For a liberal like me, who is primarily interested in the well-being of the American middle-class and in providing opportunity for everyone in the United States, regardless of race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion etc., I just don’t see why I should be “challenged” by Ron Paul. I understand that if you’re a liberal who is primarily interested in civil liberties and a less bellicose foreign policy, then you might be conflicted about Paul. But to me, he’s just another racist asshole who wants to fuck the American middle-class.DougJ succinctly expresses the identitarian dilemma: Does diversity in the US outweigh the murder, rape, and impoverishment of Middle Eastern men, women, and children? Is the hope that everyone may someday be able to marry the person they love greater than the right not to be arrested or killed without due process?
Note that the war in Afghanistan is real, while the racism of Ron Paul is theoretical, as his black supporters will tell you.
Mind you, I'm a socialist and Ron Paul's a right-libertarian. In 2008, I voted for a black man who has been proving all his life that class matters more than race. In 2012, I'll cast a vote for someone who dreams of an alternative to Wall Street politics—though I haven't a clue who that may be.
My people have a saying, "No matter who you vote for, you always elect a politician." I've never felt the truth of this as painfully or as keenly as I have under Obama. I can't remember, though, how I was going to tie this into your post... It'll come to me later I'm sure.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to Ron Paul, and the question of Ron Paul for liberals... Greenwald pointed out in his Salon piece that Paul has consistently supported some positions that liberals and people on the left espouse. What I think deserves consideration is WHY he has espoused those positions. If someone opposed the war in Iraq because they LIKED Saddam Hussein, I would not see that person as an ally. I'd want to distance myself from them. What hasn't been discussed often enough is why Paul adopts the positions that have some appeal or resonance with lefties and liberals. He opposes the war, I think, in large part because of isolationist tendencies, with which I don't agree. He opposes various civil liberty assaults by the federal government, I think, because of small government and states rights positions. Which which I don't agree.
So I don't feel the least inclination to say anything good about Paul. I do think that Greenwald makes some very important points in his piece on Paul, though, about how and why we still support Obama, and about the fact that Paul's is often the only campaign/candidacy that raises some very important issues.
Nope - can't remember why I thought that big about politicians was relevant.
zerode, your parents are too painfully right.
ReplyDeleteI understand the desire to be picky about allies, but the practical choice is to work with what we have. Fortunately for liberals, Romney's going to be the Republican candidate, so their vote won't have to be clouded by factors like war or civil rights.