Kaminer: Paul's The Civil Liberties Candidate
Well, there's Gary Johnson, but there's also Johnson's charisma problem, as in, it's missing. Kaminer writes in The Atlantic that if voters cared about liberty, Paul would be the front-runner:
A most imperfect advocate for individual liberty, Paul favors state laws against flag desecration (core political speech) and federal laws against abortion, and he opposes separation of church and state, which is essential to the religious liberty of minorities. Like many religious conservatives, Paul asserts, illogically and counter-factually, that religious majorities are endangered. Religion is under siege in our extremely religious country, he claims hysterically, and children are not allowed to pray in schools. (In fact, the law is clear: children are free to pray in school, individually or in groups; school officials are prohibited from forcing them to pray.)But for all his faults, Paul remains the only major candidate, Democrat or Republican, who has taken a stand against our endless wars (including the war on drugs) and the authoritarian national-security state -- the most urgent, dire threat to individual liberty today. It should be but isn't a shock to realize that he is the only major candidate to oppose presidential power to summarily assassinate American citizens.
So it's not surprising that Ron Paul has attracted younger voters than his Republican opponents and the support of the occasional left-wing civil libertarian (notably Glenn Greenwald.) But liberal support for Paul is quite weak, and telling: it reflects the dangerous, anti-libertarian drift of today's liberals and progressives. With some exceptions, liberals tend to focus on Paul's alleged bigotry, his newsletters, and his opposition to anti-discrimination laws, while ignoring his lonely support for fundamental liberties.
You don't have to overlook or make excuses for Paul's weaknesses on civil rights or his apparent courting of virulent right-wing extremists to appreciate and applaud his support for liberty, where it arguably matters most. After all, Paul poses no threat to racial and religious tolerance, civil rights, or entitlements; he has virtually no chance of becoming president and his own alleged intolerance is, to say the least, unpopular. (It demonstrates the declining respectability of overt bigotry.) But he has an opportunity to organize and perhaps empower voters who oppose the Bush/Obama security state. If only that were a priority, for Democrats and Republicans alike.
I'd like to see the source(s) for all the claims in the first paragraph. RP has a tendency to talk in paragraphs and not sound bites. So when you take one sentence out of context you get to twist it in oh, so many ways. Sometimes even paragraphs have the same issue. He may be saying it is a not a federal issue in one paragraph, the next paragraph may be how the states should handle it.
Jim P. at January 8, 2012 6:06 AM
Okay, I'm starting to notice something about Paul's support: a lot of it is based on the leftist view that the U.S. military is the cause of all of the world's problems, and that Paul will dismantle it. A lot of these people are opposed to all of Paul's domestic agenda; they assume that the entitlement spending that Paul opposes is untouchable, and that the American nanny state (very little of which the military has anything to do with) won't be touched by Paul. I'm not saying that these are Paul's positions, but they are the assumptions of an increasing number of his supporters. These are the people who assume, contrary to the data, that the military accounts for 90% of all government spending, and that with the military gone, the government will be able to buy ponies for everyone. They also assume that our enemies will love us and will lay down their arms and abandon their aims if we just "apologize".
A candidate that promises to dismantle the military while leaving the TSA untouched is the leftist wet dream. Again, I'm not necessarily saying these are Paul's positions, but they are the expectations of a lot of his supporters, and Paul isn't saying anything to discourage them.
Cousin Dave at January 8, 2012 8:56 AM
The actual evidence based on his record is that Ron Paul is a complete hypocrite and displays no recognition of the implications of his proposed policies. We don't need another one of those in the White House. Moreover Paul has taken stances against all sorts of things, but has offered few practical solutions nor has he publicly examined the implications of his stances.
For example; completely disengage militarily world wide (note completely) and what will happen? Hint: it won't be pretty. (I don't want the US to be the world's policemen, but complete isolationism is a fool's errand.)
Joe at January 8, 2012 11:18 AM
Progressives like the folks at The Atlantic like Paul because he is the kookiest candidate we have, and the easiest to lampoon if he got nominated. He couldn't beat a Kusinich/Jackson-Lee ticket on the other side.
I assume much of his support is just Operation Chaos in reverse.
Yea, I'd love a good Libertarian candidate, because we really need a dose of Libertarianism right now, but Ron Paul isn't capable of being elected President.
I tend to ignore internet postings of the, "did you know candidate X wants to do this, here is the quote", variety. Usually those quotes have been cherry picked by opposition research and tend to evaporate when examined thoughtfully.
Old Guy at January 8, 2012 11:27 AM
"I don't want the US to be the world's policemen, but complete isolationism is a fool's errand."
Complete isolationism is not something Ron Paul advocates.
Seems unreasonable to me to criticize somebody for a position he does not support. I know it's more work than setting up strawmen, but wouldn't it be better to point out the flaws in the positions he actually claims to hold?
Not Sure at January 8, 2012 2:17 PM
Ron Paul is a 9/11 Troofer. 'Nuff said.
Bob at January 9, 2012 6:10 AM
Leave a comment