Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 6 (6 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats   28 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 5   Valuable 2   Well Said 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 1/1/12

Become a Fan
  (110 fans)


As I've written about before, America's election season degrades mainstream political discourse even beyond its usual lowly state. The worst attributes of our political culture -- obsession with trivialities, the dominance of horse-race "reporting," and mindless partisan loyalties -- become more pronounced than ever. Meanwhile, the actually consequential acts of the U.S. Government and the permanent power factions that control it -- covert endless wars, consolidation of unchecked power, the rapid growth of the Surveillance State and the secrecy regime, massive inequalities in the legal system, continuous transfers of wealth from the disappearing middle class to large corporate conglomerates -- drone on with even less attention paid than usual.

Because most of those policies are fully bipartisan in nature, the election season -- in which only issues that bestow partisan advantage receive attention -- places them even further outside the realm of mainstream debate and scrutiny. For that reason, America's elections ironically serve to obsfuscate political reality even more than it usually is.

This would all be bad enough if "election season" were confined to a few months the way it is in most civilized countries. But in America, the fixation on presidential elections takes hold at least 18 months before the actual election occurs, which means that more than 1/3 of a President's term is conducted in the midst of (and is obscured by) the petty circus distractions of The Campaign. Thus, an unauthorized, potentially devastating covert war -- both hot and cold -- against Iran can be waged with virtually no debate, just as government control over the Internet can be inexorably advanced, because TV political shows are busy chattering away about Michele Bachmann's latest gaffe and minute changes in Rick Perry's polling numbers.

Then there's the full-scale sacrifice of intellectual honesty and political independence at the altar of tongue-wagging partisan loyalty. The very same people who in 2004 wildly cheered John Kerry -- husband of the billionaire heiress-widow Teresa Heinz Kerry -- spent all of 2008 mocking John McCain's wealthy life courtesy of his millionaire heiress wife and will spend 2012 depicting Mitt Romney's wealth as proof of his insularity; conversely, the same people who relentlessly mocked Kerry in 2004 as a kept girly-man and gigolo for living off his wife's wealth spent 2008 venerating McCain as the Paragon of Manly Honor.

That combat experience is an important presidential trait was insisted upon in 2004 by the very same people who vehemently denied it in 2008, and vice-versa. Long-time associations with controversial figures and inflammatory statements from decades ago either matter or they don't depending on whom it hurts, etc. etc. During election season, even the pretense of consistency is proudly dispensed with; listening to these empty electioneering screeching matches for any period of time can generate the desire to jump off the nearest bridge to escape it.

Then there's the inability and/or refusal to recognize that a political discussion might exist independent of the Red v. Blue Cage Match. Thus, any critique of the President's exercise of vast power (an adversarial check on which our political system depends) immediately prompts bafflement (I don't understand the point: would Rick Perry be any better?) or grievance (you're helping Mitt Romney by talking about this!!). The premise takes hold for a full 18 months -- increasing each day in intensity until Election Day -- that every discussion of the President's actions must be driven solely by one's preference for election outcomes (if you support the President's re-election, then why criticize him?).

Worse still is the embrace of George W. Bush's with-us-or-against-us mentality as the prism through which all political discussions are filtered. It's literally impossible to discuss any of the candidates' positions without having the simple-minded -- who see all political issues exclusively as a Manichean struggle between the Big Bad Democrats and Good Kind Republicans or vice-versa -- misapprehend "I agree with Candidate X's position on Y" as "I support Candidate X for President" or  "I disagree with Candidate X's position on Y" as "I oppose Candidate X for President." Even worse are the lying partisan enforcers who, like the Inquisitor Generals searching for any inkling of heresy, purposely distort any discrete praise for the Enemy as a general endorsement.

So potent is this poison that no inoculation against it exists. No matter how expressly you repudiate the distortions in advance, they will freely flow. Hence: I'm about to discuss the candidacies of Barack Obama and Ron Paul, and no matter how many times I say that I am not "endorsing" or expressing support for anyone's candidacy, the simple-minded Manicheans and the lying partisan enforcers will claim the opposite. But since it's always inadvisable to refrain from expressing ideas in deference to the confusion and deceit of the lowest elements, I'm going to proceed to make a couple of important points about both candidacies even knowing in advance how wildly they will be distorted.

* * * * *

The Ron Paul candidacy, for so many reasons, spawns pervasive political confusion -- both unintended and deliberate. Yesterday, The Nation"s long-time liberal publisher, Katrina vanden Heuvel, wrote this on Twitter:

That's fairly remarkable: here's the Publisher of The Nation praising Ron Paul not on ancillary political topics but central ones ("ending preemptive wars & challenging bipartisan elite consensus" on foreign policy), and going even further and expressing general happiness that he's in the presidential race. Despite this observation, Katrina vanden Heuvel -- needless to say -- does not support and will never vote for Ron Paul (indeed, in subsequent tweets, she condemned his newsletters as "despicable"). But the point that she's making is important, if not too subtle for the with-us-or-against-us ethos that dominates the protracted presidential campaign: even though I don't support him for President, Ron Paul is the only major candidate from either party advocating crucial views on vital issues that need to be heard, and so his candidacy generates important benefits.

Whatever else one wants to say, it is indisputably true that Ron Paul is the only political figure with any sort of a national platform -- certainly the only major presidential candidate in either party -- who advocates policy views on issues that liberals and progressives have long flamboyantly claimed are both compelling and crucial. The converse is equally true: the candidate supported by liberals and progressives and for whom most will vote -- Barack Obama -- advocates views on these issues (indeed, has taken action on these issues) that liberals and progressives have long claimed to find repellent, even evil.

Read the entire article at Salon.

 

For the past 10 years, I was a litigator in NYC specializing in First Amendment challenges, civil rights cases, and corporate and securities fraud matters. I am the author of the New York Times Best-Selling book, How Would A Patriot (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

HSBC, too big to jail, is the new poster child for US two-tiered justice system

US investigates possible WikiLeaks leaker for "communicating with the enemy"

Prosecution of Anonymous activists highlights war for Internet control

The myth of Obama's "blunders" and "weakness"

Are All Telephone Calls Recorded And Accessible To The US Government?

The Remarkable, Unfathomable Ignorance of Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
17 people are discussing this page, with 28 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

The essay says valuable things.    ... by Don Smith on Sunday, Jan 1, 2012 at 7:45:17 PM
I don't know how much thought you've given to your... by sommers on Sunday, Jan 1, 2012 at 9:43:19 PM
So he'd prefer to penalize a corporation for killi... by Jeff Poster on Monday, Jan 2, 2012 at 10:40:30 PM
... which of the things Ron Paul supports do you t... by PCM on Monday, Jan 2, 2012 at 3:26:27 AM
Paul is a lying "politician",  just like all ... by Lester Shepherd on Monday, Jan 2, 2012 at 9:32:24 AM
Your president just signed an illegal order that s... by Robert Tracey on Monday, Jan 2, 2012 at 9:54:10 AM
Tell them Robert.... by Michael Dewey on Monday, Jan 2, 2012 at 3:05:49 PM
Pleeeeez! Beam me up with you. I can't take it any... by Janet Gaudiello on Monday, Jan 2, 2012 at 6:11:54 PM
I'm like you, Janet.  After being a lifelong ... by j dial on Monday, Jan 2, 2012 at 8:57:28 PM
There is no way out, so y'all need to vote for Oba... by Jeff Poster on Monday, Jan 2, 2012 at 10:48:14 PM
why would a safety net not be necessary if governm... by Jeff Poster on Monday, Jan 2, 2012 at 10:44:07 PM
Don, if as you say, "In 2012, I may vote for Obama... by Alan MacDonald on Monday, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:12:18 AM
I too am very critical of Obama's sellouts.  ... by Don Smith on Monday, Jan 2, 2012 at 12:21:49 PM
They are just as bad and Obombya is the worst. Yet... by Vaikunthanath Kaviraj on Monday, Jan 2, 2012 at 2:39:45 PM
Don said: "As bad as Obama is..." And you equate t... by Jeff Poster on Monday, Jan 2, 2012 at 10:52:44 PM
A vote for evil is an evil vote.  Your vote w... by Richard Pietrasz on Monday, Jan 2, 2012 at 1:30:11 PM
How do you know for sure that his vote won't swing... by Jeff Poster on Monday, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:02:01 PM
I did not say voting did not make a difference, ju... by Richard Pietrasz on Tuesday, Jan 3, 2012 at 2:15:16 PM
Greenwald puts this very well.  When it comes... by Paul Craig Roberts on Monday, Jan 2, 2012 at 7:52:47 AM
There isn't a politician alive that hasn't been a ... by Lester Shepherd on Tuesday, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:11:23 AM
The most important factor in selecting a president... by Alan MacDonald on Monday, Jan 2, 2012 at 10:34:07 AM
One thing is *absolutely* for certain. Ron Paul ha... by Alice Lillie on Monday, Jan 2, 2012 at 1:44:17 PM
Why do you suppose Paul hasn't said at any of the ... by Jeff Poster on Monday, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:06:17 PM
I wish Paul all the best in capturing the Republic... by June Genis on Monday, Jan 2, 2012 at 5:05:07 PM
Can you please tell me what Libertarians believe t... by Jeff Poster on Monday, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:08:28 PM
Libertarianism, I hope it is correct to say, is no... by Diane V. McLoughlin on Tuesday, Jan 3, 2012 at 2:26:37 AM
Huffington Post is a co-opted rag.  As usual,... by Lester Shepherd on Tuesday, Jan 3, 2012 at 6:15:00 AM
Ironically, those who, like Paul, consider themsel... by Jim Arnold on Tuesday, Jan 3, 2012 at 8:37:31 AM