Go Ron! On Apr 16, 12:37 pm, "M. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote: > Ron Paul and the Libertarian Moment"Freedom in our time" – is it > possible?byJustin Raimondo, April 16, 2010 > Thenewsthat a Rasmussen poll hasRep. Ron Paul(R-Texas) running in a dead heat > against President Barack Obama in a hypothetical Paul-Obama face-off for the > White House has the pundits fuming. Ben Smith,over atPolitico, can hardly > contain his annoyance: the poll "is a useful reminder of how totally flaky > early polling is," he rants, and "this is the Ron Paul who polled, literally, > thousands of votes placing fifth in the Iowa caucuses," and then only > breaking ten percent after everyone but McCain had bailed. This evaluation > depends on a static model, however: back then, there was nobank bailout, > noinsurance industry takeover, notea party movement, and Ron had no real > public record to run on – the 2008 campaign, in short, was a way for the > country toget to know Rep. Paul, and the Rasmussen poll is a clear indication > they liked what they saw. Instead of invoking Paul’s showing in the Iowa > caucus, it’s more useful to compare this poll to the results ofanothersimilar > Rasmussen poll taken in 2008, in which, as the pollster reported, "For Ron > Paul, 10% of all voters would definitely vote for him. Fifty-nine percent > (59%) say it’s No, no matter what." > Voter sentiment is now completely reversed: today, he’s in a dead heat with a > sitting President. No matter how hard you try to minimize that, it’s an > astonishing fact. > What Smith has to say about the perils of early polling would normally be > accepted as beyond dispute: after all remember whenFred Thompsonwasthe man to > beatfor the GOP nomination? However, we are not living in normal times, which > I define as any period when Americans abandon their traditional attitude > toward politics: i.e. indifference bordering on contempt. These days, the > indifference has given way to not only awareness but also to active > engagement, and the contempt for politicians has turned into aburning hatred, > i.e. the very stuff and fuel of politics. > What makes it possible for Paul to ride this untamed mare is that he isn’t a > politician at all: he is, in fact, the archetypalanti-politician, a > professorial figure wholectures Republicanson the gravity of their fiscal and > foreign policy sins, and is about as charismatic as plain oatmeal served > without milk and sugar. What’s more, he tells the public what politicians > have been loath to tell their constituents, and that isthe necessity of > deflationand the bearing of economic pain. InPaul’s view, the economic > bubblegenerated by the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies has led to the > current downturn, andnothing lessthan gritting our teeth, cutting spending > radically, and allowing the market to correct itself from government-induced > distortions, is the cure. > His message, in short, iseat your spinach– not something any politician who > hopes to keep his job (or get one) would normally say. But then again, as I > said above, these are not normal times: far from it. The crisis of the > American republic is acute, as we teeteron the brink of bankruptcyand our > overseas empire showseverysignofimploding, just like the old Soviet Union – > and, what’s more, the American people know it. > As ourcorporatist mastersfeast on our tax dollars in Washington, out in the > provinces voters faced with economic ruin are looking for some explanation, > aconceptual frameworkthat gets at the root of the problem and provides some > solution. Paul’s rising popularity is due to the fact that he does indeed > have aconsistent philosophical approach, one that has propelled him from > being a mere marginal figure – a "gadfly," as they said – to a very real > contender. Yes, that’s right, I said a contender for the White House: it’s > real, it’s possible, and here’s why. > Paul has consistently emphasized two themes that successfully capture the > sentiments of the average American voter, and address the top two issues on > their minds: 1)Fiscal sanity, and 2) Anon-interventionist foreign policy. As > regards the first point, Ron istheforemost opponentof government spending in > Congress, and has earned the sobriquet "Dr. No" many times over. But of > course practically all Republicans at least pay lip service to this ideal, > although none that I know of lives up to it like Dr. Paul. However, it’s the > second point –opposition to imperialism, and especiallyopposition to our > crazed post-9/11 foreign policyofperpetual war– that is the key. > As Paulexplainedatthe CPAC conference– wherehe wonthe presidential preference > poll – and on many other occasions, we can’t have our old republic back > unless and until we rid ourselves of the empire we’ve acquired along the way > to bankruptcy. Lecturing them ontheevilsofWoodrow Wilson’s "progressivism," > and the virtues of the Old Right’sRobert A. Taft, he received a standing > ovation (as well as a few boos from the minuscule-but-loudDavid FrumFan > Club). A similar reception occurred at theSouthern Republican Leadership > Conference, where he camewithin a single voteof winning the presidential poll > (losing only because the SRLC officialsclosed registration early, betting > correctly that Paul’s youthful supporters wouldn’t show up until it was time > to address the convention). > What’s interesting about this, from the perspective of my readers – a > majority of whom are not libertarians, I dare say, and are not generally > sympathetic tomy "anti-government" views– is that the more Ron talks about > the one subject that is supposed to rile Republicans – his foreign policy > views – the more popular he gets. It was theleitmotifof his CPAC speech, and > amain themeof his SRLC speech: his opposition to what he calls "the Empire" > inveigles its way into most of his public utterances: even if he’s asked a > specific question about, say,the economy, he emphasizes the impossibility of > ever getting out of the economic slough we’re in unless we throw off the > burden of empire. > Paul’s candidacy is interesting to the antiwar movement, because he has > managed to mainstream ideas that were long considered too radical for the > ordinary American to even bear hearing about. To even raise the idea that the > 9/11 attacks were "blowback" – in CIA parlance, an unintended consequence of > US policies – was once considered a cardinal, self-marginalizing sin. Yet > Paul took this view from the beginning: that the attacks were the > boomeranging after-effects of playing "king of the hill" in the Middle > Eastern sandbox and succoring the Afghan "freedom fighters" (asRonald > Reagancalled them) who later morphed into al-Qaeda. > When Paul bravelybrought this upat a Republican primary debate, the thuggish > Rudy Giuliani said he’d "never heard" such an analysis, and demanded that > Paul withdraw his statements.Paul refused, and citedthe 9/11 Commission’s own > wordsto back up his point, and yet the pundits in the peanut gallery crowed > that Dr. No was finished, a "gadfly" who had been swatted by the thuggish > Giuliani. > After spending millions in the GOP primaries, Giuliani was rewarded with > exactlyone delegate. Paul went to the GOP convention with asmall but > respectable platoonof elected delegates, and in spite of being thoroughly > locked out the Paulians stayed in the party and worked at the precinct level, > educating activists and recruiting lots of independents and conservatives > previously disdainful of the GOP. The Paul movement was really the GOP’s > lifeline to the emerging "tea party" movement, of which it was always an > essential – andcertainlya founding – element. > Again, what’s distinctive about the Paul movement within the tea party > phenomenon is that they always bring their entire politics with them wherever > they go: they raise the issue of the costs of war, and, as such, are > currently the most active – and certainly the most successful – antiwar > formation in this country. Here we have Code Pink leader Medea > Benjaminoffering to join in common causewith the tea partiers, and I think > they should take her up on it. the Paulians are the logical mediators between > what would, on the surface, appear to be oil and water. > As I said ina recent issueofThe American Conservative, however, I don’t think > the prospects for a left-right alliance on the issue of war and peace are all > that bright, to begin with because what used to be the left has essentially > been absorbed into the Obama cult, and co-opted by power. In the end, all > liberals really care about is getting their "fair share" of the spoils, for > themselves and their supposed constituencies.So whatif the price they have to > pay is going along with mass murder in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan? > We all have to die sometime. > I harp on Ron Paul for all sorts of reasons, but the one of most interest to > my readers is the fact that he is by far the most successful antiwar > politician in recent American history. Derided as being one of those dreaded > "isolationists," and attacked even by some alleged "libertarians" precisely > for that – and because he appeals to the common man – he not only insists on > raising this issue, for him it is central to his analysis of what he calls > the "Welfare-Warfare State," a phrase coined by the lateMurray Rothbard. Dr. > Paul’s diagnosis of a nation fast exhausting itself in an orgy of spending > and militaristic adventurism has the stark ring of truth about it – an alarm > bell ringing in the night. > When Paul and others first sounded that alarm, back in the early formative > years of the libertarian movement, very few were heeding the call. We were > looked on as eccentrics, and, for example, the libertarianenthusiasm for > goldwas viewed as indicative of our archaic perspective, put down as an > ideological curiosity and nothing more than a "crackpot" notion and a bad > investment. Today, of course, those libertarian doomsayers who said the > crisis was coming have been vindicated – and all that gold they bought way > back in the 1970s, and kept buying in spite of the disdain of more worldly > investors, today adds up to quite a bundle. Which is one way to get around to > saying that a great deal of Paul’s newfound political authority and > credibility comes out of his havingpredictedthe current economic downturn. > Virtuallyevery speechmade in Congress, and wherever he appeared, was dotted > with references to the coming collapse if we didn’t mend our ways. Well, we > didn’t, and it’s here. > That’s one factor the learned Ben Smith, and the rest of the "experts" and > media know-it-alls fail to take into consideration. What fuels the tea party > phenomenon and the vast anger animating the American public at the moment is > the series of bailouts: the banks, the auto industry, the government workers, > the Afghan government of ourerstwhile ally, Hamid Karzai, not to mention the > Israelis, the nation of Iceland, and maybe eventhe Greeks, for all we know. > As ordinary people see their homesforeclosed, their jobsevaporate, and their > savings disappear, the rich get richer – not because of capitalism, or even > "socialism," as the tea partiers describe the Obama administration’s > philosophy, but due to corporatism, as Ron Paulrecently explained. > Corporatism is, in essence,socialism for the rich, that is, for the benefit > of certain big corporations over other big corporations, and a raft of > would-be smaller competitors. That would seem to be a precise definition > ofwhat’s going onin the country today, one that fits nicely in with the > left-right synthesis the Paul movement represents, and for which the country > yearns. Paul sweeps the independents in the Rasmussen poll, with an > astonishing 47-28. Add to this Paul’s appeal to what arecent Pew > pollcharacterized as rising "isolationist" sentiment, and what you have is a > new American majority based on the proposition that the US government should > start minding its own business, both at home and abroad. > So much, by the way, for those "libertarian" academics and ivory tower Deep > Thinkers who pointedly snubbed Ron, and his supporters, just as they had been > doing for years, constantly denigrating his chances of making a significant > difference and echoing theorchestrated smear campaignlaunched by > neoconservativesagainst Paul’s personal character and that of his supporters. > Accurately tracing the Paulian strategy to a series of articles by Murray > Rothbard written in the 1990s in favor of cultivating "right-wing populism" > as a vehicle for the introduction of libertarian ideas into the national > discourse, these self-styled ultra-sophisticates sneered at the "rednecks" > and rubes the Rothbardian strategy would attract: and they specifically > turned up their noses at Ron Paul. > Instead of following the Paulian star, as most other libertarians were doing > outside of Washington, D.C., they sought to recruit their liberal friends and > fellow cocktail party goers – or at least make themselves less unacceptable > in the Washington social circuit, where the Obama cult reigns supreme. In a > self-conscious rebuff to libertarians outside the Imperial City, these > worthies – mostly subsidized by a certain eccentric billionaire, owner of the > largest family-owned corporation in the United States – launched their own > "liberal-tarian" movement, as they dubbed it, which, so far, consists of > either three, or perhaps four, stalwart cadre, all of them employed by the > same eccentric billionaire or one of his satellites. > To even compare the respective achievements of Ron Paul and these > sub-political pygmies is to diminish Ron’s astonishing success: the latter > don’t want to create a real movement. Their goal is to suck up to whoever’s > in power, and somehow convince them to let us have a little more liberty, and > a little less warfare, all the while ensuring their own career prospects and > social status in the Washington pecking order. > They said it couldn’t be done: that the Paul movement would go nowhere, and > that it would hurt the libertarian cause to have the Good Doctor become known > as the fountainhead and symbol of the freedom movement in America. They gave > money to his worst critics –and to his son’s opponentrunning in the GOP > Senatorial primary in Kentucky – and used their mouthpieces to defame him. > They did everything they could to destroy him – and now he’s running even > with Obama in the polls. > These bare facts should tell libertarians everything they need to know about > what kind of leadership they need, and who is going to provide it. At this > crucial juncture – the libertarian moment – these losers will pardon our dust > as the rest of us move confidently into a future when we can truly raise that > old libertarian slogan, "Freedom in our time," and really believe it as if > for the first > time.http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/04/15/ron-paul-and-the-libertarian-moment/ > > > > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
