 |
Ron Paul and Easy Answers |
 |
Progressives are bending over backwards trying to figure out “what to do about Ron Paul.” They need to tread carefully, or they’ll shoot themselves in the feet: either by supporting him just because he’s antiwar, by making cheap character attacks, or by inadvertently looking ridiculous themselves.
A lot of words have been wasted - and will be wasted - on the question of whether Ron Paul is racist or not. Here’s an answer for progressives: don’t be cowards. Take Ron Paul on at the level of his ideas, not his past. This election is - or should be - a battle of ideas. Progressives can win on that level without resorting to personal attacks that will only antagonize Paul’s supporters. And it’s not only that we can win the battle of ideas - we have to win on that level, because we need to show that our vision is the right one for America. So hit the Ron Paul campaign where it hurts - its complete lack of substance beyond a vague and impractical ideology of limited government, half recycled Reaganism and half nineteenth century isolationism.
Let me cut the Gordian Knot: Ron Paul attracts support because he offers easy answers to our country’s deepest problems. Would his answers solve our problems? Emphatically no. But his ideas resonate with people’s real life concerns. Moreover, they come with a friendly face. Notice how often Paul is referred to as a doctor. He’s not a real politician, his supporters seem to feel. He’s a kindly but intelligent grandfather, the outsider who has wisdom to offer, instead of just savvy. Added to all this is the fact that, to his credit, Paul genuinely believes in his ideas. A lot of people are hungry for that.
But the ideas aren’t hard to take on. I ran into a young man in Philadelphia on October 27th at an antiwar protest. He was scampering oddly from one side of the march to the other, hoisting his Ron Paul 08 sign and looking generally out of place. I struck up a conversation and asked him the question I had been dying to ask a Ron Paul supporter: “Do you agree with Ron Paul that we should go back to the gold standard?”
He informed me that he did. He said that with the gold standard, inflation would stop and the dollar’s fall would reverse.
“That’s funny,” I said. “From what I know, economists say that a little inflation is good for the economy. And I thought the dollar was falling because of a lack of confidence in the dollar, not just inflation.”
He didn’t have answers for even these simple objections. Other Ron Paul supporters, I’m sure, would have more sophisticated arguments, but the incident was telling: Paul’s platform, and most of his supporters’ understanding of it, is similarly flimsy. A few examples:
Eliminating the IRS? I understand why that sounds attractive to people who believe the government completely misuses its tax revenue. Or anyone who has dealt with the IRS bureaucracy. But since Ron Paul is not an anarchist calling for the dissolution of government, I assume even a limited government will need some form of income - internal revenue, we could call it. You might need a service to manage that income, don’t you think? So even if you eliminated it, it would sneak in the back door.
Getting out of Iraq is vital. But what’s Paul’s plan? Oh wait, he doesn’t have one. He talks the talk, but there’s no details. Sure, various Democrats have the same problem. But Richardson and Obama have at least attempted to lay out some specifics. And don’t think I’m talking idly about the need for a plan. Here at the Seminal we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is on Iraq exit plans - we’ll have one ourselves before too long.
Ron Paul’s appeal goes beyond easy answers, of course: he also taps into a segment of our culture craving a return to America’s isolationist past. This element of his message deserves a bit of explanation. Paul Rosenberg attempted to analyze it with reference to the unfortunately conceived (and titled) Jihad vs. McWorld, arguing that Paul represents a resurgence of “tribalism” in the face of “globalization.” This approach highlights the dangers of overintellectualizing Ron Paul. In citing Barber’s Jihad vs. McWorld, Rosenberg opens a Pandora’s Box whose consequences he is not prepared to deal with. Clearly, he hasn’t read between the lines in the book, or the original article where Barber explains who the “tribalists” are:
Kurds, Basques, Puerto Ricans, Ossetians, East Timoreans, Quebecois, the Catholics of Northern Ireland, Abkhasians, Kurile Islander Japanese, the Zulus of Inkatha, Catalonians, Tamils, and, of course, Palestiniansâ€â€people without countries, inhabiting nations not their own, seeking smaller worlds within borders that will seal them off from modernity.
“Sealed off from modernity?” Gosh, that sounds suspiciously like…the way the administration justifies the War on Terror, huh? The connections are clear between, on the one hand, books like Jihad vs. McWorld, Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations, and articles like Bernard Lewis’ “The Roots of Muslim Rage,” and on the other, the Project for a New American Century, the invasion of Iraq, and the general mess of US foreign policy toward the Islamic world in the last decade or so.
So let’s move beyond ahistorical and acultural readings, as well as buzzwords like “tribalism” that are codewords for “everyone else is inferior to Western secularists,” and place Ron Paul in his cultural context.
In the present, a lot of people - many Democrats as well - are hungry for a “reset button” of sorts. They want to undo the damage the Bush administration has caused, so they look back in time for a golden age they can cling to. Hillary Clinton supporters, I am convinced, think her presidency would be a repeat of Bill’s. Thompson supporters pray that he is Reagan’s reincarnation. A lot of progressives still yearn for 1963 and the pre-Vietnam Democratic Party.
Ron Paul represents the re-emergence of an isolationist element that has been present in American history from the beginning. Its appeal at this moment in time is understandable: with America’s affairs abroad going so poorly, some Americans want us to disengage completely from the international scene. The reset button that Ron Paul and his supporters want to push would take us back to December 6th, 1941. Or 1913. Or, as I said, the nineteenth century. In other words, Ron Paul and his supporters deny the reality and the consequences of America’s structural role in the world system as a superpower. The combination of isolationism, support for the gold standard, a strong ideology of limited government, state’s rights, and so forth is not an accident: it’s our own nineteenth century rearing its ugly head. If Ron Paul is a genuine racist, and the “states’ rights” talk is code for something more sinister, that only bolsters my argument. Tribalism? I don’t think so.
If Ron Paul wins the presidency I’ll eat my computer. So while he’s in the race, progressives should pay attention and learn from him. His candidacy is important because it offers us a window into a specific cross-section of society that might remain invisible otherwise. So keep your eyes open, study what they say, and then ruthlessly smash their ideas, because ours are better. Why are they better? Because we’re sane enough to chart a middle course between foolish extremes. We can acknowledge the fact that America cannot disengage from the international scene without indulging in the reckless interventionism that has damaged America so much under Bush. We can also provide sophisticated economic policies to put our economy - and the dollar - back on track. As Paul points out, our economy and our foreign policy are intimately related. But it’s not time to go chasing a past that is gone forever - it’s time to overhaul our system, undo the harm Bush has caused, and move forward in a spirit of courage and optimism.
Good for you for choosing to fight in the realm of ideas instead of resorting to the tired racism smears.
A couple of quick points:
U.S. Constitution:
Section 10. No state shall …make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts
Federal reserve notes have lost more than 40% of their value on international exchange markets since Bush II took office, and the dollar is now at an all-time low.
Inflation might be good for the “economy”, but it surely isn’t good for the people left holding a depreciating currency.
Our current Foreign Policy asserts as orthodoxy the notion that we should borrow billions from foreigners, and then turn around and give billions in foreign aid. Often to undemocratic regimes, and often to people who subsequently go against our interests (Osama Bin Laden being just one example).
We blow up bridges in Iraq, then pay to rebuild them, meanwhile the infrastructure of our own nation falls into disrepair.
Finally, Paul does have a plan for getting put of Iraq, and he’s stated it repeatedly: just come home. In case you can’t uderstand what that means, it means he will order the military to depart Iraq as quickly as can be safely managed. No troops to remain in the country.
You are right about one thing. As a Paul supporter I would like to see the clock set back to about 1913. To a time before the internal revenue service, before the central banking cartel of the Fed, before the rise of massively bloated Federal government, and before the intellectually bankrupt ideas of Wilsonian international meddling and globalism.
“In other words, Ron Paul and his supporters deny the reality and the consequences of America’s structural role in the world system as a superpower.”
I, at least, deny the whole concept of America’s ‘manifest destiny’. It sounds good, but next thing you know we’re embroiled in half-baked war with either the people that used to be our allies or the people that were tortured by our allies. The Taliban, we supported them. Iran, we supported the Shah, helped put down a democratic government and are now hated by the people the Shah tortured. Iraq? We supported Sadam, then turned against him. Rather then have him torture the population into hating us, we’ve taken on the role ourselves.
Call me naive, but I consider your views simplistic: we can act like a major superpower without anybody being able to pay us back evil for evil. Not everybody is happy to accept a dollar in recompense for having family members killed, imprisoned or tortured.
“In other words, Ron Paul and his supporters deny the reality and the consequences of America’s structural role in the world system as a superpower.”
NO, Ron Paul is painfully aware of the consequences of meddling in other countries affairs and policing the world
His words
“The most important element of a free society, where individual rights are held in the highest esteem, is the rejection of the initiation of violence. All initiation of force is a violation of someone else’s rights, whether initiated by an individual or the state, for the benefit of an individual or group of individuals, even if it’s supposed to be for the benefit of another individual or group of individuals. Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense.”
Look at the suffering we have causied the Sunnis and the Shias in Iraq while we try to “save” tem.
Look at hos arming fundemental Islamic radicals in Afghanistan led to 2 missing towers in the US
Look at how 3000+ Panamanians died becuase we removed a CIA agent of ours who was president there.
Chile, Iran, Vietnam, Nicaragua, etc…
Every time we intervene in the sovereignty and affairs of other countries (with the best intentions of course).. innocent people die and the US taxpayers get to share in that spilt blood by funding these crimes under the forced servitude to the Fed and the IRS
I was going to write a long statement….but Sean did such a good job at aloquently pointing out the obvious.
I’m sorry that ISH found a Ron Paul supporter that could’nt hold a serious debate at the level of inteligence that ISH wanted.
One more thing: The dollars decline isn’t as easy to explain as ISh would like. Lack of confidence in a currency is not only a symptom, but it is also a factor relating to the fall in the dollar. Economists say that a little inflation is good for the economy are speaking of an economy that is being run by the FED. When an economy is supported by money that is backed by something tangible, and not just wishes, it will have its ups and downs, but it will stabalize on its own and will not require a false move like inflation to “correct” its movements. By the way, when the FED came into being its job was to keep our economy from having these big fluctuations and stop inflation. But as we all know it hasn’t done its job so why keep it. If the FED was truly in existence to help our country and control the economy it wouldn’t charge us interest on the money that it is printing, or lets say OVER printing (thats what causes inflation by the way). A lack of confidence in the dollar is a result of the mismanagement of our money by the FED, and the drop in value that comes from over printing federal reserve notes that have NO value other than that by which others hold to it. If everybody knows its being over printed, why would they believe that it holds any value?
Here’s the problem with progressives. You have these government programs, and since you do it on the federal level, you have 1 big program for everyone.
If that program sucks, we get stuck with it for 4-8 years, just like GWB on education, healthcare etc. So it leaves alot of time between changes. As it is only 1 big program, it’s not very adaptable, and doesn’t have any real room for trying new things.
The thing progressives don’t understand about Ron Paul is that he isn’t anti-education, anti-healthcare, etc. He just doesn’t think it’s a job for the federal government. The states are more than welcome to pick up their own programs. And think about that a minute.
With a state program, you get to vote for changes every 2 years. Your 1 vote also means alot more towards those changes. As there are now 50 programs, you have alot of different ideas being tried. When 1 state does something bad, it’s only the 1 state that suffers, not the entire country. And when something works for 1 state, the other states are free to put those ideas to work in their programs. As each state and area is different, it is also more adaptable to the people, and that serves them better.
Personally, I am a libertarian, and I would rather see these programs on a community and local level. As the elections are even closer, my vote means even more, and you can have 100’s of programs within a single state, and 1000’s across the country. These lets people try the most new ideas and that will lead our programs to a much higher success. This is how it was setup before the dept of education/healthcare, and back then the US was #1 in education, healthcare, freedom and every other category, and now we don’t even rank in the top 30 for freedom, top 30 for education or even in the top 50 in healthcare.
While it is popular for the media, and people against Ron Paul, or who don’t understand Ron Paul to just label him as being anti-issue, thats just not the case. There are really good reasons for his issues, you just have to take a little time to understand them, understand the constitution and how a democratic republic is designed to work. The best way to return the power to the people is by giving them more control, and that is done on local and state levels. The federal government shouldn’t be doing these things, and we shouldn’t be forced to elect a president on these issues, when his major function and what they are elected on is foreign policy.
The more programs are taken on the federal level, the less diverse the program, the less successful, and the more expensive they become. Lets stop that trend for a change and put a man who understands the issues fully into office.
As you all say, it is nice to have a discussion of ideas. So let’s go.
On the gold standard, right of the bat, we would be the only economy in the world on such an antiquated system. Instead of inflation via fiat money, we’d have inflation via gold rush. Mine more gold, more inflation. So you’d have bands of Americans destroying environments in the third world searching for gold. Think modern day conquistadors.
Second, I’m not sure how this would really solve our money problems. The real issue
(and I’m not convinced it’s really an issue) is free access to credit. Presumably, even if you go back to the gold standard, banks would still be able to lend against this money, at multiples even, as they do know. Really, might not be too different.
Lastly, it would never pass Congress. Like…not ever. So it’s a moot point.
On Iraq, just get out now is a slogan. It’s a nice thought, and indeed it should be part of the problem, but there needs to be more. I’ve been looking for a plan that allows us both to get out of Iraq immediately AND not leave chaos in our wake. That solution will involved intense international relations and diplomacy, something Paul doesn’t really seem interested in. Type “progressive Iraq” into the search bar here to see what I’m talking about. Just get out just doesn’t cut it.
On international relations, isoloationism is a great thought, but it just isn’t realistic in todays day and age. I agree with some commenters that the US should not strive to be world police, or some kind of global hegemon. But we are a major player in the world, if only economically, and that comes with responsibilities.
I agree that our aid system needs to be reformed. The world bank, IMF, etc… are fairly inneffective at what they do. But the answer isn’t isolationism. It is more involvement. It always has been. That isn’t to say we need more meddling. We just need to return to being an honest broker again.
And on state’s rights and such, that is an honest disagreement. Things that can be done at the state level probably should be. But (and this is a big one), the economies of scale and uneven distribution work agains this a lot of the time. Universal healthcare is a big example here.
With universal healthcare, it only really works if you can get enough people in on it to make it not lose money. That might not work for small states. Also, if one state has universal healthcare and one doesn’t, you might get a lot of border hoppers, or just a lot of people moving to that state, which might sink the program.
I disagree fundamentally with the notion that federally run programs are necessarily bad. badmedia has a decent point about them changing only every 4-8 years, but honestly, I don’t think they change quicker at the state level. In my home state (NY), things change extremely slowly. It’s a political machine up in Albany. Basically, things can be bad at the state level too. It’s not a problem of big government, just poor governance.
J-Ro keeps along the lines with all the others in saying that Ron Paul is an isolationist. That is just not true, its a blurb that has been coined by MSM. I think if you actually looked at his foriegn policy you would see that he is more in line with your thinking than you previously thought. He is a non-interventionalist. Your points about programs run by the FED as not necessarily being bad, is understandable and probably more correct than saying ALL FED programs are bad. The big difference is that there is nothing in the constituion that says that the FED has the right to make those programs. If the States want to hand over that power in certain instances to the FED than there should be a Consitutional Amendment that changes those obligations. Although I see giving power to a few power hungry people in powerfull positions, can be very dangerous. By leaving these problems to the States we give the people more power to regulate and watch over the people in power to fight against corruption. As it is now the corrupt are protected by the corrupt system that was created illegally (according to the constitution)which leaves us as citizens without the protection of a system of checks and balances.
On the issue of the Gold Standard, there are many things that could be better than what we have now, and the Gold Standard. I think that allowing a private company with no oversight by our elected officials to determine our monetary policy is a very bad idea. ALL private companies are in it for the money and the Federal Reserve is no different. They are large enough and have enough ties around the world to profit no matter which way our market moves. They have consistantly made it harder and harder for our government to watch their movements and keep an eye on their policy. If our own country took over the printing and regulation of our currency it would still be better than the Federal Reserve having that power because we would at least be free of the interest we are charged as a country when the FED rpints us up more and more money which creates a vicious circle where we can never repay the balance.
With respect to federal programs, you’re now basically arguing that your beef is with procedure. Sure, a Constitutional Amendment, nice. But judges have ruled that it’s not necessary, and I’m really not going to get bogged down in those kind of details. If you don’tlike government run programs, fine, that a disagreement. But I’m not sure you have the facts to back it up. Show me some proof that state run programs are somehow more efficient or less corrupt than federal ones. Honestly, sometimes it seems (and again, NY is an example) that state governments are way more problematic.
As for Paul’s foreign policy, from his website, not filtered through the media:
He goes on to say we should withdraw from international trade deals and organizations like the UN. This. Is. Isolationism. And it’s the wrong approach. Yes, free trade is a big deal and a lot of problems. But the problem isn’t really that we have free trade to begin with, it’s that these deals are structured so the rich get rich and the poor get poorer. Instead, we need to negotiate more encompassing trade deals, ones that are fair for all, and ones that take into account things like worker’s rights and such.
It’s hard to read him any other way. Do I think President Paul would cut off all relations with other countries? No. That’s silly. Do I think he would disinvolve the US from world affairs? Yes. And I believe that’s dangerous.
I think (J-Ro) and I read things differently. Upon reading the major points and ideals set forth in these (ICC, NAFTA, GATT, WTO and CAFTA)deals, I would agree with Ron Paul. I don’t believe that he voted against these for the reasons that you are implying, according to his own comments. When he says that these deals would be a threat to our sovereignty, I agree. These deals are set up to give foreign bodies and world government entities the ability to regulate and create policy that would over-rule our laws, and impose additional taxes on us. I think Ron Paul has talked about the fact that this is what he is really against a little further on in the article that you quoted. Here is what his website actually says in full:
“So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.
The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.
The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.
NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.
And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.
Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.
We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.”
I think we get mired down in arguing small tidbits of information supplied by the media and given on webpages. Anyone can pick a sentence from each caqndidate and make a pretty good argument for or against that candidate.
What we really need to argue about is the continued corruption and seperation of ideals between those politicians in power and the people. Our country has moved from being a government of the people by the people and for the people. Will the same old parties who are currently in power, and trying to increase that power, be the ones to change the direction our country is headed in? Or do we as the people of the U.S. need to change our country by revolting from the “norm” and forceing a change in the power structure.
See, but here’s the problem. There is no alternative. Paul says, very explicitely, that he would withdraw from the UN among other bodies. If so, then what is his alternative for world organizations? Or even diplomacy? He makes a vague reference to diplomacy on other parts of his site, but he’s got no plan as far as I can tell.
Now, I’m sure he does have a plan of some kind, but honestly, he doesn’t seem to understand the world we live in today. We need to be an international force because the world is international now. Sovereignty is a nice word, but it honestly means less and less these days. Our economies are more connected than ever, people are more connected than ever, and so it follows that states are more connected than ever. It’s this kind of disconnect, the hoping for a global world on the one hand and clinging to antiquated notions of statehood on the other, that make me think Ron Paul is living in something of a fantasy world.
Which is not to say his ideas don’t have value. As Ish stated above, they do have value. They are just…wrong sometimes.
A little inflation is not good for the economy.
Economists do, however, believe that inflation is necessary for a welfare state economy because the actual taxation rates you would need for it are absurd (look at the taxation in the Euro area).
Remember Alan Greenspan was and is a lifetime proponent of the gold standard and just recently when Ron Paul grilled Bernanke about money printing he basically said “Congress made me do it” and offered no philosophical support for it.
“Progressives” who belittle Ron Paul are promoting the war. Period. If you want to end the war, vote for Ron Paul.
If you want to debate the issues, fine. But this is a stupid statement. If you want to end the war, you could vote for Paul. You could also vote for Richardson, who has just about the same timeline as Paul but much more international experience and a more fleshed out plan.
And one more thing:
Would we have had all of these 20th century problems if we had staid out of WWI? After all, it was our entangling alliances that got us into that, and the settlement of that war caused WWII directly.
And besides, in the first War, Germany wasn’t even the bad guys, we just went in for the sake of our alliances.
When I really think of it, yes, I want to go back to before 1913. Before we adopted monopoly money as our currency, before we took on the foolish responsibility as world policeman, before we swallowed Keneysian economics like the words of the divine.
Richardson has no chance to win, and I don’t believe he would really end the war. He is just pandering for wasted votes. Paul can win, and will probably raise $25 dollars on Decemeber 16 for the Boston Tea party.
The fact you called him an isolationist lets me know you aren’t worried about a real debate, nor are you interesting in exchanging ideas. You obviously posted blog because you don’t like Ron Paul. You aren’t fooling anyone, you obviously haven’t even looked at his positions, he isn’t even in favor of the actual gold standard, he is in favor of hard money, which is money backed by value. The only reason he even mentions gold is because that is what the constitution says.
You post flat out lie after lie. I corrected you, and still you go on and insist for more.
Good work, badmedia.
If Ron Paul runs against Hillary Clinton in the general election, many “progressives” will suddenly become pro-war.
That’s nice, isn’t it?
@James Madison
Richardson has about as much a chance as Paul. You were talking about pro-war vs. anti-war candidates. Paul does not have a monopoly on this area. Kucinich and Richardson are solidly anti-war.
As for badmedia, I’ve read his publicly available website and I’ve listened to his speeches. If Paul isn’t isolationist, than what is he? Show me another way to interepret the words:
Tell me, I’m all ears.
Richardson has no chance to even beat John Edwards for 3rd place. He doesn’t have enough money or supporters to do anything.
Ron Paul is 4-1 to get the republican nomination and 6-1 to win the general election according to Vegas odds.
http://www.sportsbook.com/sportsbook/livelines.php?st=203
Those odds will improve after he raises $25 million dollars on December 16. Ron Paul already has more money for TV ads than Romney or Ghouliani. He will have over twice as much money and far more supporters than Ghouliromney after Decemebr 16.
You’re dreaming. Stop the war. End the racist war on drugs. Vote RON PAUL.
But James Madison, let’s at least admit that your above statement was *cough* misleading. Progressives who don’t vote for Paul are not necessarily promoting the war, which is what you said. It’s simply not true. Electability, well, I disagree with your positive assessment of Paul’s chances but that’s fine. Either way, there are choices on both sides of the ticket that are solidly anti-war. That’s a fact.
The effect of not voting for Ron Paul is the same as promoting the war.
Please don’t be fooled by the MSM.
You disagree with my assessment, but what of the assessment by Las Vegas?
I’m amused at how most article authors approach RP’s stances.
Just one example…
When a direct income tax was imposed, THAT was fringe and crazy. Yet it was really out of the typical Americans control. It was the most un-American/un-constitutional thing to do. But now this absurdity is “normal” and revered by our people. When talk and questions arise, those who raise them are immediately labeled “nutjobs”, “conspiracists”, etc..
Why? Why have we accepted our financial enslavement as something normal? Why do we let our money support the world while America crumbles? And why are we ridiculed when we dare ask why?
I’ll tell you why….The Simpsons are on. That should take our feeble minds off the real issues.
Not to be glib, but the house always wins.
That doesn’t answer my question. The Vegas odds say Ron Paul is 4-1 to get the GOP nomination and 6-1 to win the general election.
End the racist war on drugs! Vote Ron Paul!
This is a serious debate. Anybody trying to discredit us by calling us pawns of the “MSM” can take a hike - read a few other posts on the Seminal and see how much we reflect a mainstream perspective. Invoking the MSM bogeyman just signals to me that you don’t have real arguments.
As J-Ro said, the isolationist label comes from our reading of Paul’s stances as given on his website. “Non-interventionist” isn’t quite appropriate when you’re advocating withdrawal from the United Nations, which would shatter some of our alliances and generally, um, isolate the United States in the international community. And as for international law, is part of going back to 1913 negating the Nuremberg trials? Would you rather America had never fought in WWII?
As for inflation, the argument is that a little inflation is good for real people because it makes it easier for people to pay back loans. Given that loans are one component of entrepreneurship, and we need some free flow of cash to lubricate our economy, a little inflation could be helpful. Would you rather some deflation? Probably sounds like a good idea, huh? Our money getting more valuable? I think most economists would tell you that deflation would be a disaster. I also think people are having trouble distinguishing between the fall of the dollar compared with other currencies, and inflation. They are not the same.
As for pragmatic issues, I do not believe that Ron Paul could win. If he did, he would be isolated politically, because very few people in Congress would support his reforms. Also, the movement’s thinking on the future is shallow - vote Ron Paul into office and all of America’s problems with be solved. But what about after Ron Paul? The rhetoric is appealing, I guess, but the practical details of solutions simply have not been spelled out.
Case in point: withdrawing from Iraq. “Just leave” obviously doesn’t cut it. You have to have a plan, and that plan is going to involve diplomacy. I simply do not see “President Ron Paul” as a credible figure on the international scene capable of handling complex problems regarding Iran, Turkey, Pakistan. Burying your head in the sand doesn’t count as a solution.
The idea that progressives are pro-war if they don’t support a REPUBLICAN is fundamentally absurd.
The term “Isolationism” is not being used properly by the author. Isolationism is an economic policy, not a military policy.
Even if we were to assume that we were doing good for these countries that we invade, bully, and bribe, we will isolate ourselves from the world by trying to tell sovereign people how to live.
For example, how would your neighbor react if you walked over to their house and spanked their children for misbehaving? Even if the children deserved it or needed it, I’m sure you would be starting a war with your neighbor and possibly a legal suit or physical altercation. What if you walked into a guests house, commented on how unkept it was, and started cleaning? Most people would not thank you for your help. Even in the drastic cases of domestic violence, battered women will often join forces with their batterer to fight intervention from third parties. There are numerous resons for this but generally - free, sovereign people do not want to be told how to live their life, do not want to be shamed by being told that they are incapable of handling their own problems, and will seek help on their own if they decide that they need it.
This same principle applies to drug users, domestic violence, and foreign nations. They must accept the need to change before outside intervention will help. Before that, outside intervention will likely cause more problems. The road to hell is paved with good intentions - interventionism is not a rejection of isolationism, but is driven by a complete disregard to the nature of what it means to be human. A policy of non-interventionism is the only way to protect relationships that allow for progressive change for the better. That is why all progressives should favor an end to the Federal drug war, the Federal Reserve, the Patriot Act, and our undeclared military excursions into sovereign nations.
It seems there is a strange correspondence with the installation of the Federal Reserve System and our country’s corruted sense of its role in the world and role in our private lives.
What has happened is we have gone from a nation of sovreign individuals that generally owned their land, their incomes, their health issues, their food and drug issues, etc. with a lot of charity freely available through religious and other charitable organizations to a nation of serfs that have been pulled into some of the bloodiest conflicts this world has ever seen. Why is that? Now, few people own anything except that it is mortgaged to the hilt. It’s now a question of “can I afford the payment”. When this is the case for most all people of this nation you have to ask yourselves, “Do we own anything anymore?”. Where has all our wealth gone?
Our wealth has been confiscated by a system of the issuance of credit based paper money. We were given their worthless paper in exchange for our wealth.
The entire wealth of our nation has evaporated into the hands of our central bank and our wealth has been used to reshape world events to their benefit rather than the benefit of the American people. This wealth has also been used to finance the mechanisms that have been instrumental to erode away our liberties.
In short, we are financing our own destruction and constructing our own enslavement camps. Because of our own lack of vision and dilligence to honor and guard our precious freedoms we are handing what’s left of it over to those with the ready made “solution” that is nothing less than our own enslavement.
The “Progressive” movement from my perspective is progressing us right into serfdom because those supporting these progressive planks fail to ask the question of who is going to pay for it all and how. They also fail to realize that the Federal Reserve System was the primary vehicle that the deception could be waged that made it seem like all these programs could be financed by some magical alchemical process.
Ron Paul represents what liberty really should be about and he gives the solutions to how liberty should be implemented. His campaign is based on love and is a vote of confidence in the human spirit. Those of the establishment are promoting campaigns that get people whipped up in fear and make them think we need to government to manage and control our lives.
I hope and pray there is enough of a remnant in this once great nation to use the political process to keep our liberties safeguarded so that we ca