The Ron Paul cult

When I was at the ACL fest in September, I was struck by how many longhairs were passing out Ron Paul paraphernalia.  Signs have been popping up around uptown with “Ron Paul Revolution” spray-stenciled on them, with EVOL reversed.  Yes, Ron Paul=Love.

Now I hate the Iraq War and the Drug War as much as most sane people, but you gotta wonder why Ron Paul hasn’t really caught on before now.  Is it because he’s ahead of his time?  Or is there a more parsimonious explanation?  Maybe it’s because he’s a dick.

Skeptical liberals have already seen this, but I think it’s a good reminder that Ron Paul is not a friend to the left.  I like the libertarian slant to a point, but a commitment to social justice has to be a part of any political philosophy, in my book.


7 Responses to The Ron Paul cult

  1. Miranda says:

    Yes, of course you’re right, why should we let a little thing like numerous present and future wars and unprecedented abuse of executive power come between us and “social justice”? get real! You and i both know that Ron Paul is not an extremist and those few extremist that have latched on do so only because their causes intersect(border security, small federal government) in minor places. Do you want to get out of Iraq? Do you want to stop war with Iran? do you want the Patriot act and the Military Commisions act to be repealed? Or are you more worried about your idealogical purity? He’s not of the left, but an anti-war anti-fascist righty isn’t exactly an enemy of the left either, and with friends like the Democratic front runners(hillary and obama to name a few) who needs enemies, right? Think it over.

  2. spark says:

    The smear that Ron Paul is a racist has been thoroughly discredited. The author of that disgusting article was let go from the campaign, and it’s fairly obvious to see that that article is both philosophically and stylistically different from everything else Ron Paul has ever said or written (and note that his 30 years of writing and speeches, his ENTIRE political philosophy, is public knowledge, unlike other candidates…).

    Anyway, think twice before you dismiss the guy. Ending the War on Drugs, possibly the most racist and elitist policy of modern times, has been one of Paul’s goals since he first entered politics. Ending the American Empire, will help minorities and those from lower classes, who have disproportionately lost their lives in the name of neoimperialism. Ending our insane inflationary monetary policy will help the poor, who have been suffering the most as whatever dollars they have continue to drop in value. Can you honestly tell me that these goals won’t do more for social justice than what any Hillary or Obama or any of the top Democrats are proposing?

  3. Jamelle says:

    The problem with libertarianism, as I see it, is that even if every single voluntary association and transaction between individuals was just; eventually there would be rampant inequality and unequal distribution of resources. And a minimal state just isn’t equipped to deal with that. I agree with Ron Paul on some regards; I think that the imperial swing of American foreign policy is dangerous, and I think that the executive needs to be restrained.

    But I also think – to ape from John Rawls a bit – that the state has the additional burden of creating standards by which all associations in society must adhere. By which I mean the legal enshrinement of principals like anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-homophobia, etc. And I think the state carries with it the obligation to at least ensure that any existing inequality must benefit the least well-off (more ape’ing of John Rawls). A libertarian state simply cannot do that.

  4. Miranda says:

    Jamelle, so basically you are saying that libertarianism is, at it extreme, unrealistic and utopic? like conservatism and liberalism perhaps? At least with libertariansim i have a say. Not really the point anyway since Paul isn’t a Libertarian. I would even say he’s not much of a libertarian either, he’s more of a constitutionalist, and even with his faults, i’d rather see a president at fault for adhering to the constitution than for dismissing it.

  5. Jamelle says:

    More or less that’s what I’m saying. And I do also think that it’s most extreme, Liberalism (not simply “liberalism” and “conservatism” with regards to American politics) is also unrealistic, utopic and dangerous.

    Ron Paul is for all intents and purposes a libertarian.

  6. Miranda says:

    You know, it’s not the far left that has a problem with Ron Paul it’s the centrists. The Far left and the Far right and the libertarians have 2 issues that take priority: Imperialism abroad and Fascism at home. Stop the killings, the wars, the occupations, the renditions and torture, restore the rule of law. None of the other issues matter as much as these. If kucinich or Gravel or anyone else on the left had a shot i’d support them, but they don’t and Paul does. Not much of a shot, but a better one than Gravel or Kucinich. but the centrists are not too concerned with these issues, they’d rather play the left-right blue state red state game. They’d rather discuss gay marriage and social security and education and they don’t understand why the rest of us have our priorities so different than theirs. I don’t care what Paul’s plans for Social Security or New Orleans are, i care about stopping the killing and restoring the republic before things get worse than they already have and Guiliana and Clinton are not going to change the Status Q, Ron Paul will. He gets my money and given the opportunity, my vote.

    And that’s speaking as one of the regular taxpaying citizens, not a political junkie, the same people giving Ron Paul 4.2million in 24 hours, because we have no one else. the same reason that we flood the blogs, because things have to change abnd you have to shake the political numbness off the rest to get your voice not only heard but reckoned with. It is a revolution and Paul is just the lucky one who’s hit the right notes. and it’s spreading to the general public, around the centrists.

  7. hammhawk says:

    Yeah, no way these guys could be wrong:

    I know you can’t control who supports you, but still….

    I disagree that those statements have been debunked. I understand that they were a while back, and that they were in a newsletter he didn’t necessarily directly write, but I don’t see much evidence that they go strongly against his true self.

    Yes, the war is a bigger issue right now than Paul’s history of modern racism, but you also have to consider the degree to which he could get the job done, even as president. I’ll give you that he’s better than Bush (by a longshot), but he’s not better than Obama.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: