A Ron Paul that even a Green could love
The year is 2004 and the United States had just lived through four of the toughest political years it had experienced in a long time. Candidates from all stripes were lining up for the electoral rematch- an opportunity to restore democracy after 9/11 convinced George W. Bush that liberty was no longer on the table, and that safety and control of the population, in the name of stopping the latest scapegoat, "terrorists," would be the law of the land.
Myself, a stalwart Green coming into my own political skin, two years in the making. David Cobb was my man and I was behind him, proud to vote in the first Green primary in Massachusetts. But something else happened that year, a seed was planted that wouldn't begin to grow until now, the Ron Paul seed. Ridiculous- how could another Republican from Texas be such the polar opposite of the regime that had stolen the 2000 election and installed itself into Washington? And how could he do that to a progressive campaigning for a virtually unknown candidate in what most people still consider a fringe party? The answer: organic farming.
Well, not organic farming per se, but the 2004 Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA) Summer Conference debate on "Wise Governance," and what I now realize was a clash of political titans, legends even: Congressman Ron Paul vs. Ralph Nader. The thing is, it was hardly a click, never-mind a clash. Indeed, the two men agreed more than argued.
But let me back up.
Every year up to that point, I had attended the conference with my mother and my sister, as I was raised from the age of 11 in the organic food movement that supermarket consumers take for granted today. One year, I even participated in the annual debate, arguing that we should not kill our TVs. (Of course, I'm no friend of the consolidated corporate media, but as a videographer and producer, this would put me out of business!) But this year was different, it was an election year, and Nader had rejected a Green ticket bid to go it independently, and Paul was still "Dr. No" in Congress, known for his many "nay" votes on federal spending based on his fundamental interpretation of the Constitution. He votes like libertarian and he has even described himself as one. He has even ran for President as a "big-L" Libertarian. Paul is also a medical doctor, an OB/GYN. This was the first I had heard of him, so what happened?
Nader and Paul started with their opening statements and as they proceeded down the line into the debate, talking about economics, social policy, and the role of government, something amazing happened- "Rebuttals" turned into accords and the debate turned into a genuine discussion about the heart and soul of the country- free from sound bytes, free from propaganda, and free from partisan hostility. Of course there were instances where Nader and Paul disagreed- namely on the role of government in providing services and whatnot, but a libertarian is a principled person, and wouldn't be a good libertarian by supporting such services. But the crowd went wild. The common ground of anti-corporatism, social libertarianism, foreign non-interventionism, and the restoration of civil liberties.
He was a Republican from Texas even a Green could love.
The audience members left the "debate" feeling good about politics, feeling good that there were still people in politics that actually cared about how we run our government and how it is fundamentally supposed to work.
Jump up to 2007, Paul is back and running for President. And he's gaining in support, and a buzz has begun to build. Ron Paul is attracting libertarians, Jeffersonian republicans, anti-war activists, and even progressives. But what does this "moderate" Green like so much about Ron Paul?
He's bold, he's principled, he's consistent, and he's probably the closest thing to an honest man in Washington.
He's also far from a perfect person, and his newsletter has printed some ignorant and inflammatory things in the past, especially concerning Black people. Since then he has distanced himself from those comments and claimed that they were not his words, and was not directly involved in the publishing process. But he has taken responsibility for them, the newsletter bearing his name. He has even published other articles about his own anti-racist views on his web site, and as anyone who knows principled libertarians, discrimination and prejudice are two concepts that are out of the question in government. He touts "individual liberty," and that means for everyone, regardless of race. He's also far from being a progressive, and I'll explain soon why I'm okay with that, but apparently he's also a threat.
Progressive Democrats are now attacking him because they're seeing support dwindle from Kucinich and the new Kucinich, former Alaska Senator, Mike Gravel, presumably because both members are from a party that has failed to stand up to Bush in the past weeks after being put back in control of Congress. Neo-conservatives of GOP and Democratic stripes are attempting to marginalize him as "soft on terrorism" and pandering to the demands of our "enemies." Indeed, a now famous confrontation between Paul and former New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani has inundated YouTube with dozens of mash-ups. The moment, captured at the New Hampshire Fox News Channel-sponsored debate, happened when Paul dared to talk about the reasons why people were willing to hijack jets and fly them into buildings. He cited the 9/11 Commission Report, which outlines the motivations of the attackers as responding to decades of US foreign intervention in the Middle East, and support for what is perceived as a European-fueled colonialist land and resource grab (Israel.) For anti-Zionists, Ron Paul is their best friend.
Giuliani, justifiably more intimate with the experience, but ignorant and a neo-con broken record to the end, suggested in a post-debate interview that the reasons 9/11 happened was due to the fictitious clash of civilizations, or more aptly put, "...they hate our freedom..." It seems Giuliani is content with talking to Americans as though they were 2nd graders, instead of informed, intelligent citizens in a supposedly participatory democracy.
Greens on GreenCommons.org have even joined the Paul-bashing bandwagon, as he is threatening to the GP since many Greens like myself have put their support behind him. Some have even suggested that Greens draft Paul, but this idea is ridiculous to me since Paul isn't a Green.
I have seen some brand him an "isolationist," but he isn't. He is a non-interventionist- and there's a difference. He believes that the foreign affairs of other countries are just that, their own affairs, and the US has no business intervening or meddling in said affairs. And as a strong proponent of free trade, he can hardly be called an isolationist. Although I'm sure the free trade aspect is unpalatable to most Greens, until maybe they realize that free trade to Paul means just that, free trade, and not government supported and internationally harmful programs like NAFTA and the WTO, both of which Paul is opposed to.
ALL of this being said, do I agree 100% with Ron Paul's platform? Well I wouldn't be a very good Green if I did, so no. So why am I able to support someone outside the GP? Why do I think he'd make a pretty good president?
Electing Ron Paul for even one term would be a pragmatic decision for America to get back in touch with the roots of the foundation of the Republic- the Constitution. Paul is against most Federal Government programs and Greens should agree with him. Greens support decentralization and empowerment at the local level, not government bureaucracy and federal consolidation of power. When the Federal Government does even one thing that is not authorized by the Constitution, even if it is well-intentioned and socially beneficial to the People, it enables a slippery slope for more things that the Federal Government would begin to gobble up, and not all of them would be beneficial to the People, guaranteed. Remember, we are supposedly a unified Republic made up of individual states, and the founders intended the Federal Government to have a limited role in that unification- a national defense being the most obvious, but as much as it pains you all, you all must admit that universal healthcare was not something originally intended for the scope of the Federal Government. Things like that and the rest of the responsibility for the welfare of the people was originally given to the power of the states. Over the years, the Federal Government has superseded and even undermined the states. Many things that Greens propose should technically necessitate a constitutional amendment, federal healthcare included.
The role of Greens must be to continue to work to be the progressive voice on a state and local level, and not be distracted by this presidential contest. For the local and state level is where Greens truly shine, and through our activities we will connect with the People, and we will earn the credibility and respect that we will need as global conditions become more desperate- we can't pretend that we are something nationally anymore, the only time that happened was when Nader was with us, and now its time for us to crawl back up on our own. Ron Paul, as president, would respect the affairs of the states, just as he would not interfere with the affairs of foreign states, and just as the Constitution intended.
Technorati Tags: 
new guidelines for our delegates to the national nominating convention that mitigate against us voting for anyone who was running in another party's nomination race. This would effectively pretty much eliminate any chance either Ron Paul OR Mike Gravel would have of getting the GP-US nomination, given that we have such a large delegate set. Just thought you'd want to know...
Technorati Profile
Ron Paul basher. I think he has a LOT of good points. But he isn't a Green and in the end only a Green will get the GP-US nomination.
Technorati Profile
I have written and blogged on the question of Libertarianism before.
See my Post: Ron Paul - "Libertarian" on California Greening)
Yes, it is fun to watch Ron Paul tweak the beards of those Republican blowhards. Yes, it clearly is a philosophy that has an appeal to a certain class of educated people. Yes, libertarians share some Green values and have even worked together, e.g., challenging the stealing of the 2004 election in Ohio.
Unfortunately, the Libertarians never seem to be as outraged about the power of government being used to oppress the poor and the powerless as they are about the power of government being used to help them. The Libertarian vision of "the good society" is quite limited and I do not think this is the direction the world needs to go in right now.
You've not been to many LP gatherings, have you? Heard of Michael Badnarik?
On many issues, Ron Paul is to the far right of the right-wing. You're talking about a man who would make George Bush look like Humanitarian of the Year.
The comments in his newsletter are his, he's said they were his, his spokesman has said they were his, and he didn't deny them until FIVE YEARS LATER while in the midst of a campaign when the opposition exposed them.
"A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime."
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.ht...
I can guarantee you that Jackson has never uttered anything like what has been said in these newsletters, and Paul's his own spokesman does not deny, in fact he confirms that these are his remarks.
"These quotations became an issue during Paul's 1996 campaign for Congress. During the campaign, he declined to distance himself from the statements. But in a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly, he said he had never written or approved those words for his own newsletter. He said he failed to disavow the words during the campaign on the advice of his political advisors."
"They just weren't my words," he tells me. "They got in because I wasn't always there. I didn't have total control. And I would be on vacations and things got in there that shouldn't have been."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/index1.html
Vile and racist comments, like "these terrorists can be identified by the color of their skin" .. and he declines to distance himself from them??? But five years later says that these were not my words .. and you're suggesting that he's what? .. PRINCIPLED?
"In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP,, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." He denied any racist intent."
The operative word here is "his".
"One would think he would want to clear this up by releasing copies of all of his past newsletters, the Ron Paul Survival Report to the media, going back to the newsletter's origin in 1986. He promised to do so, but never did.. When asked why he won't release them, Paul says voters may not understand his "tongue-in-cheek, academic" writings." http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.side.html
Tongue in-cheek academic writings .. but this sounds to you like someone GREENS should be supporting?
Additionally, not only is he the darling of some of the most racist hate groups on the planet, he has PARTCIPATED in events with them.
Do a bit of research on the Political Cesspool where he has been a guest many times. It's the radio program for the White Citizens Council ... you'll find him listed under P, right above Prussian Blue, the white supremacist teenage singing duo. What was that Paul said about "racial identity" .. I guess that's only bad if you're not white.
http://www.thepoliticalcesspool.org/guestlist.php
DISTINGUISHED SPEAKERS DR. RON PAUL, MD AND DR. THOMAS E. WOODS, JR., PHD HIGHLIGHT JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY COUNCIL DINNER
http://web.archive.org/web/20051027041550/http://www.jbs.org/artman/publ...
Of course the Birchers would view him as "distinguished" as he is the ONLY congressperson to get a 100% rating from them.
http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?sig_id=004474M
Paul has a close association with Larry Pratt and Pete Peters, leader of Christian Identity which preaches that Jews are the offspring of Satan and that blacks are a "pre-Adamic" race of subhumans created before Adam and Eve. In his 1990 book, Armed People Victorious, he urged the United States to adopt a system of civil defense patrols like the one imposed on the population of Guatemala by its military bosses. "It is time that the United States return to reliance on an armed people," he wrote. "There is no acceptable alternative." Pratt endorses Paul for President and Paul refuses to distance himself from him.
http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/paul.htm
He has been a guest speaker on fuctions of the Neo-Confederate Movement, which espouses beliefs like, "A major factor in the monopoly by black athletes of our major sports is that many white potential athletes refuse to enter a sport that is dominated by blacks and to live in close personal and intimate contact with blacks that is required on athletic teams."
They are opposed to the Civil Rights Act and any and all civil rights legislation .. just like Paul.
They are opposed to all hate crime legislation .. just like Paul.
They openly advocate a division of the United States of America .. just like Paul. "Why do we need the federal government? There's no Cold War and no Communist threat. Many other nations are breaking into smaller and smaller pieces. The centralization of power in Washington occurred in a different time. Why not think about getting rid of the federal government, returning to the system of our Founders, and breaking up the United States into smaller government units?" .. Ron Paul
"Negroes, Asians and Orientals (is Japan the exception?); Hispanics, Latins, and Eastern Europeans; have no temperament for democracy, never had, and probably never will ..." .. which mirrors a comment by Paul about blacks.
They are supportive of violence against gays and Lesbians.
April 7th to 9th 1995 it held a symposium on "Secession, State, and Economy" in Charleston, South Carolina. One speaker was former member of Congress Ron Paul.
http://web.archive.org/web/20000919191637/http://www.templeofdemocracy.c...
Just last year, Paul invited Chris Simcox, the founder and president of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, to be the events special guest, after Tom Tancredo wouldn't show up..
http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/007808.html#007808
Simcox has a criminal record. He was convicted on a federal weapons charge. He has exhibited so much violent, deranged, and irrational behavior that the courts ended his joint custody arrangement with his ex-wife for his son. His own 14 year-old daughter from his first ex-marriage, who was living with him at the time, ran away to the home og his employer and said that her father had tried to sexually molest her.
He claims he's seen Chinese troops along the Mexican border.
In a speech to the California Coalition on Immigration Reform, a hate group whose leader, Barbara Coe, routinely refers to Mexicans as "savages," Simcox offered a dire warning to his audience.
"Take heed of our weapons because we're going to defend our borders by any means necessary," he said. "There's something very fishy going on at the border. The Mexican army is driving American vehicles -- but carrying Chinese weapons. I have personally seen what I can only believe to be Chinese troops."
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/01/march-of-minutemen_18.html
What sane politician would keep such associations and expect to be the president?
Despite his many years in Congress, Paul doesn't hold a leadership post and doesn't chair a committee or subcommittee.
He is pro-life and thinks a fetus is a human,
espouses Goldwater economics and thinking,
thinks social security, medicaid, and medicare are unconstitutional,
doesn't believe in the minimum wage,
against any and all civil rights legislation,
against any and all federal programs designed to help the poor and disadvantaged,
against nationalized health care,
believes in strict adherence, as intrepreted by him, to the Constitution,
wants to get rid of the Dept. of Education, FEMA, Dept. of Energy, IRS, CIA, EPA, and FDA,
doesn't like environmental restrictions and protection,
doesn't think the government should assist looking for missing children,
thinks foreign aid is harmful,
doesn't like campaign finance reform,
strong advocate of guns, guns and more guns,
supports intelligence gathering without oversight,
doesn't like unions,
doesn't like OSHA requirements,
has an anti-senior voting record according to Alliance for Retired Americans, supports a constitutional amendment for school prayer,
strongly anti-UN,
and doesn't believe our military and influence should be used for humanitarian purposes.
Outside of his antiwar views, there are serious issues of good policy versus his narrow ideology that must be addressed, including on his interpretive view of the Constitution. He has problems with parts of it that doesn't fit his view, like Articles III, VI, and the XVI Amendment. he has re-introduced his bill HR 1146 in every session on congress he's been in, and it, like most of his legislation is nowhere near passage. His Protection of Marriage Act essentially says the Constitution is unconstitutional and seeks to remove Supreme Court oversight of legislation for constitutionality. It would allow lobbyist to write the law of the land.
He stands against the Civil Rights Act, and was the ONLY Member of Congress to vote against House Resolution, H.Res. 676, hailing the 40th anniversary of its passage. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was one of the most successful, bi-partisan, and heralded pieces of legislation in American history." Only Paul stood against it.
The Resolution passed 414-1.
With all the anger and horror about the disasters of Katrina and Rita, he would leave that horror and the lives that hang precariously in the balance to "charity" and eliminate FEMA. Not only was he one of a handful of members to vote against the original Katrina relief package, this is what he thinks aboutthe governmeny helping disaster victims ..
"Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government? Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?" -- Ron Paul
He firmly stands against core Green Party values, and you're suggesting that he deserves our support?
The antiwar movement does not hinge on Ron Paul and he carries FAR too much baggage for any Green, any person of conscience to consider putting him in the White House.
You're repeating the same slanderous and exaggerated lies that the rest of the media is trying to perpetuate. And I can tell you did not fully read or understand my article. I will attempt to be clearer, and I understand the strong emotions that standing against what would normally look like a no-brainer in terms of legislation like the Civil Rights Act, but you're angry for the wrong reasons. Paul is not a racist, and I will labor again to explain why.
Paul is against the over-extending of the Federal Government. Many of the things that you said he was opposed to ARE unconstitutional! I'm sorry- but there is nothing in the US Constitution that says citizens are ENTITLED to free healthcare! You can dream your Green dreams just like me, but without constitutional amendments, these things are technically UNCONSITUTIONAL and not the job of the Federal Government. I note once again, that Paul is not necesarily opposed to these things at the state and local level, which is what the framers envisioned for the welfare of the citizens.
Look- statistics show that most African Americans espouse Democratic Party / Liberal values, which include support for affirmative action, etc. If most (90% lets just say) Blacks are in support of those, its not racist to say that he disagrees with 90% of the Black population or that he believes that the political views of 90% of the Black population are unsound. That's called a difference of opinion based on racial stastics, not racism, and to suggest otherwise is race baiting.
Also, people's opinions of thing change over time. And frankly, yes, he is principled, so his personal opinions of things don't matter, and he's said that time and time again. He would enforce the Constitution, not his own views. That's why people CAN flock to him, because he's the best chance for the restoration of the true purpose of the Federal Government.
And come on, you're telling me that Elaine Brown's association with the Black Panthers ISN'T baggage? Let's see what most of America thinks of that, right or wrong. You're telling me that any Green that supports divestment from Israel ISN'T baggage. Step back, Richard, and take a look at where the GP is - baggage city.
Now, you can go and vote for another cookie cutter Green (convicted and a slave to the GP platform, because Greens can't think for themselves and they turn into fascists when they sense political diversity in the ranks), to run another useless race that nobody will pay attention to- or you can empower your vote, put our eggs in one basket, and vote in the GOP primary for a Republican that isn't business as usual- otherwise, I present to you, President Giuliani. Have fun with that.
I'm banking on the fact that many things that Paul espouses won't happen, he would still have to deal with Congress. Paul has pledged not to yank the rug out from people depending on Federal Gov't services as well, and would make these things his lower priorities, and offer transisitional periods. But he'd be able to put into perspective the level of PERVERSION and EXPANSION of Executive Power that has occured over the past 200 some-odd years.
First of all, just because the constitution doesn't say 'healthcare for all' does NOT mean any such action is unconstitutional. Some might even go so far to say that the clause in the preamble to the constitution, adopted along with it, where one of the core purposes OF the constitution is to 'promote the general Welfare' actually mandates healthcare for all. So sure, I'm all for diversity of opinion ... within the general framework of the ten key values and the Green Platform.
Second, what is your training and experience in racism? The reason I ask is I am concerned when someone, especially someone prominent like a Ron Paul, blames crime and terrorism on the color of the skin and then tries to explain it away as tongue in cheek academia.
Racism is far more than lynching and job denial and housing and voting discrimination. Systemic racism has looted both many individuals and our nation of our true treasure, the benefits of the contributions of all our people.
If you want to go vote in the GOP primary, have at it. And if you contend that GP candidates have baggage, which maybe they do, what stops you from recognizing the baggage of Ron Paul? Instead of defending him, go, support a libertarian leaning republican. But don't try to call it Green values, 'cause it ain't.
Generally what I am trying to do here is illustrate that there are more than one way to approach addressing the social and economic issues in our country. What many who criticize Ron Paul do is try to make him look heartless and apathetic to the problems of others, and the critics usually cite his voting record, and any baggage that he may have associated with him. But anyone who has heard him speak, or really gotten into his work and his own ideas.
Ron Paul is strongly against federal government wielding strong power over what he considers to be state responsibility. He's not just some stone unfeeling person, it's easy to paint our opponents that way, and our leaders do that to our supposed "enemies" and the "evil-ones" all the time. Anyone of any political association can use the same tactic. As President, Ron Paul would have very little to do, be it support or be against it, with what Greens, Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians do on a state level, be it enact universal healthcare or fund and develop standards for education. These things on the federal level, whether you support or oppose them, represent an expansion of executive power, where the executive branch effectively makes laws by proxy and then enforces them, holding localities hostage based on regulations. Social and governmental competition may be a good thing for states, as a marketplace of population represents generally populist (and also Green) values. This is simply a different approach to the same ends of ensuring the general welfare of the people.
I make an arguement to vote for Paul not because I think he's a great Green or that he espouses Green values- I never once said that. He's a terrible Green! I did suggest that Greens should be keen on his decentralization ideas for the Federal Government, since we are naturally better suited, as Greens, to operate on the local and state level. But rather vote for him in the primary, because it won't much matter who the Democrats or even the Greens choose. But it will matter who the GOP chooses, and we can sweep the rug from under their feet by flooding the polls with independents voting for the only anti-war GOP candidate up for nomination.
Also, to clarify, I pointed out that even GP candidates have baggage, not to persuade people from supporting them, but to point out that there will be always have baggage. I understand if people can't stomache Ron Paul due to his campaign aids writing stupid things in his official newsletter, which he has taken responsibility for, but condemned at the same time.
~~~~~~
According to a Texas Monthly article (quoted on a wikipedia talk page, but alas only available by subscription):
When I ask him [Paul] why [the article was not strongly repudiated], he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."
His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.
~~~~~~
As I said in my opening post, not a perfect guy, and something he clearly regrets, and ultimately didn't support.
It's true that nat'l healthcare may be authorized by the constitution, I never said yes or no either way, so its worth a try, but right now in Massachusetts, for example, we have just been forced to buy insurance or face tax penalties- they're calling it "universal healthcare". This is something that needs to be repaired on the state level, immediately. Greens could be a big part of this, instead of being distracted by a national race where a big issue could be safe states vs. all state strategy- we're hardly a big tent party. But since that would be a major discussion, we're disabling ourselves before we even begin. I appreciate fully the will of those who would step forward and put their lives on the line to bring the Green message nationally, including you, Nan. I campaigned and worked for Grace Ross for months, and I know that it would be that x50- it takes an enormous amount of resources that we just don't have.
I have a lot of training in racism, and am fully familiar with the concepts you develop. Institutional racism is prevalent and visible in today's society. Which begs the question, are our current policies working enough to solve these problems? Since Paul and we have discussed it a lot in this thread, I'll just say, affirmative action again. There are many arguments pro and con as to whether this policy is actually working and whether it works. Just about everybody agrees that we need a society where people are admitted based on merit, not on a categorization. Some people think that its working, Paul disagrees, but he also finds racism and prejudice in society to be as vile and distracting as we do. We may be more in touch with the symptoms of racism because we tend to associate with more people of color, which changes our perceptions and the strength of our convictions.
It's all about the approach- liberty is something we all want.
I think the comments about Ron Paul make sense and I look forward to a Green Party primary where the Greens will vote for a candidate to represent us and I do not think it is a good idea to bash suggestions from others. I think we ought to put the names up and see where it goes.
Yes, he is. He's stated he doesn't want to end them, but in principle he's against them. Paul is MUCH more opposed to corporate charity and needless war than anything else. Besides, with the coming entitlement debt (go to www.gao.gov and look it up), we won't even have social programs in a decade or two unless we cut spending drastically. Paul is the only one who seems to care.
Its very arguable whether or not the minimum wage actually helps poorer people. Many economists think it does the opposite, and it is also illegal under the constitution. Ditto for some of the civil rights acts. Remember, just because something is called the "Patriot Act" doesn't mean its patriotic. The minimum wage was lobbied for well-paid union workers who didn't want the lower-paid to take their jobs by accepting lower wages.
Paul's comment about people living on the coast was actually directed at federally subsidized flood insurance. This horrible federal program subsidizes flood insurance, making it cheaper for people to live in flood areas. This means people are therefore more likely to move into those areas, at the expense of the rest of the taxpayers in the country. Remember, in economics prices act as signals, and when the government lowers the price of something, it effects and distorts the market by altering people's decision making. Lowering the price of flood insurance literally causes more people to live in flood-prone areas. Yay. Thats why I much prefer simple charity to subsidization; its more humane and it doesn't have the unseen consequences of subsidization.
Universal health care is unconstitutional and therefore illegal. You can talk about interpreting the constitution different ways all you want, but the people who ratified it (and therefore empowered it as law) never wanted it to be read like that (we have their writings, after all). The constitution was a document which was designed to do one thing: limit the power of the federal government. Its silly to assume that a document designed only to limit power, and one with an amendment clause, would be open to re-interpretation based on the whims of an unelected and undemocratic judge. Every power the federal government usurps from it is inherently denied to the states, via the 10th amendment. I'm a libertarian, but I'm not completely opposed to government charity on more local levels. I am, however, scared that if the feds screw it up, we'll be stuck with it.
He's also the only one talking about our monetary system and cheap credit. At first, I was more than a bit skeptical of this part of his platform. Then I looked at the cheap credit which sparked the housing boom, and how the Fed literally poured money into the housing markets via mortgages and low interest rates. The result, of course, was inflation of the housing market and rich people getting richer. I should know, I'm one of those rich people, and at the time I remarked that it was too easy for rich people to get richer in America. At the time I chalked it up to 1041 exchanges and other tax laws which help out the wealthy, but now I know the root of the problem. Easy credit and easy re-financing literally dump new money into the real estate markets, where the wealthy profit.
As usual, a great political discussion is ruined by dredging up poorly sourced racism from 15+ years ago. It's as if someone mentioned Hymietown every time we talked about Jesse Jackson.
Richard, your chronology is distorted. Ron Paul denied making the comments long after he was elected. He claims that he stood by the comments on the advice of campaign staff and because he felt moral obligation to do so. I know you don't believe this but at least be accurate.
Great article Colby! It's true that Paul isn't very green minded but he's all for ending Federal subsidies to oil companies which would be huge.
Ron Paul is against all those Federal Welfare/Warfare programs because they are UN-Constitutional. You can't have a loose or liberal interpretation of the Constitution because then you really don't have any laws, you just have the whims of the people/politicians.
Also, although I disagree with a lot of the zenophobia regarding the immigration issue, one of the few things that are Federal government is responsible for is protecting our borders. If we want more immigrants let's do it responsibly. I am from Texas and I can tell you that the current state of our borders is absolutely insane and inhumane.
The Federal Government is the worse polluter in the US and is immune from all lawsuits. One of the most important facets of protecting the environment is property rights which is how all libertarians propose we handle the environmental crisis at hand. I am not going to get into it, but it can work as long as we get the Government out of it.
Lastly, Ron Paul supports hemp as a potential bio-fuel.
Great article BTW, I am glad to hear some Greens have their country ahead of their political party. I bet if you asked Nader off the record who he would vote for, he would say Ron Paul.
COLBY (BLOG OWNER) --
GIVEN THAT ANTI-RON PAUL NEOCONS (RON PAUL'S OPPONENTS) THAT VISIT ARE POSTING BLATANTLY SLANDEROUS INFORMATION IN THE COMMENTS SECTION FOR THIS PAGE, I FEEL HAVING THE COMMENTS SECTION OPEN TO ANY REMARK IS TAKING AWAY FROM THE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT MESSAGE THAT YOUR BLOG IS EDUCATING ABOUT.
AT THE VERY LEAST, PLEASE MODERATE WHAT IS POSTED IN THE COMMENTS SECTION. SLANDERING RON PAUL IS HORRIFYING TO SEE, ESPECIALLY SINCE HE'S REALLY THE ONLY 2008 CANDIDATE WORTH VOTING FOR, IF YOU ARE PRO-ENVIRONMENT.
THIS PAGE IS BEING LINKED TO MANY EMAILS,GOING TO MANY PEOPLE. PLEASE DON'T GIVE THESE SLANDEROUS REMARKS ANY MORE EXPOSURE.
THANK YOU.
First, Colby has no ability to moderate comments on this node in the manner Anonymous is requesting. As the site owner, I do, and as a matter of fact, some particularly inflammatory comments about Paul *have* been left unpublished.
I am of the school that believes that open debate is better than censorship of ideas and points of view, but also want to keep this site free of abuse, both to our bloggers and readers, as well as the public people we discuss.
What does this community think the line should be on this subject and others like it (especially considering Paul is not nor ever will be a Green candidate)? Who's going to judge, and by what guidelines?
Should discussion on topics not strictly Green-related be limited? I have always discouraged outright bashing of other parties, and focused on being pro-Green, but this campaign season is already pretty heated, and will only become more inflamed as it goes on. It would be silly to try to stay out of the mix, if it were even possible to police such a policy.
Candidates are public figures who get a lot of verbiage thrown at them, some of it true some of it not. Witness the Swift-Boat campaign in 2004. Watch Ann Coulter on yesterday's Hardball (or any other appearance, anywhere). It's unfortunate, but it seems to me that the appropriate reaction in a democratic forum is to let a debate take place with the tools available. In this case, we have certainly given space to Paul defenders -- but, is that enough?
I hope others will chime in with their opinion on this.
This site allows me a venue as a Green to express an opinion. Even if this opinion is unpopular among the majority of contributors, it is still up and subject to positive and negative feedback. Censoring the responses I disagree with is no better than what other sites do by playing in the Ron Paul media blackout. I have no power over the comments, and even if I did, I'd leave them.
I can handle and I'm sure Dr. Paul can handle the criticism, and if you want to be constructive, post a reasoned response debunking the slander. And do it with CAPS-LOCK off please, your point is not made stronger by leaving CAPS on.
The Norwegian Green philosopher, Arne Naess, had a set of guidelines for Communications and Argument.
"Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this Earth" Roberto Clemente
I belonged to the Green Party for 5 years and just re-registered republican so I can vote in the primaries for Ron Paul. I vote for what a person stands and his integrity not for what party he's in.
The comment about Greens worrying that Paul is siphoning off the Green party structure is good. Depending on the local green organization, I think a couple local green partys have endorsed Ron Paul -- just like I know a couple local Libertarian parties have. I think, to the average Green, ending the continuous warfare state is a primery issue, and the anti-war vote will be split by gravel and Kucinich on the dem side, where as Paul is the only one so he's got a much better chance at winningthe R nomination then either of them do the D. Plus, like you said, many greens are decentralists who believe in social programs and the welfare state, but don't believe the Federal government should be doing it, and PAul -- who believes the fed shouldn't interfear in State business, would allow that at the more local levels under his presidency.
But as somebody who's actually worked in the Libertarian Party, I find the party structure itself can be just as partison as the big two. They're worried that if all the Libertarians abanden the LP to support Ron Paul, the LP will have problems. While I explain that I'll change my registration back to LP as soon as I vote in the Republican primeries, the fact is, if Paul one the PResidency, we wouldn't need a national LP anymore. I think many of these groups are more afraid of success then failure. Because if we actually had a libertarian country, their wouldn't be any reason for the LP to exist. I think many times the LP (or in your case the GC) don't really want to see their policies actually adopted.
Paul really could win this race. Even if Greens don't agree with him on everything (Libertarians don't either), he is at least the very least evil running that is capible of winning.
Tracy
My feelings about Ron Paul running for president are similar to my feelings about Cindy Sheehan running for president.
FOR CONGRESS? YES! FOR PRESIDENT? NO!
I am starting to get tired of people treating the Green Party presidential nomination like "American Idol." Greens want a presidential candidate committed to building the Green Party. This is a mission that began long before George W. Bush became president and will continue long after his sorry ass is gone.
I wish these so-called "libertarian" guys would just concentrate on bringing grief to the Republicans in the "Red" states. As a "Blue" state Green Party man, frankly, I have no interest in reading sophistries about "welfare" and "securing our borders." That's "red meat" for the "Red" state boys who love Ron Paul's isolationalism on the Middle East but otherwise share orthodox Republican conservative views.
It sounds like I'm trying to be nasty, but I'm trying to be nice. I cheerfully acknowledge that our libertarian brothers have an historic role to play... but not here.
The Ten Key Values of the Greens
We are friends here, so let's be honest and fair. Are these the values of your typical libertarian conservative in the United States in 2007?
Social Justice? Community-based Economics? Nonviolence? Feminism? Respect for Diversity?
I don't think so.
In order to do a lot of those things, you need more power at the state and local level, and less big money involved in Washington. I don't know who else would accomplish those goals other than a libertarian or constitutionalist.
Though libertarians are typically good on the non-violence, feminism, and diversity (unless your talking about affirmative action style forced diversity and feminism). Unfortunately, their stance on the environment does often take a back seat to their hatred of excess power in government.
Dr. Paul's office has worked actively with the Green Scissor campaign to cut environmentally harmful government spending, to stop special interest influence in government and to protect Greens and other third parties and independents in the electoral process.
Lot's of great discussion on here.
In any case, I feel like my message to Greens specifically is getting lost. I'll just try to reiterate it.
Some folks on here are invoking the 10 Key Values, and which ones Paul violates, which is fine, but I want to point out that Greens have conflicts of the 10 Key Values all the time without the help of a GOP Congressman. Its difficult sometimes to reconcile promoting one key value when another falls by the wayside or is violated.
Some other folks are invoking the GP platform, which is also okay, I'm not even trying to say that Paul is a Green, but I'm also saying that he's not completely the opposite of a Green either, as some would like to portray him. And I understand that some have breaking points where a single stance on an issue will make or break support for any given candidate. The magic of the debate wasn't where Nader and Paul disagreed, but where they found common ground- I think this is a lost attitude by many in our political system, replaced by righteousness and stubbornness, sometimes very destructively.
But the reason I came to the party wasn't because of the platform, it was because of the 10KVs. In my opinion, a Green isn't a Green because they follow the platform of the Green Party. The platform is a political document that is based on the foundations of the global Green movement, and in North America specifically, the 10 Key Values coupled with a consensus over what our current system looks like. The 10 Key Values on the other hand, is a more basic document, apolitical, basic, pure, a principled one that lays out our goals for a more perfect society. The 10KVs as a whole are easier to embrace than the platform, which is in a natural perpetual state of flux as the world fluctuates.
It's perfectly just and acceptable to advocate for a more politically diverse Green Party because the 10 Key Values don't just belong to people who say, advocate for divestment from Israel, or the people who believe that we should have a national universal health care system. Indeed, when advocating for either of these causes, we violate some our 10 Key Values in favor of other ones. I'm saying that we have to be careful about thinking or believing that one camp has a better claim on the 10 Key Values than another. We all can interpret them and develop our own Green platform.
Most reasonable people support the 10 key values as a representation of a just and equitable society, so why aren't folks flocking to us in droves?
Greens for President in 2008: NO!
Greens for Congressional/Local/State Office in 2008: HELL YES!
Which vote is more powerful and significant in 2008? A vote for a candidate in a field of candidates that largely agree and subscribe to the same platform (Greens and Dems[to a lesser extent])? Or one that dares to stand up to his corrupt establishment party and threatens to shake up American, no, INTERNATIONAL politics in a way not seen for a long time?
The choice is clear for me, I'm voting for Ron Paul in the primary.
"Most reasonable people support the 10 key values as a representation of a just and equitable society, so why aren't folks flocking to us in droves?"
Simple.
Because Greens have no idea who they are or what they stand for. What is the point of having 10 KEY values, when obviously, many members don't seem to care about them? The idea of supporting someone who is farther away from those values than democrats OR republicans borders on the insane. Small wonder why the general population has no confidence in a party that doesn't even believe in itself.
For those who want to censor my comments because I'm a "neocon", think again. I'm an antiwar liberal who has been active in the Green Party. My thought and mission has been to attract more minorities to the party given that we have been taken for granted by democrats and many no longer identify with the Democratic Party. But I'm not so sure that's a good idea anymore. I was attracted to Greens by the beauty and intelligence of the 10 key values and the Green Party platform. However, listening to some Greens of late, particularly on the issue of Ron Paul, turns my stomach. Not just on the issue of Paul's documentated disdain for African-Americans and Hispanics, but how quickly many Greens are willing to throw seniors and children under the bus for the illusion of Ron Paul.
Eliminate Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and any and all programs designed to assist the poor and families in need. Eliminate the EPA, FDA, and Depts. of Labor and Education. How would anyone who supports such lunatic ideas then claim to be for social justice? No federal assistance for victims of natural disasters like Katrina, Rita, and all others. Paul's suggestion .. leave it up to "charity." Even right-wing republicans don't propose this kind of lunacy. Anyone who would support such a candidate has no sense of the socio-ethical responsibility Americans have to each other.
I posted links to not only his association with some of the most racist hate groups on the planet, but also his PARTICIPATION with them .. NONE of which can be denied. Greens and Neo-Confederates? Disgusting. I repeat, both he and his spokesman have said that the comments in his newsletters were HIS on several occassions and Paul himself called them his "tongue in-cheek academic writings."
He's an isolationist and has been the most ineffectual Member of Congress for years. POST HIS LEGISLATIVE ACCOMPLISHMENTS, bills passed, committee chairmanships, etc.
Additionally, where is the intelligence? Paul is nothing more than a creation of internet spammers and demonstrates that the internet is the greatest mind-fuck weapon ever created. There is no "Ron Paul Revolution" spreading across America. He stands at 0-2% and in some polls he's going backwards, yet throw blacks, hispanics, children, seniors, people in need, the environment, and everything else the Green Party is SUPPOSED to stand for under the bus for 0-2% and an internet illusion.
That is incredible.
This is the man you're supporting ..
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-vs-new-world-order.html
I feel like an idiot for having so much faith in this party.
I've done talk shows, written Op/Ed articles, and have been on discussion panels on college campuses in support of Greens.
Damn I feel stupid.
I'm not sure what you're so disillusioned about. The Greens are not supporting Ron Paul. Period. You got a post by one GC member, a lot of comments by non-members who've been attracted to this post from web engines (and we do welcome such comments from non-Greens). This is not evidence the Green Party is a hostile environment for minorities. There's a legitimate discussion on that subject to be had (and it's hopefully going to be engaged at Reading), but it has nothing to do with Ron Paul.
I assumed that this was a Greens only site and that somehow Greens had morphed into libertarians.
My apologies for getting upset but I take this issue very seriously, as I think we all should.
Ron Paul represents an insidious and dangerous evil that is creeping back into our society.
thanks again
I understand and appreciate your concern, I just needed to set the record straight. Hope you stick around and enliven the discussion here.
Dear Richard,
I am always interested in what other "minorities" are saying about the Green Party. I would like to read those Op-Eds. You can read some of my stuff here and on cagreening.blogspot.com.
This "Diary" on The DailyKos generated 344 comments:
Why I Joined The Green Party
You may also be interested in my posts on the special election in California's 37th Congressional District
California's 37th C.D. - A "Black Seat?"
CA-37 - "Bipartisan" Meltdown in Compton
If you prefer, you can e-mail copies of your op-eds directly to AlexCathy@aol.com.
Richard, I think it's really getting in the way of your reasoning. I understand what it's like for someone to say that your article is bullshit, that's what this whole discussion is about. But you keep posting the same tired and debunked arguments and you are using mainstream media bullshit to support your point. I'm willing to have a discussion, but not one based on fear mongering and character assassination that you seem to want to perpetuate.
Frankly, I'm really disappointed that you're falling for some of the same arguments the MSM uses to assassinate Greens on a regular basis. So I will belabor this and ask you to please do more research on the Dr. Paul. There's more to a man than once allowed a racist ghostwriter to publish ignorant words about a segment of the population, or even one who may have said stupid things himself.
This is Ron Paul's view on racism, just because he doesn't support affirmative action and privlidge programs doesn't make him a racist.
"The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers.
More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism." -Ron Paul
The above comments acutally do not conflict with the 10 key values in any way. You can disagree with him politically, but you cannot say he's not for an equitable society or for equal opportunity. This is just a different method to the same ends. Were you even aware that Ron Paul is considering an Black man (Walter E. Williams) as his running mate?
"...how quickly many Greens are willing to throw seniors and children under the bus for the illusion of Ron Paul."
Nice illustration, Richard, but I'm afraid the Ron Paul's view on the subject in significantly different from the graphic violent image you're trying to paint.
Yes, Ron Paul is opposed to all of these agencies on a federal level. Can you honestly tell me that the framers of the Constitution believed that the federal government should be providing for every citizen in the US? Or did they intend for these things to be on a state-by-state basis? This is about the role of the federal government. I remind you that Ron Paul is not necessarily opposed to any of these things on a state level, and would not interfere with them being set up and run. Believe it or not, but there was a time before the Dept. of Education, there was a time before the Dept. of Labor, and there definetly was a time before the IRS, which was created to support an empire mentality that we've all gotten too used to in the 20th century. Right now these executive branch agencies are bought and sold to the highest bidder, and do not work to serve the populace, indeed, they often supercede and undermine what localities and state governments put in place for their residents? How is that being in favor of decentralization? Which is a more important 10 key value, social justice or decentralization? How about we have both by insituting government programs where people can actually have control over them- at the local level? Not to mention, though Ron Paul has set a goal for eliminating these programs, its not like they would disappear the day he'd take office, he has said time and time again that it would be a phased out as people are able to get on their feet. So I'm sorry, but your grim under the bus analogy is extremely inaccurate.
I've already posted Ron Paul's view on race and racism, so I'm not going to honor further guilt-by-association arguments by addressing them. You can take it or leave it. The media tried to do this to Green-Rainbow Party gubernatorial candidate Grace Ross during her run for governor in 2006 by associating her with anti-Jewish groups due to her opposition to the bombing of Lebanon, and I just see the same thing here, so we'll leave it at that.
But "He's an isolationist." It's getting old seeing people confuse isolationism with non-interventionism. But I will address it again.
Ron Paul on foreign policy:
"Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none.” Washington similarly urged that we must, “Act for ourselves and not for others,” by forming an “American character wholly free of foreign attachments.”
The US government and by extension our military has one responsibility, and that is to the AMERICAN people- not the Iraqi people, not the Sudanese people, and not the Israeli or Palestinian people. Isolationism is a policy of cutting the nation completely off from the world, and that would simply not occur under a Paul administration, and its just crazy to suggest that a proponent of actual international free trade (anti-NAFTA, World Bank, UN, etc.) would propose that.
Finally, you are using polls to discredit a candidate when as a Green, you should know better. There is a very real Ron Paul Revolution, and I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but the 1000+ person at the rally in Iowa that overshadowed the presidential forum is evidence enough that there is movement in the real world and that Paul has real world support. Those people would be appalled at your suggestion that they are "spammers," honestly, are you really falling for this disinformation put out by the MSM in order to maginalize a genuinely popular candidate when its much more in their moneyed interests to support a neo-con or corporatist? Your attempt to instil doubt in us is flimsly and failing, as polls do not cover people who:
1. Aren't Republicans
2. Don't have landline telephones (up to 30% of my demographic)
Also, let's also see who was polling at this low but went on to become President?
At this point in the cycle, national polls are entirely a reflection of name identification, not voters’ views of the candidates.
“In early 1975, Carter was polling at 1% (he went on to win the Presidency).
“In early 1987, Dukakis was polling at 1% (he went on to win the Democratic nomination).
“In early 1991, Clinton was at 2% (he went on to win the Presidency).
“In the spring of 1999, John McCain was polling at 3% (he went on to win the NH primary).”
Finally... I want to say this... I am not necessarily asking for people to vote for Ron Paul for President in the general election, but I am making an argument that even if you disagree with his politics, his getting the Republican nomination for president would one of the greatest things to ever happen in politics and could completely turn the neo-con Republican fascist party around. Whether or not you are a Republican, we all must suffer under neo-conservative tyranny (actually from both "parties"), and it is up to us to crossover and send the GOP a message that we're not going to take it any more.
I appreciate your thoughts and I'll try to be as clear in my response as I can.
First, I don't care if someone says my article is bullshit, it doesn't bother me in the least. We are all entitled to our opinion. Those who have contacted me and thanked me for the information is the reason I wrote it. It is information that people should be made aware of in making as critical a decision as who to support for president. If you find that information "mainstream media bullshit" that's your decision, but it's far from an accurate one. How much investigation of that bullshit have you done I wonder? I've done quite a bit, other than picking it up from the internet. I've been doing analysis, research, and communication for a lot of years and I know how it's done. How much have you done on this? Did you call the NAACP in the Houston area who was part of the story? Have you talked to people in CD14? Have you talked to people that were there? .. I have. You've decided that Paul is someone you want to support and seemingly don't want to hear anything contrary to what you want to believe.
I've done two debates on Ron Paul, one on black call in talk radio. I'm too overwhelmed with emails and communication from those who thank me and are researching what I presented for themselves to be worried about those who don't want to hear this. I have no illusion about trying to convince everyone.
Let me ask you this .. are his connections and participation with hate groups also "mainstream media bullshit?" I noticed that like most of his supporters that claim these weren't his words, you didn't touch on his associations. His associations are ignored because they are absolutely undeniable. I offer you this opportunity to reply and tell what strange reasoning you have for why I, an African-American, or any person of conscience, should support a man is so closely aligned with white supremist hate groups and neo-confederates? What tortured logic would you have that would make that make any sense whatsoever?
You claim these words came from a "once allowed ghostwriter", which tells me that it is you who need to do more research. The newsletter I linked is the only one available, but there were lots more and he has no intention of releasing them because "voters may not understand his tongue in-cheek writings." Those are his words that you so easily dismiss.
You easily dismiss the glaringly obvious problems with his late denial of vile remarks that any person of conscience would have wanted to distance themselves from immediately. But his associations are not that easily dismissed. We don't have to talk about his comments because you've made up your mind in spite of reading where he, and his spokeman claim them. For whatever reason, all you need was one late denial and a speech about racism. I've read his racism speech as I've read a lot of his stuff. What does that have to do with his actions? It appears that you have the luxury of ignoring the obvious and, respectfully, standing on seriously strange reasoning to support him.
Let me also be clear that I am not a strict constitutionalist. Neither is he. He interprets the Constitution to fit his narrow view. He wants to eliminate Artiles and Amendments that don't fit that view. The Constitution was a wonderful basis for the formation of this country but it is a 300 year old document that is not entirely applicable to modern society. In fact, it wasn't entirely correct for the time it was written which is why Jefferson encouraged his own state of Virginia not to ratify it unless there was a Bill of Rights. Every ill, issue, and concern in modern society cannot be found 300 years in the past. You are free to beiieve that, but I do not. The original Constitution declared that I am 3/5ths human.
Societal gains in this country made through leadership, activism, pain and suffering, beatings, jailings, and sometimes death, were not made by asking the Constitution if it was alright to do so. They were made because they were the right thing to do. The social safety nets this nation provides are there because of the socio-ethical responsibility Americans have for each other, not because of the Constitution.
How does one argue for states rights and claim to be a strict constitutionalist at the same time? The supremacy clause of the Constitution explicitly grants the federal government authority over states. "States rights" is segregationalist dixiecrat code for support of Jim Crow laws that the Civil Rights Act ended .. and which Paul also did not agree with. to suggest that indiviual states would be able to uniformly replace Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, FEMA, Depts. of Labor and Education, and a host of critical safety net functions is disingenuous at best. If you believe that then feel free to do so but to me that amounts to nothing but snake oil with no socio-ethical responsibility or concern about who would suffer. Mississippi? Seniors, women, children, and workers would be better off without the federal government in Mississippi?
Sure there was a time before the Department of Labor and children suffered as worker/slaves during that time. The Department of Labor is the ONLY federal agency that monitors and enforces child labor laws. Feel free to join with Paul in abolishing it, but I do not believe that people of conscience would. There was a time before the Department of Education, but I'm neither a republican or libertarian and I believe in it's purpose and mission. I have no desire to step backwards in time for answers to today's society.
Paul dosn't even believe there should be a United States. Just a bunch of nation states filled with disconnected individualist standing aroud with a gun protecting their own turf .. just like his neo-confederate friends.
Libertarians like Paul are individualists, and to them, individual rights are more important than the collective good. In fact, "collective" is a word to be cursed. When did Greens assume such belief? When did we become libertarians?
"Which is more important, decentraliztion or social justice?" Your question tells me that we do not share the same perspective of politics. You and I have no political foundation on which to base what is and is not important. I'm black. Which do you think is more important to me? Do you also find respect for diversity, global responsibility, ecological wisdom, feminism, and sustainability also unimportant? Paul doesn't care for any of that .. by his actions, not what's in a speech.
You keep repeating the lie about MSM but google "ron paul" and count how many negative MSM articles you'll find there.
I have no interest in wasting my vote trying to "turn republicans around" or crossing over to "send the GOP a message." I find that incredibly naive. If you think that the Republican Party is going to allow anyone other than republicans to pick their nominee, you have no understand of either the Republican Party or election law. How many states have open primaries? Are you aware that republicans are challenging the relatively few open primary states as we speak .. and do you know why they'll win that challenge? .. because open primaries are unconstitutional, as defined by the Supreme Court, because they violate a political parties First Amendment rights of freedom of association. So essentially what you're suggesting is an unconstitutional method to elect Mr. Constitution. It's naive. Whether one likes them or not, republicans have a right to choose their own nominee that represents the values of their party, even as ill-concieved as they may be.
I have a daughter on her third tour in Iraq. My focus is the same focus that the majority of Americans have in getting our troops home. And, after they get home, to improve this society in a collective responsibly manner. I'm not about to waste my vote on a myopic side show that has absolutely ZERO chance of becoming reality.
Additionally, as I said, politically, we exist on two different planets. I'm a liberal who believes in a collective responsibilty for my fellow countryman. i believe in government measures to correct the injustices of the past with programs like affirmative action. I believe in federal government programs designed to help seniors, children, women, and victims of disasters. I believe in the Civil Rights Act. I believe that social justice is more important than decentralization. I believe that Americans should have nationalized healthcare. And, I do not believe that the individual is more important than America or its future. I don't like taxes much either, but I believe they are indeed necessary. Americans pay the lowest taxes in the industrial would with the exceptions of Mexico and North Korea .. I get sick of the constant whining.
Finally, I suggest you temper your angst about what I see in Paul until you've actually studied him for yourself. Your comments don't appear very studied. I invite you to come back and tell me again why I as a black person should care for someone who dishonors the Civil Rights Act and shows no respect for the tragedy and oppression it was designed to deal with. Tell me why I should support someone who shows disdain for organizations like the NAACP but participates with hate groups and neo-confederates whom he has NEVER repudiated. Show me where he has. Tell me why I shoud have the slightest respect for someone who has not only made the comments he has, but votes against any and every measure for social equity?
I wish you luck with your experiment of "trying to teach the republicans a lesson." But, in my opinion, it's the most politically naive and wasted idea I think I've ever heard.
My previous post took 2 hours to outline and post and although I could go on, I'm genuinely evaluating the level of time I want to spend here debating this. That said, I think Richard and the others obviously spent a lot of time on their arguments as well, and the visitors who come here and explore the different arguments have more than enough to go on and go out and explore on their own. I've spent a lot of time making my case, but I'm done for now.
Richard and everyone else who took part in this, the forum discussions and email in general carry a lack of emotion that often leads to misinterpretations and assumptions about one's opposing side, and I always try to caution against that but I know that often gets lost.
I honestly don't think any of us are on different planets and here's why, today's political paradigm consists of two major camps, the corporatist and the anti-corporatist camps, we are all in the latter, the camp that wishes to dismantle the fascism that is strangling our country and liberties. I remain for the most part a Green, this is my home and I'm proud and I support the 10 key values, even if my sometimes libertarian leanings or support for a non-Green may anger or confuse other Greens (honestly, none of you really know what my politics are solely based on my advocacy for Ron Paul at this present juncture, but I was a leader in the Green-Rainbow Party (the Massachusetts affiliate of the GP) and there's more behind this dude)... but I am always trying to watch out for us and make sure we don't expose ourselves to hypocrisy and application of multiple-standards that plagues the other parties.
I'll be around though.
I hope you didn't take my comments as a personal affront to you. You appear to be both honest and sincere. But if we're going to take this party where we all want it to be and become a real viable alternative to the trap of the two-party system, then we cannot afford to support or even suggest someone like Ron Paul. We would be getting in bed with racists and neo-confederates. We would be sacrificing all that we hold dear for someone we only agree on a couple of issues with, but who at the same time, is contradictory to what we stand for.
It's not emotion that leads me to this conclusion. On the contrary, it's logic, research, and an understanding of the insidious nature of those who oppose a collective America. We all fight against the plutocratic leanings of both major political parties, but we cannot sacrifice our social and ethical responsibilty in the interim. We cannot sacrifice our intellectualism in the process. As Greens, we and our party are nothing without socio-ethical responsibility and intellectualism. That's who we are. That is what separates us from all other political parties. That is our calling card and what we must promote to grow our party.
If you cannot justify Paul's participation and associations with groups and people who practice hate, intolerence, and violence .. which cannot be justified, then I urge you to reconsider asking Greens to support him. Rather than support him, we should be standing firmly against him. While others fall into the contrived internet spam produced trap, we should be demonstrating that we are smarter than that. We can agree on and welcome all antiwar voices, but we must be smart enough to recognize the wolf in sheep's clothing.
Paul is an act of deperation for some progressives and independents who are fed up with the major parties, but the Green Party must show itself to be the sane and intellectual alternative to the cowardly weakness of the Democratic Party, the insane war-driven evil of the Republican Party, and the disregard for social and ethical responsibilities of the Libertarian Party. Our future is not stuck 300 years in the past.
I hope you stick around and accept my comments in the spirit of true intellectual debate.
Ron Paul Libertarians think they're being "clever" by hinting Mr. Paul would choose Black economist, Walter E. Williams, as his running mate.
You can disagree with him politically, but you cannot say he's not for an equitable society or for equal opportunity. This is just a different method to the same ends. Were you even aware that Ron Paul is considering an Black man (Walter E. Williams) as his running mate?
In fact, they have inadvertently "outted" themselves as captives of the idiotic old "race" politics as practices by cynical Democrats and Republicans for nearly forty years -- pointing to their favorite handpicked token Negro or Hispanic and saying: "See! I love Clarence Thomas (or Ron Brown, or Henry Cisneros, or Condolezza Rice, or Alberto Gonzalez), therefore, I'm a nice guy!"
Here's the problem: I have followed Walter E. Williams career for many years and the man is a total rightwing nutcase!
Here is what Williams wrote in his syndicated column about the capture of British sailors by Iran:
And here is what Williams wrote in his syndicated column about how America should deal with the threat of a terrorist attack at home:
This is the fellow who is going to help unite and rally the antiwar forces.
Yeah, right.
You can read more on my blog at:
Ron Paul-Walter Williams '08 - Old "Race" Politics
http://cagreening.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-paul-walter-williams-08-old-race.html
...the old progressive trend of valuing people of color only if they fit the progressive litmus test.
Apparently the fact that a people of color would be considered for a high profile position only matters to Greens if the person of color in question is in agreement with Green politics.
And Greens bitch all day and night about the underrepresentation of people of color in public life and when one dares step out of line, he's a nutjob. So which token minority will the GP choose to show the world that they're less racist than everyone else?
But what was the point of all this, oh yeah, Ron Paul could choose a black guy, but I guess its just because he's black and not because he's a hardcore libertarian that would compliment Paul's campaign pretty well, minus the hawk streak, which Paul would pretty much stop right away.
And yup, as you point out later in your column, Ron Paul still isn't a Green, you've got that right, and nope, neither is Walter Williams.
I was being facicious in many ways in the above post. I'm not suggesting that our party chooses tokens, or that our people of color presidential candidates are tokens, but what I am saying is that we are also as risk of the same public perception that applies to other parties and the selection of tokens applies to us. So is the token / race card argument even valid if there isn't any better proof of good intent besides a party's word that "they're not doing it to have a token"?
How does the selecting of people of color for candidates equate to "tokens" when the promotion and equality of people of color is a bedrock foundation of that same party?
In a multi-cultural, multi-racial America, what is a token? Would the promotion of Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama be considered "tokenism?" How would the promotion of people of people of color be considered tokenism to Greens.
I think what we must avoid is the trap set by those who oppose a mulit-cultural society by calling it tokenism. I think we shouldn't give a damn what they call it. They can call it whatever they want, we will call it making a better America.
Paul said he would select Walter Williams or John Stossel as a running mate.
Walter Williams is the just the clown in black face he used to further his deception, as you've correctly stated. But consider him as a choice on face value. How does a person that is supposedly so intrinsically opposed to war suggest that Walter Williams has any validity as a candidate for Vice President of the United States? Williams, a man who suggests that we may have to "totally destroy major cities". The US has dropped more bombs on the small nation of Iraq than all the bombs dropped during WWII and we've mass-murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people, including babies, women, and children, and this idiot has the gall to suggest that were are pure because we don't target innocent people. Who in the hell does he think is in those cities?
Like Paul, Williams is a secessionist, a black seccessionist, and doesn't believe in the union of America. If Harriet Tubman was coming, you couldn't tell Walter Williams.
As incredibly dumb as the supposed selection of Williams sounds, his other choice, which was actually his first choice, is one of the most disgraced, publicly embarrassed, and disrespected "journalists" in America. John Stossel is an exposed pathological liar and anyone who knows anything about him should be gagging at the thought of him being anywhere near the presidency.
Paul would put JOHN STOSSEL, and supposedly, Walter Williams, one heartbeat of a 72 year old man away from being the President. Neither of whom have ever held political office or are anywhere close to the ideals of Greens.
Support for Ron Paul should be an embarrassment.