I've been following with interest the rise of the phenomenon of progressives for Ron Paul. I have mixed feelings about it. I can truly understand the position of those such as Glenn Greenwald who explain why Paul should logically be appealing to liberals -- possibly more appealing than President Obama -- yet I can also understand the view, expressed in many articles on this site in recent weeks, that Paul should be repulsive and unworthy of any degree of support from the left.
However, the claim that Ron Paul's supporters are just a bunch of white middle class people, and that progressives of color and without a high level of economic security would not support him, is incorrect. I personally know several working class or poor people who consider themselves liberals and yet are supporting Paul in this election. I also know at least two non-white people -- both of whom are Middle Eastern -- who are liberal fans of Paul.
How is this possible? How could a person with a low income support a politician like Ron Paul who wants to cut or eliminate most government services? How could a person of color support a candidate who is linked to racist newsletters? Follow me below the fold for a quick analysis of the deepest underlying reason why Paul is popular among some progressives, regardless of their race or economic status, which I haven't really heard explained anywhere else.
Okay, we've all heard the arguments for why liberals should at least have some sympathy towards Ron Paul: his support for ending the wars, cutting the military and decreasing the influence of the "military industrial complex" in American politics, decriminalizing marijuana and ending the "war on drugs" that's filling America's prisons with non-violent offenders, ending bailouts of big Wall Street banks and auditing the Federal Reserve, and restoring civil liberties that have been eroded under the Bush and Obama administrations.
What we haven't heard much talk about is the deeper issue: the fact that many people, including many progressives, are losing faith in "good government" being a possible outcome of America's current political system.
Here's the thing: Progressivism or liberalism is based on the idea that government is good, and therefore should grow or remain large rather than be cut. However, the evidence increasingly is persuading many people that although in theory government may be a tool for good, in practice, in America today, it is largely not.
One of the biggest things the U.S. government is doing in recent years is attempting to police the world and conduct a vague, amorphous "war on terror." This produces two results:
1. The rise of a warrior culture that excessively celebrates military might, militaristic security and police powers, and constant fear that terrorists are lurking among us, rather than a culture that seeks peace and celebrates non-violence and openness. Occupy Wall Street, for example, has been crushed by Democrats and Republicans alike -- virtually the entire political establishment is opposed to it. Pepper Spray Cop and riot gear is the face of the "new normal" in America for police. The doctrine of indefinite detention, even for American citizens, and defining peaceful protesters expressing their First Amendment rights as "low level terrorists", is also emerging as another norm of early 21st century America.
2. The fact that the government is wasting huge amounts of resources, i.e. our tax dollars, on wars and the military and security infrastructure, rather than spending this money on productive and beneficial things for the American people such as education, health care, developing green technologies, and improving infrastructure here at home such as roads and bridges. Essentially, what is happening is that the U.S. government is pouring a gigantic percentage of GDP down the infinite black hole of supposedly "keeping us safe from terror," while other, much more realistic needs that actually would improve the lives of ordinary Americans are being neglected. This is happening no matter whether Republicans or Democrats are in power. Yes, Obama has announced plans to cut the military, but it's only cuts to the rate of increase -- which even some conservatives are criticizing as too much military spending. It's a trifling proposal compared to the massive shift of resources that needs to happen in order to produce real change.
So this analysis brings us to the main point, which is why Ron Paul appeals to some progressives, and why that phenomenon makes perfect sense and can't be ridiculed out of existence: Some progressives, like many Americans, are becoming "situational libertarians" because no matter who gets elected to office, the government is mostly doing the wrong things. If an institution is not doing what you think it should be doing, and is instead doing a lot of things you don't think it should be doing, then your support for that institution -- in this case, support for the government -- may tend to decline.
Situational libertarianism could be described as the idea that if the government isn't working or has grossly wrong priorities, you temporarily become libertarian as a way of expressing opposition and seeking genuine change. Progressives who support Ron Paul are not actually abandoning progressivism for libertarianism, the political theory, nor are they acting irrationally. What they are doing is this: expressing their view that the government has become so bad that reducing its powers overall would be preferable to letting it continue as it is now, with all its wrong priorities and misguided policies.
I don't know whether I agree with this view; right now I'm undecided. But I must say that it is a viable political philosophy of the moment that deserves to be taken seriously. It is intellectually credible and worthy of a real debate -- not just the anti-Paul mockery and wondering incredulously "how any progressive could possibly support this nutcase," which is the typical response of most people on the left when they hear the growing number of their fellows who are expressing sympathy or support for a libertarian presidential campaign.
Think about it. Really give it some thought. Is government working for the American people right now? Could we ever actually elect the supermajorities of liberal Democrats to both houses of Congress, and the liberal true believer to the presidency, that would be required for the progressive vision of government to be implemented in reality, not just in our dreams? If for the most part we think the answer to these questions is no, then why should progressives continue to support a large government rather than a small one? Why would supporting Ron Paul be such an unpardonable sin?
These are questions I have been thinking about lately, and I wish I knew the answer. I feel genuinely conflicted. I know I am not alone. In fact, I bet many people on the left are wondering exactly the same things, but just not ready yet to admit it.
We've got some serious soul-searching to do -- both as progressives and as a nation.