Why Ron Paul's candidacy is good for America

[^_^ 5,021]

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 horserace “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.

...

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.

As Matt Stoller argued in a genuinely brilliant essay on the history of progressivism and the Democratic Party which I cannot recommend highly enough: “the anger [Paul] inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview.” Ron Paul’s candidacy is a mirror held up in front of the face of America’s Democratic Party and its progressive wing, and the image that is reflected is an ugly one; more to the point, it’s one they do not want to see because it so violently conflicts with their desired self-perception.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/?source=newsletter

[Obama 2012 1,714]

As Matt Stoller argued in a genuinely brilliant essay on the history of progressivism and the Democratic Party which I cannot recommend highly enough: “the anger [Paul] inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview.” Ron Paul’s candidacy is a mirror held up in front of the face of America’s Democratic Party and its progressive wing, and the image that is reflected is an ugly one; more to the point, it’s one they do not want to see because it so violently conflicts with their desired self-perception.

http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/?source=newsletter

the left-wing is flipping out over the idea that Ron Paul would be the candidate.... They've been attacking him relentlessly for the past couple of months. It's almost shocking how much the far-left has been attacking a guy who has a slim chance at best of being the nominee.

Ron Paul is the one candidate that should be able to attract plenty of people on the "left" but for some reason they're scared, very scared and it shows...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

the left-wing is flipping out over the idea that Ron Paul would be the candidate.... They've been attacking him relentlessly for the past couple of months. It's almost shocking how much the far-left has been attacking a guy who has a slim chance at best of being the nominee.

Ron Paul is the one candidate that should be able to attract plenty of people on the "left" but for some reason they're scared, very scared and it shows...

Understand that there is only one reason why Ron Pul will not be heading the Republican ticket this fall: Republicans will not select him. The left can kick, scream, yell, whatever and it would have nil impact on Ron Paul's race to become the republican nominee. Nil. The "left wing" doesn't vote in the GOP caucuses and primaries. Republicans make the choices all by themselves. So, who's to blame for Ron paul failing to secure the Republican nomination? Right, the "left wing". Get a clue, Paul.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Understand that there is only one reason why Ron Pul will not be heading the Republican ticket this fall: Republicans will not select him. The left can kick, scream, yell, whatever and it would have nil impact on Ron Paul's race to become the republican nominee. Nil. The "left wing" doesn't vote in the GOP caucuses and primaries. Republicans make the choices all by themselves. So, who's to blame for Ron paul failing to secure the Republican nomination? Right, the "left wing". Get a clue, Paul.

You tell me to 'get a clue' over me pointing out how that the left doesn't like him and the idea scares him? Perhaps you need to re-read what I said. I never said who does/does not choose anything.

On top of that you are PARTIALLY right. Many states have open primaries and many political groups have been known to purposefully try and sabotage the primary process to get whomever they want as the winner.

At the end of the day, the choice comes down to whomever the committee wants at the Republican National Convention, but in many cases the left has just as much of a voice as the right in open primary states.

[slim 1,514]

RP, FTW!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You tell me to 'get a clue' over me pointing out how that the left doesn't like him and the idea scares him? Perhaps you need to re-read what I said. I never said who does/does not choose anything.

On top of that you are PARTIALLY right. Many states have open primaries and many political groups have been known to purposefully try and sabotage the primary process to get whomever they want as the winner.

At the end of the day, the choice comes down to whomever the committee wants at the Republican National Convention, but in many cases the left has just as much of a voice as the right in open primary states.

Paul, face it. The Republican candidate will be elected by Republicans. The left has no impact on this race. By the time the open primaries come around (there are only about 15 of them), the GOP nominee will have been selected. It's going to be all over by then. And it will have been Republicans, not some lefties, that have done Ron Paul in. These are the facts.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Paul, face it. The Republican candidate will be elected by Republicans. The left has no impact on this race. By the time the open primaries come around (there are only about 15 of them), the GOP nominee will have been selected. It's going to be all over by then. And it will have been Republicans, not some lefties, that have done Ron Paul in. These are the facts.

your "facts" are a bit skewed, but I suppose that is the norm.

If they didn't have an influence, the left-wing media/blogosphere wouldn't be all up in arms on the possibility of Ron Paul being the nominee. On top of that, despite what you may think, people do ( and both parties are guilty of this ) quite often switch party affiliations to have a voice in the political primaries in states that are seperated by "party." It happens a lot more often than you'd think, because at the end of th day people who care about the political process want to have a voice if there's a chance of the other party winning the big race in November.

At the end of the day, Republicans choose their nominee at the RNC, but that doesn't mean the left can't/won't have a big influence on who the nominee is.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

your "facts" are a bit skewed, but I suppose that is the norm.

If they didn't have an influence, the left-wing media/blogosphere wouldn't be all up in arms on the possibility of Ron Paul being the nominee. On top of that, despite what you may think, people do ( and both parties are guilty of this ) quite often switch party affiliations to have a voice in the political primaries in states that are seperated by "party." It happens a lot more often than you'd think, because at the end of th day people who care about the political process want to have a voice if there's a chance of the other party winning the big race in November.

At the end of the day, Republicans choose their nominee at the RNC, but that doesn't mean the left can't/won't have a big influence on who the nominee is.

I won't dispute that there may be some people that cross over to try and influence the outcome of the other party's primaries supporting the candidate they perceive as more unelectable. Sure, that happens. But I do not believe that this has actually ever had big enough an influence on the selection process of either party. If it did, when was that? Which nominee was ever elected due to cross-over votes in the primary stage? Name one and back it up.

I don't know what left wing media is all up in arms about the prospect of Ron Paul possibly becoming the Republican nominee. If there are any, then they ought to go and have a quick reality check. Ron Paul is not going to head the Republican ticket. Republicans are not gonna let that happen. Republicans are also not going to let the left decide who their nominee will be. If they did, their nominee would be Michele Bachmann or Herman Cain or Rick Santorum. If the left had that kind of influence on the GOP nominating process, the weakest GOP candidate would become the nominee.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It's fun watching Katrina whine, but you have to turn the sound off.

[Darnell 8,478]

Ron Paul FTW !

[dalegg 143]

I can kind of see why the left would be scared of Ron Paul.

The other day I had an impromptu political discussion with my daughter who, like many 19 year olds will be old enough to vote in the next election, but is totally clueless on the candidates and most of the issues. The only thing she has even heard is from a couple of her friends she should support Ron Paul (even though she doesn't know exactly why). The next day while I was walking my dogs, I passed by a kid who was probably 18 or 19 riding his bike on the sidewalk that I was trying to walk on and as he passed me by he said to me "Vote Ron Paul, 2012".

So it seems that Ron Paul is favoring pretty well with the younger crowd. This same age group went heavily for Obama last time and arguably put him in the white house. It wouldn't be good for him to lose this group. I feel confident that the same group of kids would never vote for a Romney, Gingrich, and definitely not a Perry or Santorum. Ron Paul is definitely not going to make it past the primaries anyway so the point is mute, but I agree that if it did happen it would be a hard thing for Obama to deal with. You have to remember that for 90% of traditional Republican voters they are more excited to unseat President Obama than they are about electing their favorite Republican candidate so those who don't like Ron Paul would still vote for him along with these new younger voters.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I can kind of see why the left would be scared of Ron Paul.

The other day I had an impromptu political discussion with my daughter who, like many 19 year olds will be old enough to vote in the next election, but is totally clueless on the candidates and most of the issues. The only thing she has even heard is from a couple of her friends she should support Ron Paul (even though she doesn't know exactly why). The next day while I was walking my dogs, I passed by a kid who was probably 18 or 19 riding his bike on the sidewalk that I was trying to walk on and as he passed me by he said to me "Vote Ron Paul, 2012".

So it seems that Ron Paul is favoring pretty well with the younger crowd. This same age group went heavily for Obama last time and arguably put him in the white house. It wouldn't be good for him to lose this group. I feel confident that the same group of kids would never vote for a Romney, Gingrich, and definitely not a Perry or Santorum. Ron Paul is definitely not going to make it past the primaries anyway so the point is mute, but I agree that if it did happen it would be a hard thing for Obama to deal with. You have to remember that for 90% of traditional Republican voters they are more excited to unseat President Obama than they are about electing their favorite Republican candidate so those who don't like Ron Paul would still vote for him along with these new younger voters.

So, Ron Paul is exciting to the uniformed is what you're saying? What does that say about Ron Paul?

[dalegg 143]

So, Ron Paul is exciting to the uniformed is what you're saying? What does that say about Ron Paul?

Yes, but so was the current President.

[Emmysaur 29]

My fiance will surely vote for RP!

[slim 1,514]

So it seems that Ron Paul is favoring pretty well with the younger crowd. This same age group went heavily for Obama last time and arguably put him in the white house.

Ron Paul is the only candidate (including Obama) who is campaigning on Hope and Change.