Skip to main content

View Diary: Got AIDs? Your fault, says Ron Paul. Boss can't keep his hands off you? Switch jobs, says Ron Paul (254 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Two points in response (0+ / 0-)

    First, you write "here are progressives who DO in fact support Paul by ignoring the fact that he is, on many issues that matter, just like all the other Republicans in the race. I have encountered them myself at three Occupy sites in California."

    Anecdotal evidence can produce handfuls of anything. There are almost certainly more "progressives" who might vote for Romney than will vote for Paul.

    Property rights "Libertarians" are not progressives. This is battle I have waged since Kelo here at Daily Kos.

    In short, I don't accept your rationale as reasonable.

    Beyond that, in a general election, no "progressive", Democrat, Paleoconservative or anyone will be able to cast a meaningful vote for Ron Paul as a Republican.

    I suppose it is possible Paul will run an independent campaign. If he does, my understanding is that would be favorable for President Obama.

    Which begs the question, why would Democrats and progressives discourage that possibility?

    You write "Nobody, certainly not I, is suggesting that Paul will win the GOP nomination. And I am not arguing that he is different on key issues from the rest of the GOP pack. On the contrary, I am saying his views transformed into policy would have the same impacts as those in that pack. It's just that his expression of these views is a bit less polished."

    It seems to me that your post does indeed suggest that. Consider the reaction to Paul in this thread. He is a "loony" outside of the mainstream, including the GOP mainstream.

    One of the effects of trying to fringe Paul AS A REPUBLICAN is to impose the view that Republicans are not as
    crazy" as Paul on these issues. I submit that such a suggestion is harmful. Not to mention, incorrect.

    Second, you write "While I wouldn't ever call any concept you put forth as sophistry, I will say the idea that Paul's views on civil liberties, the drug war and imperialism will even dent the GOP armor in such matters is magical thinking."

    It would indeed by sophistry if I made such a suggestion. I don't. My suggestion is that the discussion of THOSE ISSUES COULD be different. Not in Republican circles, but in discussion about  those issues.

    One of the more interesting phenomena about Paul to me is seeing Republicans squirm on Paul - because on some of this, it is what they say, but now they want to argue "Paul takes it too far."

    I submit that the Kelo discussions, and similar libertarian impulses  that some "progressives" romanticize, deserves a thorough airing.

    I think that a smart discussion should be had about Ron Paul, and I think that includes a discussion of what is NOT "progressive" about "libertarianism."

    Not sure we are doing that very well at daily kos so far.

    •  If you and I are going to have this discussion... (5+ / 0-)

      ...then I'd prefer that you not impute things to me that I did not say nor suggest that your anecdotal evidence is somehow superior to mine.

      I did not say or imply or even leave open a slight possibility that I believe "property rights libertarians" are progressives. What I said was that an unknown number of progressives are ignoring Paul's stances on many issues because they like what he has to say on a few, and those few happen to have some libertarian cachet, even though anti-interventionism has a long history before libertarianism was a gleam in anybody's eye. The fact that they like these views of his doesn't make them libertarians of any stripe. So your long-standing battle on this matter is most assuredly not with me.

      Your "understanding" of Paul's potential impact as an independent is based on the same speculation about such impact as mine. We don't know. We do know, however, that Paul's positions on the three issues of war, drugs and civil liberties are highly appealing to the same demographic that gave tremendous support for Obama in 2008, young voters, whose ballots favored him by the largest margin of any cohort. To assume that they might not switch to an independent Ron Paul campaign after four years with the guy they voted for having produced, at best, a mixed record in those areas, is based on what evidence? I am not saying they will jump ship. I am saying it's a possibility. And I find your dismissal of a pre-emptive strike in this matter puzzling.

      You say I did suggest he could get the GOP nomination? Cite it, counselor.

      We do agree about one thing: Some progressives romanticize libertarian views, and from there derives their support for Ron Paul. Discussion of that romanticization is, of course, separable from the presidential primaries, indeed, from elections altogether. Theory vs. reality is always a good discussion to have.

      But I don't believe showing everyone Ron Paul's dark side, his just-like-the-other-Republlicans side, puts up any roadblocks to such a discussion. Rather, it is complementary to it.

      The surest way to predict the future is to invent it. — Stephen Post. [Me at Twitter.]

      by Meteor Blades on Fri Dec 30, 2011 at 11:51:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Heh - does not impute (0+ / 0-)

        How about "inadvertently suggests?"

        Still and all, this seems thin gruel - "an unknown number of progressives are ignoring Paul's stances." An "unknown number of progressives are ignoring" some of Obama's stances too.

        Anyway, I do think you are factually wrong here = "Your "understanding" of Paul's potential impact as an independent is based on the same speculation about such impact as mine. We don't know."

        Unless your speculation is based on polling, then that;s not correct.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site