issue, and make your final decision.
That’s the debate, and the contrast that I want to see..
I think it was 1971 when Nixon severed the “Bretton Woods” Gold-Dollar relationship (established after WWII), and this then left the dollar as a floating paper currency (against other paper currencies), and not backed by any store of value anymore.
This directly led to the roller-coaster inflation/stagnation economic symptoms of the 1970s, and began the rapid and steady decline of the standard of living for the middle-class (the 1970s economy decline coincides with the end of the American “nuclear family”, and the end of the one-breadwinner family).
The Reagan years temporarily deflected these effects, through the borrowing of massive amounts of money, and tax breaks that served and enriched Wall Street interests — yet accelerated the widening gap between the poor and the rich, who were not fooled (unlike the Elite) by the gimmick.
Bill Clinton reversed Reaganomics which worked, but this was then was wiped out by the Bush and Obama Tax-Cut & War-WallStreet orgy (which made Reagan look like a prince in comparison). The result has left our Country with staggering, insurmountable U.S. DEBT (impossible to ever repay), and effectively has destroy the Dollar’s value down to a Worldwide laughingstock.
But this succession of tragic events would not have even been possible, had it not been for Nixon’s decision to leave the dollar as a “floating” unbacked easily manipulated (diluted) currency.
As for Ron Paul, he is both a critic of the current arrangement, and also of the “Bretton Woods” arrangement as well — which he correctly predicted was unsustainable because of the Vietnam War and the Johnson-Nixon “Guns and butter” ignorance (corruption).
The real answer is to have our Money sovereignly controlled and managed (regardless of what backs it) instead of controlled by the private, for-profit, International Banking Cartel (Rothschilds, Morgan, Rockefeller, Chase, etc.) of which the ‘Federal’ Reserve Monopoly is the American outpost.
So I agree with what Abraham Lincoln tried to do (“Greenbacks” policy to bypass the Banksters), and John Kennedy (with his DEBT-free Series “United States Notes” backed by Silver). Ron Paul’s solution is actually far less radical than what these men tried to do (ironically, both men had their heads blown off), but Paul would certainly diminish the power of this ungodly Cartel through competing currencies, and the rebirth of Gold & Silver as legal tender.
That would be progress, and it would also mean that the cost of food at the grocery store would no longer predictably double every 3-5 years.
Thanks for listening.
Excellent reply; appreciate the civility.
Yep, I think you are right about the US closing the gold window in ’71. And I think I would agree with about 80% of what you have presented here – I’m not presently convinced that the Austrian approach to sovereign debt is the ultimate answer…I know there is a lot of theoretical work being done by non-orthodox economists in this area, and I think it’s exciting…
Obviously things need to be changed, and I think it’s great that so many are trying to make sense of this. I know the Left and the Right have a couple of seriously opposing views, but I hope to see more conversations amongst ourselves…I know we will never see eye-to-eye, but at the moment, we live together in the same country, and the more we can somehow stop yelling at each other all the time, the better…
Our society needs a fair and equitable monetary system, and I’m pretty sure we will get there. And I’m pretty sure that this is partly how it’s going to happen…
See you around -
PS – I’m going to study the Austrian School a little more. Forgive me if I sound presumptious, but you might want to look a bit at the Marxist tradition – ie, the socialists chronicle the same economic history, just with thorougly different interpretations of causes and consequences – same plot, different story.
Ah, you never know – might learn even more together -