|
Iowa Primary
My endorsement of Ron Paul for the purpose of moving the Overton window of political acceptable ideas has generated quite a lot of comments, some of them unusual harsh (and no, I am not thinking of Lizard's comments here).
When discussing presidential elections in the U.S. please keep in mind what Iowa and the other circus shows are about:
The Iowa caucus, let’s face it, marks the beginning of a long, rigidly-controlled, carefully choreographed process that is really designed to do two things: weed out dangerous minority opinions, and award power to the candidate who least offends the public while he goes about his primary job of energetically representing establishment interests.
From that one might argue that taking part in the process is meaningless. But that view is wrong. Those in power have to choose the one "who least offends the public" to stay in power and in that they do have to take the public opinion into account.
If there is a strong turnout for an anti-war candidate it will have some influence. It may not be decisive but it is the only low cost influence a voter has. Use it. And then, if you can, put up a real fight.
A primary reason that I value b’s posts and his usual excellent analysis, is because he does not allow himself to be prejudiced or “pigeon-holed” into some typical politically correct thought or any label of thought such as “liberal”, “progressive”, “conservative”, “Green”, “Republican”, “Democratic”, “Socialist”, Stalinist Fruitcake”, etc….to no end. That is all very well with me because I never understand what any of these labels actually imply. Moreover, there seems to be an underlying prejudice here at MOA that only “liberal” thinking is acceptable and politically correct. Should I use the label “progressive” instead of “liberal”? It appears that many “liberals” are uncomfortable with the word “liberal” after so much bad press in the corporate mainstream media and now prefer “progressive”. Here at MOA, b takes each single happening or issue and deeply analyzes it independent of preconceived labeling, language connotations and/or outright prejudices. He does an excellent job pointing out the merits and/or flaws of the subject at hand, and he usually includes links to outside references from his research. That is what I like to see – debating each issue on its own, regardless of the messenger, as to how it will help or hurt a nation or community. Most importantly, when b writes about a nation – he always has the people of the nation in his thoughts and words, and the benefits to the government, regardless of the particular form of government currently in power, is always secondary.
Many posts on this thread, and the earlier thread regarding Ron Paul, attempt to put a negative label on Ron Paul and his ideas with little or no analysis of the issues involved or even the slightest examination of what Ron Paul has actually said beyond ingesting a small snippet or quote.
Anna missed seems to have gone hog-wild with his use of derogatory labels, demeaning comparisons, and negative connotations. As an example, a purely bad example, allow me to compare in a similar simplistic fashion as anna missed has done. Allow me to compare anna missed to the self-proclaimed great historian, Presidential running mate, and so called “conservative”, Newt Gingrich. Yeah, both consider themselves to be great historians and both are completely wrong on some important facts. Just as Newt Gingrich has said that Palestine never existed in defending Israeli claims, in a similar prejudiced manner, anna missed presents to us a historical perspective of Ron Paul. Anna-missed leads the reader through a complex and detailed historical perspective, yet as easily predictable as a ball rolling downhill. Yes, a complete natural deterministic history that has produced a man such as Ron Paul, not quite beginning with the “Big Bang” and ending with a predetermined psych of Ron Paul, without even a smidgen of credit to Paul’s self-awareness, self-reflection, or not even awarding the slightest chance of ability on Paul’s part to change himself (or others) for the better. This supposedly historical evolution of Ron Paul bears a fruit with the following qualities, which I now list with a numerical order for future reference:
1. [compares to] Louis Farrakhan
2. a garden variety paleo-conservative…a current iteration of a 200 year long expression of nativism in America [ie.] No-Nothings in the 1850’s, 3 versions of the American party, 1920’s KKK, the Southern Strategy, the Tea Party.
3. intellectual godfather of the Tea Party.
4. dedicated to preserving white tribal identity
5. anti modernist
6. pro-antebellum attitude
7. “tradition is better than reason”
8. anti-federal government
9. anti-immigration
10. anti-foreign aid
11. anti-anything … culturally “foreign”
12. anti-anything not Protestant
13. dedicated to preserving white tribal identity, American style
14. anti-interventionism …for the worst possible anti-progressive retrograde reasons imaginable
15. anti-interventionism … just part and parcel of paleo-conservative baggage
16. [compares to] Pat Buchanan
17. [has] tenacity …always a laudable tribal characteristic
18. civil war was initiated by the Norths imperial hegemonic designs and demands on the South.
19. Doomed To Repeat History; [refers] especially to Ron Paul
link: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/07/judicial_extremism.html
I find it quite enlightening that no mention is made by anna missed of a popular YouTube video where Ron Paul compares himself to another political leader holding similar ideals and goals. When Ron Paul was asked four years ago what Presidential candidate he would support if he were not running or were to drop out, Paul responded that he would support Dennis Kucinich, a Presidential candidate in the opposition political party and a person who is hardly considered a “conservative” by any stretch of my imagination, but then again, I am not good with labels. Comparing Ron Paul to Louis Farrakhan (item #1) and Pat Buchanan (item #16), is quite unworthy, even in the simplicity of anna-missed’s framework.
Favorites of mine on the list above is item #14 and item #15. Here Ron Paul is labeled an anti-interventionist for “the worst possible anti-progressive retrograde reasons imaginable”, “just part and partial of paleo-conservative baggage”. Although no reasons are provided, let me assume one of the “worst possible reasons” is that U.S. wars are too expensive to support from a U.S. budget that continues deeper and deeper in debt. One would think that any reason to end a needless war is a good reason, but apparently a pigeon-hole perspective concludes otherwise. Again, if one actually listened to Ron Paul, one would know his primary reason. Very recently, in a Presidential Primary debate where “Tea Party” hooker Michele Bachmann (see item #3) called Ron Paul a “dangerous” man and similar disdain was proclaimed by the “Tea Party” pimp Rick Santorum because Ron Paul does not want to bomb Iran. In Ron Paul’s response, he lamented – on live television viewed by millions – about the million Iraqi deaths as a result of U.S. actions. Anyone not moved and impressed by what Ron Paul said in that instance, quite simply, “has a hole in their soul”. Perhaps with an evolutionary prejudice (item #12 ) concern for human life is also, considered nothing more than “baggage” by “pigeon-holed progressives”. (Hey, this label game is fun!)
Perhaps anna missed can explain Ron Paul’s oddities to this “paleo-conservative baggage”(item #15) by postulating a new advanced scientific theory of physics– that is the “Anna Missed Uncertainty Principle”. Surely anna missed dare not ascribe any self-awareness or positive reasoning on the part of Ron Paul; after all, according to anna missed, “tradition is better than reason”(Item #7) when describing the psych of Ron Paul.
But not to single out anna missed, what follows are some comments from somebody (no really, that’s the posting person’s name, “somebody”. Somebody states: “It is just that Ron Paul is such a nutcase, that him arguing against war does not really help the cause.” Hey, the way I look at it, with a nobody like somebody calling Ron Paul a nutcase with no evidence except for links to two YouTube videos is, in itself, fairly self-incriminating. The name ”somebody” is so not unique and so not easy to follow that one wonders what type of mental facility deduces that the name “somebody” shall bring any credence at all to his or her posts and causes. (If you, the reader, are confused by all this, please review the “Anna-missed Uncertainty Principle” referenced above or better yet, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sShMA85pv8M.) Anyway, the first video referenced by somebody is where Ron Paul correctly states that health care and education is not and has never been enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Education is and has always been the responsibility of state and local governments or private schools. Nor does somebody’s slam against Ron Paul’s opinion on the creation of the universe as presented in the second YouTube video help somebody’s position. One would have thought by now that “progressives” would consider someone’s religion to be personal, would be tolerant of all beliefs, and would just argue an issue at hand as to its merits and flaws. Evolution is definitely a fact, as anyone who has studied historical breeding of plants and animals can attest. But the word Evolution seems to now superimpose and encompass all physical events and thoughts as though it is a religion unto itself. Is the Big Bang Theory in the same category as human evolution? There is no urgency to debate the religious positions of Ron Paul, especially now, as the central point to my lengthy post is noting the careless and wrongful use of labels. And this is where “nutcase” illustrates a fine example of such carelessness. If somebody wishes to debate the truth in labeling Ron Paul a “Nutcase”, please somebody present to me a medical record from a reliable psychiatrist stating that Ron Paul is, in fact, a “Nutcase”. Again, by using somebody’s own arguments, I can assure somebody and everybody who has used character assassinations to slur Ron Paul that each of you ”has not really helped your cause.” Also, what follows is not a quote from somebody here, but from somebody else who actually has some credibility. ”There are only two ways to live your life. One is as if nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.” – Albert Einstein. I know which way Ron Paul chooses to live and that is one of many reasons why I support him.
Ron Paul has a special attraction to the young (and the young at heart) with his idealism, straightforward talk, and his concern for civil liberties. While “progressives” may consider one or more of these characteristics to be a flaw, especially when it comes to social programs vs. civil liberties, nothing could be further from the truth in practice. Although I have discussed the need to treat issues in depth, each on its own merits and irrespective of preconceived notions, sometimes disregarding other related factors will yield poor conclusions. Isolating an idea, or a particular situation or plan, devoid of a bigger picture, can be very misleading at times. As an example of this, I point to b’s analysis of Japan’s Fukushima nuclear incident. His excellent engineering analysis of the Fukushima Nuclear disaster, while most excellent and enlightening, seemed lackluster in examining the bigger picture – that is – very little discussion as to how dangerous the situation was, and continues to be, to the health of the people of Japan and the people of the World.. I remember Annie asking once or twice if she needed to worry about the health effects of Fukushima as she lives on the West Coast of the U.S. In a very real sense, b treated this concern so lightly that he appeared to almost just shrug the question off. Quite simply, the engineering details and analysis presented fell short in illustrating the potential dangers from the ever increasing radiation spewing forth, and spewing forth in such quantity that only a crazy civilization could have produced such a nightmare. Radioactive particles continue to spread from that location at this very moment. As an aside, I would like to see b start a new thread discussing the current situation of Japan’s nuclear disaster with an emphasis as to the health of populations. I know these last thoughts have strayed off topic, but I remember b stating that he would not object to nuclear power if those corporations making money off these “boilers from hell” (my words here, not b’s) would also assume the liability, instead of having the public take both the blow and the liability. I have heard Ron Paul state the same in a general sense, that corporations need to be held totally liable to individuals when they destroy the environment in any sense of the word. Ron Paul says correctly that this is a matter of property rights of the individual and of the public. Property Rights, especially in one’s private life, are a fundamental tenant to freedom and liberty. In my opinion, the proper role of government in protecting both the individual and their property would be to outlaw these boilers from hell, as this is one issue that carries clearly too much risk and cannot be left to liability claims after a nuclear accident has occurred. The same can be said for many other projects that large corporations and governments undertake. Deep water drilling, gene modifications of agricultural plants and animals, transporting certain dangerous materials, etc. are just some examples that require stiff regulation for the public’s protection. This concept of liability and freedom from harm is not only a property rights issue but also a civil rights issue. Civil rights/liberties are protections of one’s freedoms from individuals, corporations or the government, such as protection from arbitrary interference in one’s pursuits, one’s speech, one’s religion, especially freedom in pursuing personal relationships and an honest living. These rights are supposed to be protected by the amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Everything from legalizing drugs, to condemning things such as the Patriot Act and the actions of the Federal Reserve, stem from this idealism of Ron Paul. And again, if one actually listened to what Ron Paul has said, one would think twice before quickly condemning his lack of support for social programs. As an idealist, I agree with Ron Paul on most all of his positions. Please remember, I have made it clear in previous posts that I think that government can do positive things that the “free market” cannot accomplish efficiently. The obvious is utilities – water, sewer, electricity, and communication lines into each home/business. And these items can certainly be handled by local and/or state governments more efficiently than the Federal Government. Less obvious, especially coming from a conservative like myself, was that I proposed government “socialized” energy, education and health. While education and health concerns can surely be handled on a local/state level, energy policy would probably be best handled as a Federal Government program. It continually annoys me that our politicians will say things like “we need to open up public lands and offshore drilling to solve the energy crisis. However, they never really say who “we” is. What they mean is their big corporate donors need to get their fingers in deeper. I appreciate that Ron Paul has not emphasized this on the campaign trail because this is not now a role of the Federal government, except by current, near meaningless regulation of private endeavors. To socialize energy, health, or even education, especially by the Federal Government, is truly not an ideal, as it would be far better if every man, woman and their children could provide for their needs or at least have those needs that are lacking be then handled at a local level. And I believe that day where people are able to provide for their own energy needs will be possible in the near future, just not at this time. Solutions to health concerns may be much farther out in the future, but providing education to all could be right around the corner with “fiber to the home” technology. With regard to Federal social programs that currently exist, if one actually listened to Ron Paul, he has always said he would vote, in compromise, for money being taken out of military spending and put into social programs. To take this man at his word, and I do, this could mean an increase in social programs far beyond what any liberal or conservative candidate from either party has proposed. Ron Paul stands alone in reigning in U.S. foreign military bases and cutting “out of control” military spending.
Concerning Civil Rights, no U.S. politician can compare to Ron Paul. The world is not the same as even a few years ago and things continue to change at an ever rapid pace. Where I live in the southeastern U.S., persons who are years younger than I, were forced by their government to attend segregated schools as they were growing up. Less than 20 years ago, a local community actually had a sign on the main road’s bridge “Don’t let the sun set on your black ass.” Anna-missed links to an article (item #19) warning that “Tenthers” (People who supposedly take to extreme the 10th Amendment), will push to allow “whites only lunch counters to reappear” among other atrocities. This article is used by anna missed as another attempt to attach racism and elitism to Ron Paul. Not surprisingly, the article portrays political players and events as if there is no positive mindset change possible and nothing but meaningless history exists, where people only live in a sort of TwiLigHt ZonE, a place here and now where the mind and values of past generations remain. Does anyone really believe that if a private restaurant, even in the deep south that was highly segregated just a few years ago, would actually discriminate with a “whites only sign” or even would secretly harass black patrons, for the sole reason that they are black, and ignoring that they are decent people who are just hoping for a good meal at a fair price? I can assure you that any such private owner would be run out of this county in a heartbeat by not only the black population, but by the white population also – law or no law. That is not to say that discrimination has been eliminated from our American society. It may never be. There is still extreme segregation in the churches around here, but it is not necessarily discriminatory. When my wife and I attend a Black Church, we are always warmly received, even though we are the only white patrons. Likewise, our local church is mostly white but warmly welcomes people of any race, color or even creed. I am sure there are those who still have hardened hearts against those who are different, but I doubt it is the laws of the state that is changing our hearts and souls. Quite the contrary, it was the laws of times past, laws that actually forced people into segregated groups, that aided in extending people’s prejudices. History will not repeat itself in the hearts of the common men and women, but it already has repeated itself concerning the removal of an individual’s civil liberty. Again, it is usually a far removed government, not your neighbor, that decides or at least empowers others to decide, who is an undesirable. In recent years, some folks around here were harassing people of middle eastern descent, many of whom run the small quick-stop gas stations/mini-marts. Happily, myself and others in the community did not tolerate this harassment, openly spoke out in condemnation, and things have settled for the better. But where did this new prejudice come from? I believe history does not repeat, but as others have said, it may rhyme. In this new world, anyone can be labeled a terrorist by alleged connections; anyone can be detained, tortured and assassinated regardless of your neighbors’ love or hate.
Ron Paul is admired by many – young and old, rich and poor, conservative or liberal, atheists and those with religious faith, for his adherence to the ideals put forth in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. His thinking and admirers cannot be accurately boxed into a preconceived prejudice or “label”. Heaven knows the medias of both the left and right have repeatedly tried and failed. And again I say, he has my vote and my support.
Posted by: Rick Happ | Jan 10 2012 7:37 utc | 57
|
