Seen on Monroe Ave
Here’s something you don’t see every day. Monroe Ave near Oxford.
I’m not trying to fluff Ron Paul - far from it. I think his brand of Libertarianism is dangerous, it’s an excuse to turn your back on your community responsibilites in the name of freedom. His brand of politics leans awfully close to anarchism in certain ways. I mean, the guy wants to eliminate the Department of Education.
Anyways, I saw the guy, I took the picture, and I thought you all would like to see it. Over and out.
That’s the best Ron Paul assessment I’ve heard from anyone except myself. I had a bunch of libertarians tell me that he is “the answer.” Yet, his brand of libertarianism is borderline anarchy. He wants to abolish all these gov’t bureaucracies… but doesn’t have a solution. Go figure.
I saw my first Ron Paul bumper sticker on my way home for work.
I noticed homemade signs for him a couple of months ago and in unusual places. What made them stand out is they are the only republican signs in NYS that people are hanging - not rudy, not mitt, not mccain.
I’ve seen hand-lettered signs hanging on overpasses, and quite a few bumper stickers. The parking lots at RIT are a sea of Ron Paul bumper stickers. He’s the right-wing Dean in terms of technorati mobilization and donations.
Yup, that’s the key point.
Like the Pink Floyd shirt and the cigabutt in his hand. GOP hippies are funny.
I call them Hipublicans.
Robert,
It’s intellectually lazy to say that someone “doesn’t have a solution” because they want to abolish parts of government. You’re arguing under the assumption that, why, SOME government program or department would be the solution to all problems!
You don’t have to agree with Ron Paul; I don’t on many things. But you obviously haven’t taken the time to read or understand his viewpoints. They are clearly articulated and based on a strict, free-market ideology. It’s much, much more American than anarchic.
I’d suggest you take the time to learn more about the people you think you don’t like. I have a friend who is an environmental lobbyist, and recently I was grousing about the vile Sean Hannity. She said she hated the man — but then couldn’t articulate why. I was disappointed. And I’ll be similarly let down if progressives just slam Paul for “wanting to get rid of things” and the like. His views are much more sophisticated and reasoned.
OK, look, that business about opposing everything not specificaly authorized by the constitution is just silly. Here are some of his positions, from wikipedia:
I repeat: dangerous and anarchic. I completely and utterly reject the idea that getting rid of half of our federal government would make this country a better place. It’s obviously a rhetorically strong position, and seems to appeal to young mens’ anti-establishment idealism, but as an actual policy proposal it’s absurd.
Jeremy, part of the problem discussing this is that fundamentally I believe that government is the solution, not the problem, and I completely and utterly reject absolutist calls to recklessly disband our government.
And so it doesn’t matter to me whether Ron Paul’s positions come from a strict, free-market ideology or from an irrational fear of black helicopters. The result is the same.
I’ve noticed a disturbing following among college students for Ron Paul, fed by a different brand of the selfishness and self-involvement that often keeps students from being involved at all.
Please be more specific. The shrill comments on this site are starting to make my head spin. As a progressive, I’m embarrassed by the intelectually bankrupt comments like this — don’t offer any evidence, don’t actually learn about a candidate’s positions, just slam them!
Anna, please explain what you mean. Geez.
This is a website where people exchange ideas, usually without ad hominem attacks. Jeremy - it’s great when people are encouraged to support their positions. I think it clarifies for others what we’re discussing, and it helps us to frame and more clearly articulate what we believe in. But I don’t believe that the following things that you said really have any place in a reasoned, intelligent discussion when addressing another’s thoughts:
“It’s intellectually lazy…”
“You obviously haven’t taken the time to read or understand his viewpoints…”
“I’m embarrassed by the intellectually bankrupt commnets…”
You claim you’re a progressive. From wikipedia (I know, not the best source but one that’s easy to reference before I head out to work), a definition of progressivism: “Progressivism historically advocates the advancement of workers’ rights and social justice…”
Most people I know who are progressives or believe in social justice don’t speak like that. Perhaps your manner of discussion warrants some self examination, and some consideration of what is really shrill. Again, from wikipedia:
“The term “shrill” can be used as an insulting descriptive, used in the context of someone who is often angry and rude. In this context, “shrill” has become a popular term for bloggers.”
There’s a lot of reflexive hostility towards Paul that to me is simply not constructive. After an era of corrupt and bloated federal government, it is hardly selfish for some young people to become attracted to libertarianism. I believe that much of what Paul suggests is naive, at best, but I think he adds to the debate and I certainly can’t fault people — especially younger people — who support him. If Rudy Giuliani had a strong following among college students, I’d be worried. Ron Paul isn’t Rudy.
You nailed it as usual, Exile.
As Greenwald has noted, the ranks of “principled conservatives” is shrinking. The ranks of big-government, moral police theocrats posing as principled conservatives is exploding. Paul’s views on government are strict and very conservative, and we may not like them, but here’s an important point: He does not engage in intellectual dishonesty about his views. Most of his opponents are drowning in hypocrisy.
College students and young voters who are tired of moral police governing might instinctively be drawn to a man who believes in limiting that over-reach. That certainly doesn’t make them selfish, as others have implied, and further, we ought not tear them down if they believe in the power of the individual. We ought to work with them and try to engage in honest dialogue about why some of Mr. Paul’s views are flawed (while sincere).
“After an era of corrupt and bloated federal government, it is hardly selfish for some young people to become attracted to libertarianism.”
“The ranks of big-government, moral police theocrats posing as principled conservatives is exploding.”
True words, both of you. I understand why idealistic young people are attracted towards the clarity of his message - I just strongly disagree with his message.
Itchy,
See, this is much better discussion. You’re a very passionate, articulate person. After reading your comments I have a much better understanding of where you’re coming from, and I appreciate it. You and I are not far off on many issues.
I guess I just reflexively get defensive when the level of the discourse drops to assumptions and generalities. To frame it a better way: I get very defensive when Dems attack Mike Huckabee without knowing much about him. Why? Because he’s a nice guy, a true believer, and he’s not a mudslinger like so many Republicans. I’m nauseated by many of his positions, but I don’t think he takes those positions because he’s selfish, evil, greedy, etc. He’s a big government theocrat, and he’s one of the few I’d like to have a beer with. We need more of that in politics.
You’re defending Mike Huckabee while at the same time admitting he’s a big government theocrat? Electing a President we want to have a beer with is how we got Bush. Beyond being a theocrat he is a sexist bigot. NY Times ad with his endorsement: “Wives should submit themselves graciously to the servant leadership of their husband.”
Louis,
Comparing Paul’s strict libertarian views to anarchy is just as loathsome as comparing Clinton’s progressive views to pure socialism. And you don’t have to like it, but it’s intellectually lazy. That’s not a personal attack; that’s pointing out the obvious. Further, if someone truly believes that Mr. Paul just wants to get rid of stuff as a solution, they’re demonstrating a lack of understanding of his positions.
Does Mr. Paul seek to get rid of many government programs and departments? Yes. But he has sincere reasons for wanting to do so, and it’s tiring to hear so many progressives just gloss over the substance behind his points.
I think the anti-Paul commenters would do well to read Glenn Greenwald’s column on Paul, which was a fair-minded overview by a bona-fide progressive and constitutional lawyer.
From that Greenwald article:
That’s pretty much what I said above - I disagree completely with almost all of his positions. The exceptions are the constitutionality of the war, and rolling back the encroaching security state. But just because we agree on two important issues doesn’t mean that he’s anywhere close to being on my side of the political divide.
I’ll give him credit for being principled and for clearly articulating his positions instead of triangulating and hiding behind “compassionate conservatism” and other Orwerllian newspeak mumbo-jumbo. But since his anti-government positions are so clearly defined, it actually makes it easier for liberals to clearly oppose those positions instead of getting caught up in a coded values-based argument.
His ideas and values are close to the exact opposite of mine.
As for Greenwald’s complaint that bloggers are unfairly characterizing Paul as a “fruitcake”: It was not my intent to slander Ron Paul as mentally unstable, but merely to show a photo of one of his many active local grass-roots supporters.
I encourage our readers to browse quickly through the conspiracy-theory laden websites that the young man is advertising and judge the “fruitcake” factor for yourself.
I also encourage our readers to read up on Ron Paul’s policy proposals. When you encounter one of his supporters, ask them why a supposedly rational candidate has proposed abolishing the Federal Reserve.
I think your response is a lot more reasoned than your original post, which had some slander in it. Paul’s strict constitutionalism is the opposite of anarchy, for example.
Some of Paul’s supporters are krazy. As are some of Dennis Kucinich’s. Would you dismiss Kucinich’s views on that basis?
On the Federal Reserve. I agree that abolishing it is an overly radical solution. But Paul’s desire to do so is, again, principled, not crazy. He rightly points out that our addiction to printing dollars to solve our economic problems isn’t working too well. The fall in the value of the dollar bears this out. The collapse of the subprime mortgage market has forced the fed to try to goose the credit markets by lowering interest. rates, which in turn leads to the market (wisely) devaluing our currency as investors sell dollars to buy more stable currency. So, though I disagree with Paul that the gold standard is the solution, he’s right that we’re causing a huge problem with our exploding debt.
Finally, on a tactical level, Paul is a huge gift to Democrats, because he’s a well-financed candidate taking uncomfortable positions on issues where Republicans have problems.
I disagree that he’s a huge gift to the Democrats, unless he goes third party. Otherwise he’s clearly articulating some very far-right positions. That makes all of the other Rep. candidate’s positions seems centrist in comparison, and drives the debate towards the right.
The problem is that we don’t have a comparable candidate on the left. There is no one saying that UHC is a non-negotiable right, and that we should have the gov’t provide Medicaid for all citizens. There’s no one saying that we should end the war NOW, and not start any new ones. There’s no one saying that our educational system is a national disgrace and that we should quadruple funding. There’s no one saying TAX THE RICH.
That means that the very moderate (many even center-right) positions of the mainstream Democrats are seen as the extreme left - and the whole dang debate keeps slipping rightward.
Look how far they’ve come that someone like RP isn’t laughed off the stage - that his positions are seen as credible. This is the great triumph of the Right.
My original post wasn’t slanderous, it was fast - just putting up a picture of some nutter with a sign that reads “the end is nigh!” for you all to see (I probably should have known better….)
And, for the record, I said “CLOSE to anarchy”.
By the way we’re not really increasing the money supply that quickly, particularly for a country in a “time of war”
Oh, one more thing:
I’m furious that the ineffectiveness and social marginalization of the left-wing anti-war movement has allowed an extreme right-winger to pick up anti-war votes.
I think that support for Paul is partly due to single-issue voters who recognize the Democrats’ failure to keep us out of wars. Go ahead and slam me for that, but there aren’t a whole lot of folks out there that think that the Dems are doing a helluva job bringing our boys home or heading off a confrontation with Iran.
Dems are so scared of the “dirty F-ing hippy” label that they bend over backwards to appear moderate in their calls for withdrawl.
I do hope that Paul makes a third-party run and splits the right, though.
Itchy, you’ve totally hit it on the head here. From Paul Rosenberg on Open Left:
Itchy: I agree that some of Paul’ s supporters are single-issue war voters.
BTP: I don’t think that Paul is a “hegemonic culture warrior”. Quite the opposite: libertarians are tolerant on social issues. The possible exception is right-to-life, where Paul’s position is somewhat unclear.
Obama’s position is orderly withdrawal, leave enough troops to protect the embassy, no permanent bases, and leave some troops to attack AQI if they become a problem. That last bit is the sticking point for progressives, I assume.
The reality, though, is that “immediate” withdrawal and “orderly” withdrawal aren’t going to be that different. A bug-out would involve a whole bunch of risks to the troops, and even RP isn’t going to bug out.
Paul recently said that as an obstetrician, he witnessed a rudimentary abortion early in his career and it convinced him to be pro-life. He seems unequivocal about it.
I understand that’s his personal position. But I also understand that, as a federalist, Paul thinks that abortion is for the states to decide. So not 100% clear to me what his policy position would be.
Rotten, again, you’re confusing a sensible policy with effective politics. Obama’s position makes a lot of sense. Most Democratic positions and proposals make a lot of sense. They’re carefully thought out and wonk-approved.
But they’re bad politics, because they concede the middle to the Right, and they’re bad bargaining positions because they don’t ask for the moon, leaving room to “settle” for what you originally wanted. And they do it time and time again.
I don’t think that politics has to be like buying a used car, but that’s a discussion for another day…
My big problem with Ron Paul is that he’s a Conservative Republican disguised as a Libertarian. His positions on government non-interference with individual rights are better than those of the other Republican candidates, but that’s not saying much, and they’re no place near those of a “true” Libertarian. Likewise, his positions on separation of church and state are antithetical to any real Libertarian. The only place where he is truly Libertarian is on government regulation and taxation, and then he falls into the trap of most “corporate Libertarians” in that he fails to recognize that merely doing away with government will merely replace the current “coercive state” with a corporate coercive state.
Libertarianism is a deceptively simple ideology, like Communism, Fascism or Fundamentalism, that attracts people who want to use it as THE SOLUTION to all the world’s problems, regardless of all the real-world evidence that indicates that it isn’t. Substitute the philosophy of Ayn Rand for that of Marx, Mussolini or various Bronze Age theocrats, add some youthful enthusiasm to the need to simplify the world and to find answers for life’s questions, and you’ve got a libertarian fanatic. Mercifully, they’re not as thick on the ground as Christian Fundamentalists.