Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,582

    Default Excellent Article On Why Progressives Should Denounce Obama And Vote Ron Paul

    Leftist-libertarian Glenn Greenwald, of the Israel flotilla, Julian Assange and Bradley Manning fame, has just written the best argument for any voter, left or right to vote for Ron Paul.

    http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/prog...ies/singleton/

    Some excerpts

    Then there’s the full-scale sacrifice of intellectual honesty and political independence at the altar of tongue-wagging partisan loyalty. The very same people who in 2004 wildly cheered John Kerry — husband of the billionaire heiress-widow Teresa Heinz Kerry — spent all of 2008 mocking John McCain’s wealthy life courtesy of his millionaire heiress wife
    Then there’s the inability and/or refusal to recognize that a political discussion might exist independent of the Red v. Blue Cage Match. Thus, any critique of the President’s exercise of vast power (an adversarial check on which our political system depends) immediately prompts bafflement (I don’t understand the point: would Rick Perry be any better?) or grievance (you’re helping Mitt Romney by talking about this!!).
    That’s fairly remarkable: here’s the Publisher of The Nation praising Ron Paul not on ancillary political topics but central ones (“ending preemptive wars & challenging bipartisan elite consensus” on foreign policy), and going even further and expressing general happiness that he’s in the presidential race.
    Ron Paul is the only major candidate from either party advocating crucial views on vital issues that need to be heard, and so his candidacy generates important benefits.
    In this, one reason for voting Ron Paul is clear. He brings real and focused attention and debate to the issues, rather than snickering and useless dialogues and arguments that usually govern politics. In this, he brings a challenge to the "elite bipartisan consensus" of which Democrats and Republicans largely agree to the same fucking issues, and ending the hyper-aggressiveness of both parties.

    Whatever else one wants to say, it is indisputably true that Ron Paul is the only political figure with any sort of a national platform — certainly the only major presidential candidate in either party — who advocates policy views on issues that liberals and progressives have long flamboyantly claimed are both compelling and crucial. The converse is equally true: the candidate supported by liberals and progressives and for whom most will vote — Barack Obama — advocates views on these issues (indeed, has taken action on these issues) that liberals and progressives have long claimed to find repellent, even evil.
    The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient.
    He has entrenched for a generation the once-reviled, once-radical Bush/Cheney Terrorism powers of indefinite detention, military commissions, and the state secret privilege as a weapon to immunize political leaders from the rule of law. He has shielded Bush era criminals from every last form of accountability. He has vigorously prosecuted the cruel and supremely racist War on Drugs, including those parts he vowed during the campaign to relinquish — a war which devastates minority communities and encages and converts into felons huge numbers of minority youth for no good reason. He has empowered thieving bankers through the Wall Street bailout, Fed secrecy, efforts to shield mortgage defrauders from prosecution, and the appointment of an endless roster of former Goldman, Sachs executives and lobbyists. He’s brought the nation to a full-on Cold War and a covert hot war with Iran, on the brink of far greater hostilities. He has made the U.S. as subservient as ever to the destructive agenda of the right-wing Israeli government. His support for some of the Arab world’s most repressive regimes is as strong as ever.
    The anger [Paul] inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview.” Ron Paul’s candidacy is a mirror held up in front of the face of America’s Democratic Party and its progressive wing, and the image that is reflected is an ugly one; more to the point, it’s one they do not want to see because it so violently conflicts with their desired self-perception
    The parallel reality — the undeniable fact — is that all of these listed heinous views and actions from Barack Obama have been vehemently opposed and condemned by Ron Paul: and among the major GOP candidates, only by Ron Paul. For that reason, Paul’s candidacy forces progressives to face the hideous positions and actions of their candidate, of the person they want to empower for another four years. If Paul were not in the race or were not receiving attention, none of these issues would receive any attention because all the other major GOP candidates either agree with Obama on these matters or hold even worse views.
    Paul’s candidacy forces those truths about the Democratic Party to be confronted. More important — way more important — is that, as vanden Heuvel pointed out, he forces into the mainstream political discourse vital ideas that are otherwise completely excluded given that they are at odds with the bipartisan consensus.
    After compiling an exhaustive list of why Obama fails as a progressive, a liberal and a President, and succeeds as a "warmonger, a servant to Wall Street, a neocon, a devotee of harsh and racist criminal justice policies, etc." he offers the cognitive dissonance of progressives voting against the Democrats and their history of associations with progressivism. Further, the sheer hypocrisy of progressive attacks against Republicans are held to a "mirror" of which both sides act the same. The fundamental importance of Paul is that he forces a position different from the same views held by the "bipartisan consensus" of Obama and Romney and others.

    So on top of being a better progressive candidate, Ron Paul forces out important and real issues affecting the American people, chiefly the undemocratic nature of politics and the aggressive US military state rather than trivial issues like gay marriage or character history or marriages.

  2. #2
    8000+
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    US - Texas
    Posts
    8,420

    Default

    Good find. I might pass this around a bit.

  3. #3

    Default

    But will his GOP candidacy enable him to become electable or can he still go on as an independent if this is not the case?
    Last edited by Sqarak; 01-02-2012 at 03:06.
    Wisdom Of Bots
    1, then tired, do not forget to smile; be anxious, but also pay attention to tone; no matter how tough, do not forget to adhere to; No matter how tired, but also love yourself.
    But we are jet modified and not faint-hearted of difficulties

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •