Monday, May 02, 2011

A final word about Ron Paul

Over at Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi responds to my recent piece criticizing Obama critics like him who, despite acknowledging that the president is perpetrating mass murder -- in the form of ongoing wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Libya -- and continuing to lock up scores of Americans for non-violent drug offenses, say that they'd still vote for the guy over someone who wouldn't do any of that: Ron Paul.

Now, I love Taibbi's work. And I'm not just saying that: dude's been a favorite of mine since his New York Press days, even if I think he's unfortunately become more of a conventional liberal Democrat since moving over to Rolling Stone (for example, I'm not sure the Taibbi of old would have felt it necessary to start a piece critiquing the president's personality cult with the line, "I supported Barack Obama. I still do."). I didn't mean to single him out because I think he's especially awful -- just the opposite: here's a guy who pretty much gets what's going on, knows that Obama's expanding the empire and handing trillions of dollars to Wall Street, and still supports him. I find that strange.

And as the proprietor of a blog called "false dichotomy," I didn't intend to paint Obama supporters into a false either/or choice of "I support Ron Paul, or I support mass-murder," as Taibbi characterizes my piece. Indeed, I made it clear I'd rather cast a write-in ballot for Emma Goldman than either Paul or Obama.

The framing for piece came not because I believe one must choose between the two -- as I wrote for Counterpunch last year, I'd rather people forgo the diversion of electoral politics altogether -- but because of an explicit hypothetical posed to Taibbi earlier this year.

"In light of the enormous disappointment that was Barack Obama," a reader wrote to him this past February, "would you vote for Ron Paul over Barack Obama in 2012?"

Taibbi's response at the time was, well, no, primarily because he said he found Ron Paul's son, Rand, to be an enormous prick. No argument there, though I'd note that his opponent in the race for Senate was one too -- we're talking about politics, after all.

That reply, combined with Taibbi's earlier avowed support for Obama, was one of main the reasons -- along with the smug denunciations of Ron Paul, who opposes war, from self-styled progressives who support a president who just launched, believed-it-or-not, another one -- I wrote my piece. It's not like Ron Paul's anywhere near perfect, as I noted, but given a choice between a guy who cluster bombs women and children in Yemen and one who, reactionary though he may be, is a true believer in peace, why support the war criminal? It's not even like Obama's war crimes have been accompanied by the creation of a socialist worker's paradise at home -- quite the contrary, in fact -- effectively negating the liberal critiques of Paul's budget-slashing domestic agenda, which even if enacted wouldn't preclude local governments and -- as an anarchist, I would hope -- alternative social organizations not dependent on coercion from picking up where the federal government left off.

Taibbi, who knows well enough that Obama's a corporatist, recognizes that in a lot of ways Paul is superior. And he even notes that the latter's supporters -- who I'm afraid probably bombarded him with links to my piece, complete with denunciations of his role in serving the New World Order (dude: sorry!) -- weren't all that bad in his experience:
When I followed the elder Ron Paul’s campaign in 2008, a lot of the people I met were intellectuals who had a genuine philosophical problem with government spending and the Fed, and who were really consistent about their limited-government beliefs – no welfare, but also no drug laws and no foreign interventionist wars. (You frequently found Ron Paul supporters who were more passionate about ending the drug war than they were about ending food stamps or whatever). I got along with almost all of these people, who were all unfailingly polite and respectful toward me. And I had a lot of respect for their views, even though I didn’t agree with everything they believed.
So why, given the choice between Paul and Obama -- a false dichotomy, yes, but the one posed to him -- would he choose the latter, war crimes and all? Because Rand Paul, Ron's son, is a dick, one who Taibbi argues relied on "racial signaling" during his run for the Senate. I'm not going to dispute his characterization of Rand, which he says now colors his view of the father, but this strikes me as less than persuasive. If the Pauls' uglier views and racial insensitivity was held out as a reason to forget elections in favor of community organizing and direct action? Hey, I'd be right there with ya. But as a reason to continue supporting Obama? Eh . . .

I could be off base, and I'm conscious that I may be unfairly using my personal hobby horse as a litmus test for others, but I feel pretty damn strongly that ending the empire is far and away the most important issue of our time. Not killing people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya -- pretty big deal. Not imposing an embargo on Cuba or helping fuel violent insurgencies in Mexico and Colombia -- again, big deal. Not undermining any foreign leader who shows the slightest inclination to serve his or her own people rather than international capital -- you get the idea.

Domestically, I also see no more pressing issue than the fact that 2.3 million Americans, or roughly 1 in 100 adults, are now in prison, mostly poor minorities and largely for non-violent offenses that ought not be crimes in the first place. Ron Paul says he would do away with the war on drugs and pardon many of its victims; Barack Obama, by contrast, hasn't freed a single person behind bars, instead choosing to use his enormous power as president to unilaterally launch new wars and threaten states that dare consider legalizing medical marijuana dispensaries.

Ron Paul may be a dick, but at least he's not a murderous dick that would throw you in prison for growing some pot. Go ahead and don't vote for him -- again, by all means. But instead of discussing how awful he is, I'd like to hear folks like Taibbi discuss why they still support Obama -- less "Why I Can't Vote For Ron Paul," more, "Why I Can Vote for Barack Obama." Or, better yet, I'd like to hear ideas on non-electoral alternatives to supporting, yes, a mass murderer. I'm all ears.

Addendum: Since some of you in the comments think I'm somehow backing off my original position, let me clarify. When I say that I'm conscious I may be using "my personal hobby horse" -- empire, or rather, the state bombing little children with cluster bombs -- as a litmus test for politicians, I'm being sarcastic. A year or so ago Chris Floyd and I were accused by one particularly dull liberal blogger of of making issues of war and peace our silly little "hobby horse," and I've since embraced the term.

Perhaps I was too subtle -- there's a first for everything -- but, obviously, if somebody believes it's okay to blow poor foreigners up with munitions because somebody Bad might be in the vicinity, then they are fucked as a human being and not worthy of your support, whether they're a politician or a friend (I'm harsh like that). If you believe it's okay to murder innocent men, women and children with Predator drones, I don't care what your position on Social Security is.

Also, to be gratuitous: Fuck Matt Tabbi on this.

34 comments:

  1. Charlie, at what point will you have enough confidence in your convictions to no longer need so much reassurance?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Ron Paul may be a dick, but at least he's not a murderous dick that would throw you in prison for growing some pot. Go ahead and don't vote for him -- again, by all means. But instead of discussing how awful he is, I'd like to hear folks like Taibbi discuss why they still support Obama -- less "Why I Can't Vote For Ron Paul," more, "Why I Can Vote for Barack Obama. Or, better yet, I'd like to hear ideas on non-electoral alternatives to supporting, yes, a mass murderer. I'm all ears."

    You have already answered this question in previous posts.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Eh?" is about right.

    It is always easy to hate the motherfucker who is doing the shit more than you hate the motherfucker that would do that shit, but lost an election. I remain convinced that neither of the political parties will fail to nominate motherfuckers who will do the same shit as their predecessors. it is no surprise that Taibbi is moving right. He knows the score, but he's ready for the big time. Maybe he'll avoid the pitfalls of his new running buddy, Elliott Spitzer, but even if he does, he'll forget the evil that he saw in exchange for a seat at a table with murderous swine.

    Or, maybe not. I.F Stone and Chris Hedges kept going.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ah, thanks, Justin. Now I see your message.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You have already answered this question in previous posts.

    Sure -- I know that I already have all the answers to life's problems (and I did link to my anti-voting Counterpunch article from last year at the top of this post). I'd just like to hear from Taibbi and other critics of the system how they rationalize their support for Obama. And maybe then, instead of having to defend Ron Paul again, I can take apart said rationalizations and push them more toward the anti-politics end of the spectrum. Maybe.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I love how Taibbi favoring the guy who's disproportionately imprisoning and bombing the ever-living shit out of brown people while simultaneously citing racial sensitivities to justify rejecting Paul, who's been consistently been against all of that.

    Leftist simply can't accept they've been one-upped by a candidate who's not on team Democrat.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Individual income tax just pays interest on our Fed loans and almost nothing else (service based taxes are gathered from SS, property taxes, road taxes paid with fuel purchases etc). In the US, corporate taxes pay for "defense". Aside from our foreign troops abroad - RP wants to end the Fed (like JFK and Lincoln did) let's hope he could live long enough to follow through (in the snowball's chance he makes it). If you're at all in doubt about anything I've written a few quick intro's to the topic are available free as online documentaries: The Money Masters, Freedom to Fascism and the Secret of Oz, or you could jump over to zerohedge.com and witness an arena of Fed bashers first hand (Bernanke is affectionately referred to as Chairsatan, Bubbles, Zimbabwe Ben etc.)- see you there.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous6:00 PM

    Killing people is part of the job of being POTUS. Until the American Empire crumbles, every president is going to be a mass murderer. Have we ever had a president that wasn't a mass murderer? If Ron Paul ever got the job, he'd become one too. It's how the empire is set up. No one man--not even Ron Paul--will be able to change that.

    So you're left with either opting out of voting, or picking the least bad killer.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You opt out of voting, Anonymous. It's that simple. Opt. Out. And take your goodies with you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Everythings Jake11:22 PM

    New to the blog - found you off a link from Chris Floyd I think. Glad I stumbled across it, you're a very good writer.

    I agree that there's more power in acting locally - but I wouldn't forgo elections. Rather, I think voting in progressive school board candidates and city councilpersons, mayors, state officials, etc. lays the groundwork for change at the top (arguably, this strategy was pretty successfully employed by Republicans during their years of exodus from Washington congressional leadership).

    Odd small world note: my father and his wife retired to San Juan del Sur and run the Villa Palermo hotel.

    ReplyDelete
  12. jcapan3:22 AM

    I'd vote for Paul and I'm a dumbass who voted team Donk in every presidential from '88 to '08.

    If elected, we know what Paul would and could do to the state (if they didn't kill him). And some of loony domestic policy ideas wouldn't get very far in congress anyway.

    As it stands, almost without question now that he can sport an "I'm Obama & I slayed Osama" t-shirt, the POTUS will continue to = the status quo. Jerkoffs for the oligarchs, check, endless war and Orwellian dystopia...

    Taibbi's not dumb--he knows the media will savage Paul or anyone who threatens the corporatist state. And unlike Hedges, he's not yet personally threatened by the looming collapse. He still doesn't quite believe it can happen or he's already bought a little place in Costa Rica.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Any woman who would vote for Ron Paul is insane. Nope, he doesn't want to bomb Yemen. But he wants to control my body. He doesn't much care if I die carrying a child that he has decided I should carry.

    You don't have a problem with that? You think that is a man of peace?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sasha,

    Don't you think abortion is something of a red herring exploited by both parties? While I don't believe any level of government should be able to restrict a woman's right to choose, at least Ron Paul wouldn't impose his view on the entire nation -- he doesn't believe the federal government has that authority. In practice, Paul's return-the-issue-to-the-states position would change little. Not even South Dakota was able to pass an abortion ban. And despite Roe v. Wade, there are few abortion providers in middle America as it is.

    Barack Obama, meanwhile, hasn't exactly been great on women's issues: his health care reform law forbids insurance companies from covering abortions if they receive federal funding. And the victims of his wars? Women too.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous3:04 PM

    Matt Taibi has a kind of superficial way of evaluating ideas. He kind of gets Ron Paul because the poeple were polite to him and doesn't like Rand because his fans were tea partiers!

    Does anyone else find this ridiculous?

    Then he responds to some eager young Paul supporter asking him to read The Road to Serfdom as if that was the end of the debate.

    Matt Taibbi circa 30 AD " Oh Jesus? That guy, I wish people would stop asking me about him. His fans are insane and annoying. Plus, I mean he's just a really out there radical. I agree with him on some things though".

    note: not to compare Paul to Jesus. Just saying how about talking about ideas not politics.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It's amazing to me the amount of cognitive dissonance coming from highly intelligent progressive personalities like Matt Taibbi. Would it so disrupt their world view to come to terms with what Obama and the United States actually stand for?

    Would it be the end of the world to come to terms with the fact that most libertarians are, practically, more liberal on just about every front possible than your average liberal?

    I don't think there's any reason to stop calling these people out. The more you shine light on their hypocrisy, the better.

    Liberals need a serious reformation or wake-up call or they run the risk of being jr. republicans forever.

    ReplyDelete
  17. MJGreen6:48 PM

    OK, I guess I deleted my comment last night. Once more:

    Following J.D., I can't understand why we should care that Ron Paul maybe once made racially insensitive comments*, when his policies would do enormous good for minorities. What exactly are people afraid of anyway? As President, it would be within Paul's power to pardon non-violent drug users and respect state laws concerning marijuana. On the other hand, what scary racist policies do people fear he would be willing and able to unilaterally enact as President?

    I just discovered your writing a few days ago, through Roderick Long's link to your last post on Ron Paul. As a libertarian anarchist, I love what you're saying Mr. Davis. I find it appalling that there are so many progressives who denounce people like myself or Ron Paul, when the US is killing thousands overseas and ruining millions of lives at home.

    *I don't know what Rand Paul has said or done to suggest racist beliefs, and if there are examples, why they should then be attributed to his father

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ron Paul makes politics *FUN*. :D





    The RON PAUL challenge for Moron Libs! < armchair73 > 03/26 23:20:18

    Moron Libs. As you know, Ron Paul is WAAAAAAAAY better than your guys on some KEY, IMPORTANT things.

    So unless you do something about it, annoying Paultard Trolls like me will make this place a living hell for you.

    So - You must do something about it. And this is what you must do:
    You need to contact every liberal, Democrat that you know.

    And you need to tell everyone to start writing letters. To your senators. Your Congressmen. Your local Newspapers. TV stations. Anyone and anything that pays heed to people's opinions, letters, etc. and publishes them.

    In these letters, you should demand that your Democratic party representatives take HARD line stances on:

    -Ending Imperialism. Bringing all US troops home and closing all US bases abroad.
    -Ending/Defunding wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya.
    -Repealing USA PATRIOT Act
    -Ending the War on Drugs
    -Ending the War on Terror
    -Repealing NAFTA, along with all of our so-called "Free Trade" agreements with countries like China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea.

    On EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. OF. THESE. DEMANDS you should add at the end "EVEN RON PAUL SUPPORTS THIS, THE MOST CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN IN THE CONGRESS, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU, HOW CAN YOU CALL YOURSELF A DEMOCRAT IF YOU'RE *WORSE* ON THIS THAN *EVEN* RON PAUL???"

    Moron Libs. You don't need to cross the aisle and become a Ron Paul supporter. Ron Paul is for us Conservatives.

    BUT YOU MUST DEMAND THAT "YOUR" PARTY BE AT LEAST AS GOOD AS RON PAUL ON ALL THIS STUFF.

    Oh and as you make these demands, also ask that your Democratic party representatives, as they publicly call for ending all the wars and our military presence abroad, propose cutting HALF A TRILLION dollars out of the DoD and CIA/NSA budgets. Then RELENTLESSLY mock the Tea Party retards by pointing out your guys are trying to cut HALF A TRILLION in spending, while their Neocon douchebag pols are diddling around with $80 billion or whatever the chump change actually is.

    Mmmkay? Get it now?

    Just sayin'

    Morons. Heh.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Odd small world note: my father and his wife retired to San Juan del Sur and run the Villa Palermo hotel.

    Seriously? Drop me a line if you ever visit. And let me know if I can use their pool.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous7:45 PM

    @Sasha Either you haven't taken the time to actually find out what Ron Paul's position on abortion is, oryou don't care about the facts and just want to promote your own agenda. He has made his position on abortion abundantly clear. As recent as last week on several major media outlets, he reiterated it. So, assuming you posses the slightest ability for cogent thought, I'll recap it briefly for you. He believes that the abortion issue resides Constitutionally with the states. That Washington has no claim to decide that which the tenth amendment left to the states. While he may be personally agains abortion, he has consistantly stated, on this and many other issues, that he doesn't believe in imposing his will on anyone. And he doesn't believe that anyone else has the right to impose their will on another. With the issue left to the states, like minded people on both sides of the issue would have recourse to find a place to live consistent with their views. Insane? Hardly.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous7:50 PM

    I used to have a simple litmus test for any politician that wants my support - Do they support the drug war? If their answer is yes, I refuse to support them. Now, just looking at the numbers, I think Central Banking kills more folks annually than all the military action on the planet. Just because someone doesn't explode when they starve to death it doesn't make them any less dead. If the US can resurrect itself from militarized imperialism and a totally collapsing economy it could serve as a positive role model limited only by the imagination of people that choose to find inspiration there. Central Banking is making slaves and corpses of all but the very wealthiest of our world's inhabitants. RP is far from perfect but if he can limit Central Planning, dramatically reduce our military to a truly defensive position and pay off our debt and drastically reduce (or eliminate) income tax simultaneously (hey that would stimulate the economy)- sign me up. Any other "change" is short.

    ReplyDelete
  22. What do Socialists say about imperialism and wars?

    http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/

    Short version: It's the fault of Banking interests.

    What do Libertarians say about imperialism and wars?

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard66.html

    Short version: It's the fault of Banking interests.

    War on Drugs, Imperialism, Big Governmnet, Welfare, Economic Neo-Liberalism, etc. etc. - they're all connected. It's Statism-Capitalism.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think there are so many qualifications and so much defensiveness in this post that it in the end has very little potency. Stylistically it is a big retreat from the original one and I don't know why. You are right, you don't have to write weakly like you were under siege and losing - it makes it appear as if you now realize that your position is a weak one.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hero,

    I believe you are mistaking politeness for weakness and sarcasm for defensiveness.

    Maybe I should have just titled the post, "Matt Taibbi, Imperialist Cocksucker."

    ReplyDelete
  25. Addendum (added to the post and pasted here for good measure): Since some of you in the comments think I'm somehow backing off my original position, let me clarify. When I say that I'm conscious I may be using "my personal hobby horse" -- empire, or rather, the state bombing little children with cluster bombs -- as a litmus test for politicians, I'm being sarcastic. A year or so ago Chris Floyd and I were accused by one particularly dull liberal blogger of of making issues of war and peace our silly little "hobby horse," and I've since embraced the term.

    Perhaps I was too subtle -- there's a first for everything -- but, obviously, if somebody believes it's okay to blow poor foreigners up with munitions because somebody Bad might be in the vicinity, then they are fucked as a human being and not worthy of your support, whether they're a politician or a friend (I'm harsh like that). If you believe it's okay to murder innocent men, women and children with Predator drones, I don't care what your position on Social Security is.

    Also, to be gratuitous: Fuck Matt Tabbi on this.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Do you think the corporate banks should set monetary policy or congress? I know there isn't much difference but at least one we can claim to control. Should we continue to fund dictators' ability to oppress their own people so big business can make bigger profits? Should we keep killing women and children for reasons I couldn't begin to tell you? Should we continue fund wars south of the border while incarcerating over a million people a year for engaging in mutually desired trade? Should we continue to allow more than half of TANF funds to be spent on administrative overhead(thank you welfare reform bill and retardicans)? Should we continue to wonder why big business benefits from the laws when we let them write the law? BTW, I am a card carrying libertarian.

    ReplyDelete
  27. It takes a genuinely selfish and brain-dead idiot to focus exclusively on abortion as if it were the sine qua non of social justiciability.

    Murder a fetus and you're a hero in Sasha's world.

    ReplyDelete
  28. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  29. D. Frank Robinson7:34 PM

    While there's always the secession option. Everyone can do it until they downsized to a society small enough to have a civil conversation among themselves. The status quo is toxic.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I think Ron Paul is wrong about abortion, same-sex marriage, and immigration.

    And, well, Constitution-worship. And the state.

    I expect, per the campaign Brad Spangler's been helming, to Vote for Nobody come November 2012.

    But I think it's worth pointing out that the president's direct impact on whether anyone gets to have an abortion is minimal. Protection for abortion rights is settled federal law absent the overturning of Roe. A president would have to get a justice likely to overturn Roe past the Senate. A president who took Ron Paul's positions on policy issues would in any case be likely to view agreement on other issues as more important than support for overturning Roe. Given that support for Paul's views on those other positions is most likely to come from people who don't share his view of Roe, I don't think it's obvious that, were he president, it would prove at all easy for him to find a generally libertarianism but anti-Roe Supreme Court nominee. And, I repeat: if he did, that person would have to get past the Senate.

    So the president's impact on abortion rights is, to say the least, limited.

    By contrast, the president's impact on whether military force is unleashed around the world, whether assassinations and drone strikes are carried out, whether the DOJ chooses to invest energy in enforcing unjust drug laws—that impact is enormous.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Jason Guthartz7:07 PM

    "If you believe it's okay to murder innocent men, women and children with Predator drones, I don't care what your position on Social Security is."

    I'm inclined to agree with what you say here (and, well, everywhere else). But to play devil's advocate, what about this counter-argument:

    Can we assume that there's no difference between aggressively violent killings by drone, and passively lethal killings from, say, lack of health insurance? That the life taken by a political decision on how to allocate economic resources is as valuable as the life taken by a political decision on how to "fight Terrorism"?

    If so, then if a President Obama is more likely than a President Paul to help the number of deaths in the U.S. from lack of health insurance go down from 45,000 a year to 35,000 a year**, would that change the moral calculus?

    Disregarding the nationalities of the victims, if the person who supports a policy which kills 1,000 innocents is the same person who supports a policy which saves the lives of 10,000 innocents, then isn't that a better alternative than the person who would prevent the 1,000 deaths but allow the 10,000?

    I don't necessarily agree with this counter-argument - just putting it out there.

    **I recognize that the part about Obama being able to save lives with things like health care reform would be more plausible if we were talking 2008 and not 2012; going forward, even if he were willing, he'll be unable to do much of anything for anyone outside the ruling class. (And by not abolishing the private health insurance system, Obama & D.C. Dems proved their indifference to the tens of thousands who will continue to be killed by that system.)

    ReplyDelete
  32. Jason,

    I think many liberals accepted that perceived trade-off during the time of LBJ: a few dead foreigners in exchange for Medicare. In reality, though, a "few" dead foreigners turned out to be a few million dead, nowhere near the number "saved" by Medicare.

    While an interesting hypothetical, I'm of the opinion that a massive centralized state like the US will do a lot more harm than good in the long run-- it'll use the power it's amassed to enrich the powerful and bomb the powerless much more often than it'll work on behalf of The Little Guy. A smaller Republic of Vermont, by contrast, never would have had the power and resources to invade Iraq; it could, however, plausibly provide its residents with a decent health care system.

    In rambling sum: I don't think it's possible to accept the good (Medicare or free health care for all) that comes from a powerful central government without accepting a whole lot of bad (blowing up Afghan babies, embargoing Iraq during the 90s). Liberals tried that during Vietnam and it didn't work out so well, especially for the Vietnamese. You can't separate domestic from foreign policy. The current US government also doesn't seem terribly interested in any of the "good" stuff anyway, and I definitely don't see any policy coming out of Washington -- and making it past Congress and K Street -- that has the potential to save more lives than ending the empire would.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Charles,
    I'm an amateur but been at it for a few months. I appreciate you being willing to say Paul would be better than Obama. Paul is way off base on most things economic. He also sides with business rights above civil rights. That's not good.

    I will probably end up voting for Obama over Romney in the general election. That's not something I feel thrilled about, certainly not like when I voted for Obama in the 2008 primary and general election.

    What is most frustrating to me is how few progressives see that jumping ship to vote for Paul in the GOP primary would be the the most strategically clever thing we could do in this election. If enough of us do it, we'd send the Tampa GOP convention into chaos and put a candidate up against a Democrat who does not have defend his defense policy. This is the simplest and least expensive way to beat the GOP. I know that part of the reason this strategy has not taken root among progressives we do not want to give up on Obama. I don't either. I loved his "More Perfect Union" speech. If he were not so high on making war, he could still become our nation's greatest foreign policy president. He has had to contend with an opposition hell bent on his destruction. I can even forgive his premature accommodations. He seems to assess what can get done and move to that point so as not to waste time.It's bad strategy, even though it would be good governance if he had a less resistant opposition.
    All that said, the bottom line for me is this: the peaceful green economy America needs will never be built until we have the funds, and the only place to get these funds in abundance is by ending the military industrial catastrophe's empire building and maintenance budget. Again, if Obama would match Ron Paul's cuts in warfare, I would be glad again to vote for him.
    if you have not already, visit my blog: http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/
    I am glad to hear your thoughts if you have time, and a plug would be great as well. Thanks for your honesty.

    ReplyDelete