Tags

, , ,

Regardless of personal political beliefs, who would make a more peaceful president, Paul or Obama?  If Paul, can progressives vote for him?  If not, third party?  Should political goals carry so much weight, or should a candidate’s proposed means in context of political realities be more important?

Okay, I’ve been avoiding it, but here is my first 2012 election-related post.  Why not start with Ron Paul, the candidate who incites the most intense emotions on the internet.  There are those who completely dismiss him, and there are those who scour the internet in order to do their patriotic duty to vociferously defend him against every attack in maudlin displays of martyrdom.

(And am I the only one annoyed that they all make a big deal to call him DOCTOR Paul, like he’s the first white asshole to make it to congress with a medical degree?  Plus it only reminds everyone he’s a creepy Bible-thumping male Ob-Gyn!)

I think his policies and philosophy mostly suck and would not vote for him given the chance, but he is one of the few national candidates with a coherent and consistent philosophy toward governing.  He is also the only candidate in 2012 from either major party who seriously challenges our violent and illegal neocon foreign policies.

And foreign policy is no small matter when considering a president.  In this era of wild executive power to declare war without declaring it, indefinitely detain, carry out secret assassinations, and so on, the field of candidates that people who take legal issues seriously should consider are those candidates who decry such moral and legal outrages.  And when that particular field of candidates with either an R or D next to their names equals Paul, he should be given a thorough consideration.  I will not devote an inch of this blog to any other Republican candidate until there is a nominee, because none of them are serious on any issue, not least of which foreign policy.

Much has been made by anti-Paul progressives that Paul’s views on foreign policy only seem good because he is an isolationist who would attempt to extricate America from all international bodies like the UN.  While this is true, is that really worse than continued endless war, drone attacks, hundreds of global bases and Guantanamo Bay?

I think the most important thing about the Paul candidacy, is that it should force progressives to ask themselves if Paul, a right winger who would be a difficult person to vote for, would be a more peaceful president than Obama, a liberal?

~~~~~

Paul’s 2012 Platform

Based on foreign policy alone, I could consider voting for Paul in 2012, which is more than I can say for Obama.  But the president has to sign legislation too, so let’s look the platform he has posted on his website:

-Abortion:  Repeal of Roe v. Wade

-Healthcare:  Repeal ‘Obamacare’ because people should have the freedom not to have insurance.  Under this plan, the taxpayer should not have to pay for uninsured going to the emergency room… ie, if you choose not to have insurance, doctors are supposed to deny treatment in emergencies.

-Economy:  He completely rejects Keynesian economics and would veto any unbalanced budget, presumably even during times of recession and depression.

He wants to audit the Federal Reserve which is absolutely needed, and again, he is the only candidate with an R or D who proposes this.  Problem is, he has also predetermined to end the Fed because it creates money out of thin air to cover debt.  The reason we want this as regular citizens is because it is the only thing keeping our country out of severe austerity measures, like the ones in Ireland and Greece right now.

Ending fuel taxes and opening the flood gates on offshore oil drilling.

-Taxes:  He wants to eliminate income, ‘death,’ and capital gains taxes, which of course would allow him to abolish the IRS.  Apparently these all hamper the freedom of trust fund kids who just want to snort coke and pay nerds to take their tests so they can get into Yale and become frat brothers with future CEOs and politicians who can help them continue their lifestyle into old age.  He also wants to LOWER the corporate tax rate.

-2nd Amendment:  Opposed to assault weapons bans.

-Worker’s rights:  This part of his platform is devoted exclusively to railing against oppressive unions, and says nothing about corporate America’s encroachment on worker’s rights, or the historical significance of collective bargaining rights.

-Homeschooling:  He is a champion for homeschoolers.  OK, fine, I don’t have a problem with that but why all the hostility toward public education?

-Immigration:  This part of his platform is pretty vague, except that he wants to end citizenship by birthright.  Ie, he just can’t stand the idea that brown people are sneaking in and populating his country with brown citizens.

-Energy:  Eliminate all regulations on coal and oil and eliminate the EPA.  Apparently environmentalists are all ‘alarmists’ with hidden agendas.

-Budgetary plans:  He would cut government spending by $1T in his first year during this depression and would abolish the Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Interior and Education cabinets.  He also wants to abolish the TSA and privatize the FAA.  He hopes to cut down the federal workforce and sell off federal land and assets to private interests.

The Energy department funds scientific research into energy and oversees and safety and disposal in nuclear energy… gone.

The HUD helps protect minorities from unequal treatment in renting and owning shelter.  It helps people with AIDS, Native Americans, those with major medical problems, and the elderly find housing…. gone.

The Commerce department has a lot under it, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which does A LOT of science research and data collecting… gone.  (Obama has himself proposed closing this department).

Department of the Interior includes the National Parks Service, Bureaus of Indian Affairs, Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Geological Survey… gone.

Department of Education is the smallest cabinet, and only has 5,000 employees who basically administer money, collect data on schools nationwide, and try to ensure schools follow anti-discrimination policies in public schools… gone.

Maybe some of these cabinets do need to be closed, consolidated or made more efficient.  But what are the plans for the above services?  I don’t think he has any, and he certainly does not want to help any of the employees of these cabinets to find other work.

~~~~~~

Extra Baggage

As you can tell, there are plenty of reasons not to vote for Paul based on his own website. There are a few other reasons too:

+Laissez faire economics:  Paul is an open and fervent believer in the Austrian school of economics.  This is an outside the mainstream school that starts with a good premise — that economic statistics and mathematics are often misleading and do not properly show the human experience with an economy.  However, they conclude that the real problem is central banking, taxing and regulation.  These are some of the most radical laissez faire ideologues in the world.  In fact, one of the main thinkers of the movement, Eugen von Boehm-Bawerk, argued that capitalists do their employees favors by paying them wages for their work.  This philosophy toward economics may not be mainstream because it rejects central banking and crony capitalism, but its realization would mean the complete destruction of any worker rights.

+Race:  Much has been speculated over the years about the outrageously racist newsletters published out of Paul’s congressional office in the ’80s and ’90s.  I think it’s clear that Paul probably did not write the worst of it, but the idea he had no idea what was being printed on a newsletter with his name on it is impossible to believe.

More importantly, he has stated over and again his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  According to Paul, the “forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.”  It’s not hard to imagine why integration increased racial tensions.  It’s called white racists not wanting people of color anywhere near them.  This opposition to integration on the grounds of liberty is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt at protecting racists’ desire to have their own schools, their own restaurants, and their own polling booths.

+Christian Reconstructionism:  Paul is an old ally of the John Birch Society, an organization that has been inciting Christian paranoia for decades against the UN, civil rights, and ‘communist’ liberals.  (One of the founders was Fred Koch, father to the beloved Koch brothers).  More than an ally to the JBS, Paul is a fringe Covenant Reconstructionist Christian who believes Christians are the Chosen People, and in abolishing government apparatuses so that we can all return to Old Testament style patriarchy and tribalism.  This may seem like I pulled that one out of a hat, but it has been well documented.  Take this quote from Michelle Goldberg:

Ron Paul has long been a favorite politician of Christian Reconstructionists. North was a Paul staffer during the Texas congressman’s first term and has called him the “mahatma of self-government.” As Adele Stan reported on Alternet, in 2008, Howard Phillips, a Christian Reconstructionist who founded the Constitution Party, was the keynote speaker at the rally Paul convened in the shadow of the Republican convention. (That year, Paul endorsed the Constitution Party candidate for president over John McCain.) “The people who I know who are big Ron Paul guys are old school Reconstructionists,” says Paul supporter Brian D. Nolder, the pastor of Christ the Redeemer Church in Pella, Iowa.

Further, here is a mash-up of Paul’s answers at a Thanksgiving Republican presidential forum:

From 13:50-16:25, Paul answers a question about gay marriage, and his belief that social issues should be decided locally:  “We need the family to deal with it, and we can take our message and learn something from the Old Testament with such a strong emphasis on the patriarchal society.”

This is the biggest problem with Paul, in my view, that he thinks all our woes can be alleviated and solved by a return to a violent, misogynist, tribal, and hopeless society thousands of years in the past.  How could any progressive vote for a candidate with this mindset?

~~~~~

And Yet….

I can’t help but wonder if we all approach voting for president from the completely wrong direction.  Are all the above problems really all that important?  Candidates almost exclusively discuss their political ends and goals, but these never come to fruition once in office.  I truly believe Obama is a lefty progressive deep down in his heart, but his policies are approximately as bad as Bush’s.  Should we be focused more on the means?  Ie, Paul may have crazy views, but he is not bought and paid for by Wall Street or military contractors, and he believes in limited Federal power, meaning he would presumably not attempt to push through his more reactionary agendas as a Federal office holder.

Further, is the dissection of Paul’s views on economic and social issues a completely privileged and elitist exercise in such draconian times?  I feel no terror of being rounded up and interrogated, detained, deported or tortured like so many Muslims, Latinos and other minorities do here and around the world, because of Presidents Bush and Obama.  What does Paul’s theological leanings matter to them?

After all, Paul would need Congressional support to achieve his social and economic platform, a platform not very popular in Washington.  But as president, he could make great strides toward returning habeas corpus, ending the war on terror, and shuttering military bases and gulags all around the world. 

Ultimately, all this hand wringing over a vote is unnecessary.  Even if Paul wins the Republican nomination by votes, the GOP convention will not nominate him.  We will have an elitist establishment Republican running against an elitist establishment President Obama.  Our democracy (read:  plutocracy) is so tightly controlled that there is little reason to lose sleep over a vote.  Out of principle, this progressive will still exercise his voting right come November, but it will be for someone I feel represents me, and that won’t be Obama or Paul.