Thinking of joining the Ron Paul rEVOLution? Don't.
Primary tabs
Ashley F. Miller has eloquently pointed out why one should not vote for Ron Paul. She gets bonus points from me for not shilling for Obama in the process. Here are some snippets deconstructing the myth of the libertarian hero, exposing him as a dangerous hypocrite:
Ron Paul is Anti-Free Market
So, bureaucracy is good when it keeps the brown people out? Taxing the insanely rich is slavery! Letting foreign people work in America should be illegal!
He voted for building a fence on the Mexican border, reporting illegal aliens who go to hospitals, and for banning student visas from “terrorist nations”. He’s all about reducing the military and allowing the free market, except when it comes to this for some reason.
Oh, it’s also great that he wants to get rid of the fed, I love this. You know who made the fed what it is today? A guy named Alan Greenspan. You know, Alan Greenspan, the most famous and powerful libertarian ever to work in the US government. He was a disciple of Ayn Rand and was part of the inner circle of her cult. Alan Greenspan almost single-handedly caused this recession. By all means, let’s fix the fed, but let us also acknowledge it was a libertarian that got us here!
Ron Paul Doesn’t Support Minorities
He thinks the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you know that whole equality thing, was a violation of people’s rights and wouldn’t have forced anyone to lift the Jim Crow laws. He called MLKJr day “hate whitey day”. According to Ron Paul supporters, this is OK because he wants to legalize drugs and end the death penalty, both of which would disproportionately go to help black men.
Ron Paul is Against Church/State Separation
Ron Paul has a 17% rating with the AU, meaning he almost never votes in favor of a bill that would be promoting the separation of church and state.
Ron Paul is Rabidly Anti-Choice and Anti-Science
He has a somewhat complex view on abortion in that he believes that it, like murder, should be tried and controlled at the state level, not the federal one. That said, he has voted repeatedly for national bills that promote the pro-life cause and introduced a bill that would say that life begins at conception.
He voted not to authorize embryonic stem cell research multiple times. He has a 0% by NARAL, meaning he votes 100% against abortion rights. He voted yes on the Stupak Amendment to prevent health insurance companies from offering abortion coverage. Voted to prevent funding from going to schools that make the morning after pill available and to provide funding for abstinence only education.
Ron Paul Helps Billionaires Not the Poor
He is completely against environmental regulation and trying to find alternative energy sources. Despite his claims that he’d rather have unions control the market than a minimum wage, he voted for legalizing union busting more than once. Despite his supposed belief in the free market, he voted to ban shareholders from weighing in on executives’ compensation. Extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich, expanded them, and undermined Social Security by changing the standards.
I highly recommend reading the whole weblog post. Miller has perfectly fleshed out why I will never cast a vote for Ron Paul. There has been some discussion around here about playing "Republican for a day" in order to have a little turnabout at the expense of the Obama campaign. Do so if you feel you must and your conscience allows for it, but I just don't have the stomach to give any endorsement - however fleeting and insincere - to Ron Paul.
- illusionofjoy's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
Obama Squirming?
I would never vote for Paul, either. But the idea of Obama squirming in a debate with Paul is delightful. That's the motivation behind the movement to be a "Republican for a Day". How would Obama respond to questions about his wars, spying, indefinite detention, and playing footsie with the big banks? Realistically, I think the chances of Paul being nominated are somewhere between slim and none (the elite doesn't want anything to do with him, for obvious reasons) and if, by some remote chance, he does become the nominee, he still won't be able to beat Obama, because the elite will throw everything they have at Paul. Me? I'm voting for Stein/Anderson. She has OWS on her side and I think we just might be surprised next year at how popular she might be. Debs got, what, 6% of the vote in his strongest run? I'd love to see Stein get that much, or more.
He does great ad
Here, through the Agonist.
After Hubris Comes Nemesis
Isn't it interesting, historically, how the elite always over-reaches? If the neo-cons hadn't been so hell-bent on world domination, Ron Paul wouldn't have a prayer of a chance. Maybe we can view Paul as a mutant virus, ecologically, out to infect the elite? Is OWS another one? May the elite die of multiple infections! (Yeah - fat chance!)
Watching My Liberal Friends' Heads Spinning
Is also worth bringing up the "Republican for a Day" vote for Paul idea. Lots of sputtering and acting like dysfunctional robots. Paul is a rather odious sort, but the idea of upsetting the apple cart of either party is tantalizing. And Obama squirming fills me with bwahahahaha! And it's subversive. I likey that too. We have to think like resistance fighters. By "we" I mean the OWS - there is an alternative gang who believe in direct action rather than running with sheep. (If I do take part in elections it would be to vote Anderson/Stein probably).
Yes
I agree with you.
It's not about joining the "Ron Paul Revolution." It's about forcing Obama to justify his policies on war and civil liberties and trade and every other evil thing he's promoted. I can't understand why people think it's just fine and dandy to have Obama run against Mitt. Their policies are exactly the same, so what they'll do is try to look like macho men who believe "all options are on the table" when it comes to war with Iran. And they'll both grovel before Wall Street and AIPAC and spout crap about terrorism. Do we really want to take a chance that the election would be between Obama and Mitt? That's a nightmare scenario.
No one is asking people to dress in red, white, and blue and attend a Value Voters meeting. Just quietly show up for the Republican primaries and vote Paul, so the outcome is Obama versus Paul from the right, and then we can make it Obama versus Rocky Anderson from the left. Obama won't know what hit him.
It's not a pro-Paul vote. It's an anti-Obama vote.
Obama is unteachable
Or Occupy would have taught him something. It is a waste of energy. Better to put our energy into issue education, Occupy, recall efforts, and emergent party politics. Just let go of Obama and the legacy parties and accept that there is nothing we can do.
I Don't Care
if Obama is unteachable. What makes you think I have not let go the nasty Democrats? I didn't vote for Obama in 2008. I voted for Nader.
How much energy does it take to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries? It seems to me that "it can't be done, so don't even try" is partially the reason our country is in the shape that it is.
Vote Ron Paul in the Primaries
Vote Rocky Anderson in the General
It can't be done versus it shouldn't be done
Obviously we, collectively, are at an impasse over what boils down to how dirty one is willing to get when it comes to manoeuvring in the voting booth. Some see voting for Ron Paul as a mere tactical move. While this is true, I can't help but think that the consequences of doing so include legitimising his policy positions. I can't find it in myself to do anything that could help Paul the Randoid just as I can't find myself to lend a vote of legitimacy to Barry the DINO.
Voting for Paul
I'm voting for Paul in the primary because I want my voice to be counted among those who oppose the imperial empire. Do I think he'll win? Nah. Do I think he'll be nominated by the Republican Party? Not a chance. But I love the chance to figuratively get in the establishment's face and tell them to shove it up their you-know-what.
The reality is that the electoral system in this country is rigged against democracy and in favor of the elite. So is the entire governmental system. There is no democracy in this country and there never has been. To think that we can express our wishes by voting for the candidate of our choice is foolish. The candidates are selected by the 1% and always have been. Sure, they'll throw us a bone every now and then, but every democratically organized movement is co-opted by the 1% sooner or later. Why else do you think Van Jones, MoveOn.org, the unions, and all the other establishment institutions are reaching out to the Occupy movement now?
Screw them all - it's party time!!
Paul is poison
We should not let our disgust with Obama blind us to the even greater evil that is Ron Paul. There is such a thing as being too clever.
I think it is going to be Mittens, but a Paul/Obama race would pit one personality cult against another, it would wreck incredible damage on an already weak degenerate political culture.
Bingo!
And, as you said above, having Obama debating Ron Paul will teach him nothing. I seriously doubt Obama is going to squirm under any circumstance. With or without his teleprompter he speaks with an air of narcissistic assurance that he is "the one."
The problem with playing "resistance fighter" is that it legitimises a broken process - one that desperately needs to be de-legitimised. People want to throw sand in the gears of the machine - this I understand; the problem is that the message which will be received by the greater public is, "Ron Paul's policies are now mainstream: both left and right-wingers approve of his positions." That seems gravely counter-productive to me.
Outlet for Frustration
I made two points in my initial post:
"Realistically, I think the chances of Paul being nominated are somewhere between slim and none (the elite doesn't want anything to do with him, for obvious reasons) and if, by some remote chance, he does become the nominee, he still won't be able to beat Obama, because the elite will throw everything they have at Paul.
I don't think Paul is going anywhere, but a larger turnout for him during the primaries than the elite expect might, just might, get a few seconds of their attention. I just read that Paul has a big base of support in the military, who are responding to his stance on the Obama wars.
We live in perilous times ....
The greater evil is Paul? Really?
There is only one major candidate running from either of the two wings of The Money Party who does not believe that the president has the legal authority and right to imprison you or even to have you killed without so much as charge or trial and that candidate is NOT named Obama. That alone makes Paul a lesser evil. Add to that the fact there is only one major candidate running from either wing of The Money Party that does not believe war is the answer to just about everything, who does not believe the government should have the authority to wiretap you without a warrant and who actually seems to think we should negotiate with other nations from a standpoint of peace rather than military threat or occupation, and that candidate is also not named Obama. Should I throw in the drug war as well? Same result.
Look, there are a whole host of issues on domestic policy, civil rights, reproductive rights and so on where Ron Paul is absolutely out to lunch. I would never argue otherwise. But it's also a fact that on these issues, a president's positions or opinions don't mean much because on these issues, a president has extremely limited power, and what power a president does have arises basically from having the bully pulpit. There's essentially nothing a president has which would allow unilateral executive implementation of such policies. On issues of war and peace however, a president has great authority.
Lesser evil? I say that disclaiming the power of detention and killing citizens based on nothing more than the say-so of the president and the president's councils is a trump card. And the issue of war is a pretty good card too.
Obama or Paul? If you ask me, the greater evil is Obama, and it's not even close.
ETA...
Ron Paul is Anti-Free Market? Are we "free marketers"? I'm not, and the reason I'm not is that "free markets" are a myth. Free markets have one basic requirement that must be met before anything else matters and that requirement is low barriers to entry. Low barriers to entry doesn't mean "lack of excess regulation" so much as it means "low capital requirements." Is there a "free market" in oil production? Not so much. It costs millions and millions to explore and drill. And it's the same across just about any market you can name. Only at the level of individuals doing what amounts to vending, saying that someone is "anti-free market" is essentially nonsense. TANFM.