The ABC News blog points out that John Stewart seems to have a bit of a crush (their word, not mine) on Ron Paul. The reasons? Well, it appears to be twofold: 1) the mainstream media appears intent on ignoring Paul; and 2) Paul is consistent.
So, last night, Ron Paul appeared on Jon Stewart's show:
Given Stewart's gushing, it's worth taking a look at the reasons Stewart claims to admire Ron Paul. The first reason, of course, is that the media has consistently snubbed Paul:
“How did libertarian Ron Paul become the 13th floor in a hotel?”
My first reaction was: fair enough, I suppose. But on further reflection, it's not like the mainstream media's doing a bang-up job, but they seem to have a blind spot when it comes to Ron Paul. In fact, Jon Stewart, if you want point out instances where the mainstream media has ignored newsworthy events, how about the Tar Sands protests? Or how about Occupy Wall Street (an event Stewart has yet to cover)? It's just not the case that Ron Paul is the 13th floor - in fact, the 13th floor packed full; at this point, it's sleeping ten to a room.
So, in terms of the first argument - the mainstream media ignores Ron Paul - color me unimpressed. Okay, the second argument is consistency.
"[Paul's] been consistent over the years,” Stewart said. “You may disagree with him, but at least you can respect that the guy has a belief system he’s engaged in and will defend."
I agree that it's difficult to find a politician who hasn't completely sold out (the John McCain sell out was particularly painful to watch), but this is hardly enough. First off, ideologues are always consistent - and that's not a compliment. Maintaining consistency in the teeth of the evidence is not something to be admired. Also, standing firm isn't a virtue when the things you stand for are vile. And that is the case with Mr. Paul.
There's Mr. Paul's now-famous idea of what freedom is all about (hint: we're free to die if we don't have health insurance):
For starters, Janis Joplin had a more nuanced view of freedom - I just don't think it's too much to ask to be both free and alive (and the fact that letting the hypothetical guy die was such a crowd-pleaser creeps me out to no end). So, I'm not sure why that's not game over for Mr. Paul, but apparently, it's not. And that's fine because, as Adele Stan noted, there are many, many additional reasons to reject Mr. Paul's particular brand of craziness. Starting with his position on race.
Ron Paul on Race
Based on his religious adherence to his purportedly libertarian principles, Ron Paul opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Unlike his son, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., Ron Paul has not even tried to walk back from this position. In fact, he wears it proudly . . . .
[T]he forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
So no, I don't consider consistency a good thing when the thing you're consistent about is the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But, of course, it doesn't stop there.
Ron Paul on Reproductive Rights
The sponsor of a bill to overturn Roe v. Wade, Ron Paul's libertarianism does not apply to women, though it does apply to zygotes. His is a no-exceptions anti-abortion position . . . .
I must admit, I find it particularly infuriating when a supposed libertarian thinks the state should be able to interfere with a woman's right to choose. Paul may be consistent in the sense that he's always been against a woman's right to choose, but his anti-choice stance is not consistent with his own avowed libertarianism. Let the uninsured die because "that's what freedom is all about," but even rape victims shouldn't be allowed to choose an abortion? That's indefensible.
Okay, moving along...
Ron Paul, Christian Reconstructionists and the John Birch Society
The year 2008 was a telling one in the annals of R.on Paul's ideology. For starters, it was the year in which he delivered the keynote address [video] at the 50th anniversary gala of the John Birch Society . . . .
The semi-secular ideology of the John Birch Society -- libertarian market and fiscal theory laced with flourishes of cultural supremacy -- finds its religious counterpart, as Fred Clarkson noted, in the theonomy of Christian Reconstructionism, the right-wing religious-political school of thought founded by Rousas John Rushdoony. . . .
When Paul launched his second presidential quest in 2008, he won the endorsement of Rev. Chuck Baldwin, a Baptist pastor who travels in Christian Reconstructionist circles, though he is not precisely a Reconstructionist himself (for reasons having to do with his interpretation of how the end times will go down). When Paul dropped out of the race, instead of endorsing Republican nominee John McCain, or even Libertarian Party nominee Bob Barr, Paul endorsed Constitution Party presidential nominee Chuck Baldwin (who promised, in his acceptance speech, to uphold the Constitution Party platform, which looks curiously similar to the Ron Paul agenda, right down to the no-exceptions abortion proscription and ending the Fed).
At his shadow rally that year in Minneapolis, held on the eve of the Republican National Convention, Paul invited Constitution Party founder Howard Phillips, a Christian Reconstructionist, to address the crowd of end-the-Fed-cheering post-pubescents. (In his early congressional career, Julie Ingersoll writes in Religion Dispatches, Paul hired as a staffer Gary North, a Christian Reconstructionist leader and Rushdoony's son-in-law.)
At a "Pastor's Forum" [video] at Baldwin's Baptist church in Pensacola, Florida, Paul was asked by a congregant about his lack of support for Israel, which many right-wing Christians support because of the role Israel plays in what is known as premillennialist end-times theology. "Premillennialist" refers to the belief that after Jesus returns, according to conditions on the ground in Israel, the righteous will rule. But Christian Reconstructionists have a different view, believing the righteous must first rule for 1,000 years before Jesus will return.
They also believe, according to Clarkson, "that 'the Christians' are the 'new chosen people of God,' commanded to do what 'Adam in Eden and Israel in Canaan failed to do...create the society that God requires.' Further, Jews, once the 'chosen people,' failed to live up to God's covenant and therefore are no longer God's chosen. Christians, of the correct sort, now are.
Responding to Baldwin's congregant, Paul explained, "I may see it slightly differently than others because I think of the Israeli government as different than what I read about in the Bible. I mean, the Israeli government doesn't happen to be reflecting God's views. Some of them are atheist, and their form of government is not what I would support... And there are some people who interpret the chosen people as not being so narrowly defined as only the Jews -- that maybe there's a broader definition of that."
Alrighty, religious nutjbob? Check. Thus, of course, Ron Paul - along with almost the entire GOP field field - does not believe in evolution (and he doesn't even know why it should matter that he doesn't believe in evolution).
So yes, Ron Paul has been ignored by the mainstream media, but so are many matters of actual import. In my opinion, Jon Stewart would do better to cover those issues. As it stands, he's mistaking consistency for substance and he's shinning a spotlight on the worst American politics has to offer (and that's saying something).
Cross-posted at Plutocracy Files.