(no subject)

[mallorys_camera]

I must be out of my mind. More and more I'm thinking Ron Paul is the candidate -- on both sides -- whose opinions about governance most closely parallel my own.

Too bad he sold that newsletter space to racist, anti-Semetic wingnuts. Thot thar is a showstopper.

Sigh.

Comments

[a1icey.livejournal.com]

i mean, i keep offering to explain to people how the newsletters happened.

after all, i did meet one of america's most famous white supremacists at a conservative and libertarian gathering in turkey last summer.

[mallorys-camera.livejournal.com]

Spill!!! :-)

[a1icey.livejournal.com]

Ok - maybe if I explain it correctly i can copy and paste this to my other friends who are stuck on it.

Before 2008, no one paid any attention to libertarians. They were not Republicans, they rarely wanted anything to do with the Libertarian Party, and yet here they were, scattered through all walks of life. Obviously, since I am only 24, I have no idea how long this status quo existed. But i can tell you there was a massive change in 2008 where people began to learn what the word even meant, who Ron Paul was, and suddenly we had a place in national discourse. That's the political arena, and for the first time, libertarians have united behind one person and one image. I am truly amazed by it when ever i think about it...

But, before that point, libertarians were so few and so localized that they linked with paleo-conservatives, Reagan republicans, constitutional conservatives, anarcho-capitalists, Misesian economists, and many others. We tried to avoid social conservatives, because, after all - they are our polar opposites in a lot of ways. But anti-immigrationists became somewhat accepted because they were also very non-interventionist internationally which was a strong feeling in the group.

Basically, it was an intellectual discussion group. My brother has written for Lew Rockwell's site, he wrote an article about how anthropogenic global warming was unlikely. To some extent, the feeling among libertarians became, let's bring in all the freaks and give all the people a voice."

This also brought in a lot of international libertarians, which certainly leads to some quirks. In Turkey I attended a libertarian discussion group that was completely open to any taboo ideas, and I believe they had an exception for Holocaust denialism. There, we talked about the structure of the Federal Reserve and the ECB, we talked about an EU for the middle east, we talked about the risks of non-risks associated with china, and yes, a group of us watched the documentary on how aids science is so bad and Aids needs to be completely reassessed especially for how it is being dealt with in Africa. If Holocaust denialism had been on the menu, a (honest and intellectually switched on) person would have said "well, the science there is crap too." but did you know it is illegal in europe to engage in any academic or scientific inquiry into it? This guy is probably the reason why the topic became so popular with us: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germar_Rudolf

If it's taboo, we're interested. Why? Because questioning the government is taboo, and that turned out to be a pretty good idea. Questioning the Federal Reserve is taboo, questioning our military operations used to be taboo, and still is in Washington. What is happening here with the newsletters is that people are taking discussion points and academic (as in, unrealistic) ideas and trying to convey them as political manifestos. Libertarians have been in the business of idea-testing for a long time.

We did it among ourselves and continue to do it, separate from the political arena. But read the politics of the true racists that have managed to work their way into the outskirts of our community, and you will realize they have nothing to do with political libertarianism. Within the intellectual community, conspiracy theorists are there, 9/11 truthers are there within our fringes as well. Libertarians pride themselves in their absolute dedication to asking fundamental questions. To exclude these people would be against our ethics.

American academia has become a mockery when it comes to ideas. No academic can question anything. The "global warming consensus" is a running joke these days. So what America has done is outsourced the ideas that academic cannot explore to libertarian organizations. Part of that allows constitutional conservatives and social conservatives to hover on the side-lines. Sometimes we give them the stage. It's just how it has worked for us, and it has nothing to do with political libertarianism.

This is the white supremacist, by the way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Brimelow

[mallorys-camera.livejournal.com]

Excellent analysis. Thanks for taking the time to write it out.

[a1icey.livejournal.com]

to be honest, i read through these: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newsletters-exclusive and only found three that were actually offensive, two about gays and one about blacks. a lot of it is either 1) seeking out controversy or taboo topics, as i described above, or 2) a rather misguided attempt to support the minority in question.

for example, the famous one about the race riots ending because the welfare checks had to be picked up. this is really pointing out something very dark about welfare. we wouldn't have welfare, as a culture, if it wasn't for the need to "pacify" - anyone who can't see that is being dishonest with themselves. ideally we would have welfare out of compassion and generosity, but we don't.

[mallorys-camera.livejournal.com]

Welfare is a type of insurance policy. As a culture, we're paying premiums. I've always seen it like that.

The perception of racism is a showstopper.

[robby.livejournal.com]

Charges of racism is a tactic used by the left to shut down their political opposition. George Stephenopolis brought up the newsletter issue again, at yesterday's New Hampshire debate. They hammer "racism", over and over, and regardless of the real facts, many voters will absorb the perception that Ron Paul is a racist wingnut.

[jdquintette.livejournal.com]

this is really pointing out something very dark about welfare. we wouldn't have welfare, as a culture, if it wasn't for the need to "pacify" - anyone who can't see that is being dishonest with themselves. ideally we would have welfare out of compassion and generosity, but we don't.

Agreed, but why not then "discuss" this as you just did? Why the need to couch the statements in terms which appeal to openly racist constituencies, unless you're trying to garner support from those areas?

I used to think Rron Ppaul was at least consistant in his opinions, even if I disagreed with most of them. But upon closer examination, he's really an opportunist of a very familiar stripe. I find it very telling, for example, that he never mentions agricultural subsidies when he talks about "shrinking government." A cynic would say that this is because agribusiness interests are among his biggest supporters.

[flaxendandelion.livejournal.com]

"true racists"?

"nothing to do with political libertarianism"?

Since when is "true racism" (whatever that means) exclusive to a political ideology? I've met flaming liberals who are bigoted as hell. If you were to experience life in the shoes of a person of color, racism will become less of an abstract thing to discuss. There are racists of all ideologies, and Ron Paul is a racist.

Also...may want to get a more balanced view of what racism is and isn't than from a white supremacist.

[ccjohn.livejournal.com]

The problem with politics is they will dig up everything you've ever done or said in your entire life, and prove anyone you've ever known, who you're out of touch with, has a price.

I used to help write Tip O'Neill's constituent newsletter. It was propaganda. Politicians and others trying to earn a living by pimping themselves, wind up signing so much crap they've never seen, I'd be inclined to give Ron a pass on that one. To a libertarian there's no such thing as race or creed. Means the entire thing to me is (a) needing money 25+ years ago; (b) not checking how crummy your staff was. It's their job to protect The Dude from things like this because he can't know everything. Most staffs I've seen are loyal only to the power to advance careers.

[nodressrehersal.livejournal.com]

I rarely venture into public discussions about politics because it seems people are so, so polarized and it almost always gets ugly but, well, this seems like a delightfully civilized discussion...

Anyway. I've been quietly wondering to myself about Ron Paul based on some things I've read that I liked - and then I heard all the negative hoopla about him being a racist - so the discussion in the comments of this post have been very interesting and informative.

[millysdaughter.livejournal.com]

I generally like what he says when I listen to him speak, but he does not have the charisma to excite the masses and get elected.

[robby.livejournal.com]

Even he has admitted this, he'll have a certain amount of leverage at the Republican convention. The Republican leaders are walking on eggshells, because if Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate, he could draw enough support to sink the Republican chances against Obama.

[jdquintette.livejournal.com]

I've never been able to decide if Paul really thinks he has a chance of becoming president, or if he's fully cognizant of his role as "useful idiot" within the GOP. As it stands, his more toxic ideas about defunding public education, destroying social security, eliminating environmental protections, retaining the Bush tax cuts and further deregulating the financial industry(because that worked out so swell the last time) are given further legitimacy within the mainstream political discourse, while his more attractive (to me anyway) antiwar and anti-drug-laws stances will of course be ignored as usual.

Even his anti-drug-law position has always seemed suspect to me. If I understand him correctly, he's agin FEDERAL drugs laws. He doesn't give a crap whether STATES throw people in jail for smoking flowers, and since the vast majority of drug offenders are incarcerated at the state level, nothing much would change here under a Paul presidency.

Interesting.

[jdquintette.livejournal.com]

More and more I'm thinking Ron Paul is the candidate -- on both sides -- whose opinions about governance most closely parallel my own.


One of the more distinctive things about the American political landscape is the tendency of large groups of people of modest means to vote for policies which favor the wealthy, in other words, against their own self interest. As hard as your life is now, it would be infinitely harder under a Paul presidency.

Re: Interesting.

[mallorys-camera.livejournal.com]

I'm on the fence with that one, frankly. And one thing you and I absolutely disagree on is the whole federal versus states rights debate. Frankly, I think government works best when it's local. If South Dakota wants to criminalize abortion, for example, that's fine with me. I don't live in South Dakota.

The thing about Libertarianism is that it's not for the doctrinaire. And you are very doctrinaire.

For example: I believe in global warming. And the right to choose. And that the Holocaust wiped out an entire generation of people with my DNA who lived in the Netherlands at the start of World War II.

But not every Libertarian does.

The point is that Libertarians see science, and history for that matter, as debatable ideas, opinions rather than facts. This is good in certain contexts, bad in others. What appeals to me most about it is that it's a radically different way of approaching political discourse and governance. There's never been a Libertarian government, so questions of just whose opinion would prevail in an elected government are a great mystery. I'm not sure how it would play out. It certainly has the potential, at least, to make things a great deal worse than they are today. But it also has the potential to make things a great deal better. There's a huge amount of risk in a Libertarian choice.

Am I at the point where I'm willing to take that risk?

Almost.

Re: Interesting.

[jdquintette.livejournal.com]

The point is that Libertarians see science, and history for that matter, as debatable ideas, opinions rather than facts.

And I see that as vaguely interesting dorm-room bullshit that has negligable use in real life.

But certainly this view can find acceptance in our currently political discourse as framed by the mass media, where actual facts are of negligable value but "equal time" is of primary importance. Thus we are still "discussing" things like global warming, even though there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on the subject and it's about as settled as anything is possible to be. This attitude is perfectly encapsulated in the mock headline "Opinions of shape of earth differ." lol.

Frankly, I think government works best when it's local

In many instances I would agree, since "local" generally means "more accountable." But how far are you willing to go in terms of assuring basic human rights? I'm of the opinion that the purpose of having any kind of civilization at all should be at least SOME concern for what used to be called "the public good." We could argue forever about what that entails (I think it ought to include things like access to good public education and affordable health care, because these things benefit everyone) but at the very least it should include things like potable water that doesn't contain toxic chemicals. Of course libertarianism holds that "free markets" would eventually compell companies to stop poisoning us, but if that were the case the EPA would never have been necessary in the first place.

If South Dakota wants to criminalize abortion, for example, that's fine with me. I don't live in South Dakota.

Since you're post menopausal, presumably you wouldn't care if it was criminalized in NY either, but don't you think that kind of "I'm allright Jack" attitude is a tad solipsistic. And what the fuck good is "freedom" anyway, if you don't have any control over whether you bear children or not?


There's never been a Libertarian government, so questions of just whose opinion would prevail in an elected government are a great mystery.

I don't see it as any mystery at all. The protections of "big government" which libertarians view as overreach are mostly a reaction by free societies to prevent the bullying or harming of the powerless by the powerful. The free market fetishism they display really breaks down to "freedom" to push people around if you have money. In Ron Paul's world, the more money you have the more you get to say what's what. Things like the Civil Rights act are viewed by libertarians as some kind of abstract mental exzcercize, whereas it was really a hail mary pass against an organized program or terrorism and genocide by some white people.

Most libertarian theory just strikes me as mental masturbation. I'm not doctrinaire, I'm pragmatic.

Re: Interesting.

[mallorys-camera.livejournal.com]

And I see that as vaguely interesting dorm-room bullshit that has negligable use in real life.

You can see it however you want. Of course.

I'm not doctrinaire, I'm pragmatic.

Oh, I don't think so. And you're naive if you think the Federal government exists to protect the powerless.

Re: Interesting.

[jdquintette.livejournal.com]

And you're naive if you think the Federal government exists to protect the powerless.

Not when it is hijacked by poweful interests and subverted to their will, no, but I'm profoundly uncomfortable with this strange American trope that holds that "government" is some sort of tyrannical external force that descends from on high with the express purpose of enslaving us to its will. And by the way I'm willing to concede that this sounds just as loony if you substitute "corporations" for "government."

The key difference being that corporation's mission statement is not the pursuance of the public good, whereas most democratic governance is supposedly for this purpose. And yes I know there's many a slip betwixt the cup and the lip, but I don't think it's any more idealistic to advocate that the will of the people be embodied by democratic governance than by "free markets." I mean for starters, free markets serve you better the more money-influence you have. I'd like my vote to count for as much as Bill Gates, it at least attempts to even the playing field.

Re: Interesting.

[mallorys-camera.livejournal.com]

The larger the government, the less your vote counts.

And that's why I'm an advocate of government at the most local level possible. Of course, there are certain economies of scale that apply so we're essentially looking at states rather than counties.

Re: Interesting.

[jdquintette.livejournal.com]

BTW I'm having exactly this same argument with a FB friend who's an old-time lefty who thinks voting for Paul is the only way to avoid the upcoming nuclear holocaust (her words, not mine).

Of course in true libertarian fashion this is all abstract to her, since she's Canadian and will get to keep her free health care and the generous disability pension she lives on no matter what happens down here in the Excited States of America.

I've been trying to explain to her that (a) saving the world by voting for a far-right crank when you're an avowed socialist is somewhat counterintuitive and (b) presidents don't have the kind of power prime ministers do and in the highly unlikely event that Paul was elected president, the more attractive aspects of his platform (the anti-war and anti-military funding planks, the civil liberties and drug law stuff) would never see a vote in either house, whereas the GOP is already have way to killing social security, medicare, the EPA, and "onerous" restrictions on the financial industry and extending the bush tax cuts" (all this stuff is right on Paul's website BTW) so we'd be several steps closer to "success" there.

I told her the way to truly effect change in US politics is from the ground up, as the Tea Party has done fairly effectively so far. You target pols who won't sign on to your agenda for "removal" in contested primaries, and put plenty of muscle behind those who do. That way, you flood both houses with representatives beholden to YOU, who know if they cross you they'll be out on their asses in the next election cycle. And the whole overton window just keeps lurching further to the right.

I read somewhere that the candidate with the most money gets the nomination 94% of the time. This has always been Romney's run, right from the beginning. The rest is kabuuki.

Re: Interesting.

[mallorys-camera.livejournal.com]

Yes, Romney is a lock and that's why I pay as little attention as possible to the whole Republican primary brouhaha.

a far-right crank

The far right and the far left have a lot in common.

Re: Interesting.

[flaxendandelion.livejournal.com]

It doesn't exist to protect the powerless, but it should, and it kinda does in other cases, like here in Australia. I've felt protected by government agencies in ways I never would be in the US, from Consumer Affairs Victoria to the Fair Work Ombudsman.

Re: Interesting.

[jdquintette.livejournal.com]

I think a big part of the problem in discussions like these is that most Americans have never experienced good government. I know I was quite surprised when I came here and how feckless and inneffective much of it is. As bad as my over-priced "swiss cheese" coverage was when I had private health insurance here, it was heaven on earth compared the the medicaid system I'm part of since I lost my job. The people I deal with are compassionate health care professionals (for the most part) but the facilities are filthy and outdated. THIS is what most Americans think "socialized medicine" looks like. No wonder they're afraid of it.

In Canada, if I had an issue with my landlord, I could take it to the Tennents Rights Bureau. Here in Louisiana, when I looked into this I was told "well, tennents don't really have any 'rights.'"

Re: Interesting.

[mallorys-camera.livejournal.com]

I don't know much about Australia except that it escaped the current recession-cum-depression that is threatening to take out much of the rest of the world, and that it has a relatively small population in comparison to its landmass. (Yes, I realize that population is concentrated into relatively few areas.) Australia has the money to pay for social services. Right now, most of the rest of the world does not.