Why I root for Ron Paul
Issandr El AmraniI've been thinking a lot about Ron Paul and the Republican primaries lately. I am a social libertarian but don't like many of Paul's small-government ideas (or, for that matter, that he named his son after Ayn Rand). But I think he has the best foreign policy ideas out there, ones against maintaining an endless empire of US bases in the Middle East and against foreign aid. I really like this argument by Philip Weiss:
Ron Paul represents the opportunity to push an antiwar agenda inside the center-ring political system. His candidacy might actually force Romney and Obama into more antiwar positions. If he disappears, that prospect all but vanishes. An attack on Iran might actually be in the balance. If he sticks around, we might actually have a presidential debate in which candidates openly dispute aid to Israel and an attack on Iran and what Paul has called apartheid conditions on the West Bank, an honesty no other candidate is capable of.
If you care about the antiwar issue, joining with Ron Paul is like seculars joining with the Muslim Brothers to get rid of Mubarak. You needed a broad coalition to push Hosni out. And in the end, that coalition did the impossible; it moved Obama. Obama wouldn't have jumped in if not for Tahrir. He needed political cover. A broad coalition gave it to him.
But what if leftwing secular social-media types had stood around Tahrir Square asking the smart question, Hey what do these folks-- Muslim Brothers and Salafis-- want to do with the role of women in politics? They would never have gotten rid of Mubarak.
I wouldn't stress the Tahrir comparison too much, but there are good reasons to support Ron Paul among the sorry lot of Republican candidates this batch and the frankly unappetizing prospect of Obama being re-elected. Precisely because Paul brings in, along some wacky libertarian ideas, this anti-war, anti-imperialism, "isolationist" element to US foreign policy. It's a strong plus for him, one of the few things that really makes him stand out if you can stomach the other stuff.
The way I see it, there are good reasons to support Ron Paul in the Republican primaries and wait for him to become popular enough to disrupt the nomination process. If he does well enough, the Republican establishment will push through a candidate of its choice but alienate Paul voters, making the chance of a third party or independent campaign by Paul more likely. Since for me, overall, Obama is still more desirable as a president than any of the current crop of Republicans, this ensures he gets re-elected, but probably without a majority. In this situation, the Republican establishment is weakened, the Democratic establishment is weakened, and the candidate who stood on his own values is rewarded even if he has no chance at the presidency. And in the meantime, on foreign policy at least, Paul helps keep people honest in the foreign policy debate. As Phil writes:
And Obama will be a better policymaker the longer Ron Paul is in the process. Paul will actually give Obama more political capital to take on the warmongers and neoconservatives by raising consciousness on these issues. I don’t want Ron Paul's foreign-policy ideas to be in the margins of political life, I want them in the mainstream. That is what he represents.
As an independent who leans progressive (but has a secret Tory heart) and is repulsed at the Democratic party's support for Israel and the warmongering of the last decade, Paul just makes sense — precisely because he has little chance of getting power but some of his ideas deserve better airing. Too bad he came third in Iowa, but I hope sticks around.
Reader Comments (29)
Rand Paul isn't named for Ayn Rand. It's short for Randal, but was shortened to "Rand" because that's what his wife likes to call him: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/06/03/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-rand-paul
an Arab who supports Ron Paul, there is a surprise
so he is loved by the white supremacists and the Arabs, because they share their common enemy in the Jews and Israel
Jews are always on the front line against the evil in the world
you Muslims are evil, and the white supremacists are evil
that is why you both love getting on the anti Jew bandwagon
But just know Paul will never get elected and you Muslims will be met with a harsh response if you ever attack Israel, and we can hope the "white supremacists" in the US will get what they deserve one day
Obviously Zionists are terrified of Ron Paul, they feel they continuously have to slander him as a white supremacist. Of course they have no problem with Jewish supremacism, since that is their ideology. I love the use of the word "evil", too.
It's been depressing how support for Ron Paul has shown a number of anti-imperialists to be soft on racism, but as we've already seen so many anti-imperialists over the past decade being soft on misogyny, soft on gay rights, and generally rotten on the universality of human rights, I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise.
It's not about being soft on racism — I acknowledge they may be issues there (although there probably are more for candidates who got racially biased legislation and executive regulations passed, like Gingrich or Perry) — but the point is that he won't be elected, and is not campaign on a racist program. So why the obsession with the 1992 newsletters?
Isolationism and racism appeal to the same xenophobic mindset. Check out the foreign policy of Britain's far right BNP, or look at the 1930s anti-war leaders in the US and UK. It's a major mistake to think anti-war is always a progressive cause.
Here's another isolationist for you.
Issandr, the problem with rooting for Ron Paul because of his foreign policy positions is that he is regarded by most Americans as a kook on the fringe of politics. His endorsement of these foreign policy positions therefore tends to label them as fringe positions held by kooks. I think it's refreshing that there's someone in the Republican race who's willing to break step with the foreign policy consensus, but the fact that it's Ron Paul means that it won't bring these positions into the mainstream.
Good article by Gideon Rachman on this in the FT a couple of days ago: http://blogs.ft.com/the-world/2011/12/ron-paul-kook-or-visionary/.
Kellie -
It's depressing to see how many anti-racists, gay-rights advocates and feminists are soft on imperialism, soft on war-mongering and soft on civil liberties abuses. Because support for anyone but Paul implies that you are soft on these issues in the same way the support for Paul implies that one is soft on racism.
Strange how Obama's/every other Republican candidate's support for the war on drugs never get labelled as racist, even though it's consequences so clearly are.
Lovely post. I've been following Ron Paul since his famous 2007 debate when he started setting the record straight about American foreign policy and it's consequences that everyone can see except the republican establishment. I think it is the right direction for the US to follow, especially with this huge debt. The Israeli lobby needs to know the the US should come first in their interests. Israel is NOT an ally to the US more than Pakistan is so they should receive aid when it falls within the US national interest, not for charity or because some God tells us to do so.
Reading through the commentators you see that no one comes to address the main issue: Why is the US supporting Israel with all these billions of dollars while we can use a lot of that money in the US or to cut our debt?
Kellie - one more thing on your assumption that liking the foreign policy ideas Ron Paul brings to the table is an endorsement of his (alleged) racism: it's pretty clear in my post that I am not a Ron Paul fan, simply that I like his disruptive impact in Republican politics in particular and the presidential race more generally. But actually, for me Ron Paul is against the kind of racism I have suffered from: that stemming from racial profiling as well as the Patriot Act (which caused my bank account in the US to be frozen for six months in 2002). Not to mention his stance against Gitmo, against the assassination of US citizens and the Bush-Obama attack on Habeas Corpus, etc.
Josh - Paul is kooky, but less of a kook to me than Santorum, Perry or Bachmann for instance. Some of his ideas seems to have national appeal, too. I don't buy his goldbug economics, but the point here is how Paul can be used, not his intrinsic qualities.
"they feel they continuously have to slander him as a white supremacist."
He denies writing these now, but he took credit when they came out. When asked, he defended them.
You're being lazy or disingenuous. That's not good.
1. “Order was only restored in LA when it came time for the blacks to collect their welfare checks. The ‘poor’ lined up at the Post Office to get their handouts (since there were no deliveries) — and then complained about slow service.” -Report on LA riots, June 1992
2. “I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me. Threats or no threats, I’ve laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.)” -Direct mail ad promoting Paul’s newsletters, written from Paul’s perspective, 1993
3. “It is human nature that like attracts likes. But whites are not allowed to express this same human impulse. Except in a de facto sense, there can be no white schools, white clubs, or white neighborhoods. The political system demands white integration, while allowing black segregation.” -‘The Disappearing White Majority,’ January 1993
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/10-shocking-quotes-from-ron-pauls-newsletters.php
But don't ask me to defend JMM. He's a zionist bigot.
To be clear Issandr, I'm not accusing you of endorsing his racism. But looking for excuses for racism directed against others while pointing to racism directed against yourself is not an elegant way of dealing with the question. I'm against anti Arab racism, against, anti African American racism, against antisemitism, against anti Muslim bigotry, against nationalism, and against the selective nationalism of any anti Zionists who are the same time pro Palestinian nationalism. I'm also against torture, against taking an á la carte approach to the Geneva Convention rules of war, and against an á la carte approach to the universality of human rights.
We can't have the perfect candidate, we must pick and choose on issues. Frankly what Paul might have said two decades ago is small pickle compared to any candidate who, in office, backed the recent wars, or is calling for more wars. What Paul wrote (or had ghostwritten) is pretty nasty stuff, but it's not that relevant to the tactical advantage of having him as a disruptive force in American politics.
To call Zionism a form of "Jewish supremacism" is ignorant, lazy and bigoted, and is indicative of the one blind spot in your otherwise shrewd and analytical mind. One of the chief characteristics of anti-Semitism through the ages is to look at the Jews, see them doing the same thing as everyone else, but then get a tizzy and think because the Jews are doing it, it is something evil and sinister.
Zionism is simply Jewish nationalism, tout court, and as such is no different than French nationalism, Indian nationalism, or Arab nationalism. Although all these nationalisms could -- and have -- veered into supremacist strains at different points in their history, they are not in themselves supremacist, and neither is Zionism.
If you believe, as many progressives do, that nationalism is intrinsically and inevitably evil, then come out and say it, but then don't go single out Israel for being guilty of an ideology that nearly the rest of the human race shares, i.e. their own parochial nationalisms. For better or worse, nationalism is an enduring feature of modernity. We could endlessly debate its origins, but let it suffice to say that most people are somewhat narrow in their sympathies, and by this natural inclination care more for their own tribal group than for outsiders. Nationalism just takes this inherent tendency and extends it to a slightly broader group, the "nation" rather than the tribe or village.
A tragic view of the Arab-Israeli conflict would see it as the inevitable clash of two rival nationalisms, both born at roughly the same historical moment. If Jewish nationalism did not exist, there would be no Israel. If Arab nationalism did not exist, then the conflict would not have drawn the innumerable meddlers and enablers that prevent its resolution, and would have remained the local problem of the Palestinians. Without the pan-Arab threat, Israel would be more reassured about a deal (of course, strictly speaking, without pan-Arab bellicosity, there would have been no occupation in the first place). Without pan-Arab support, the Palestinians would be more pressed to cut a deal with Israel.
Just because Israel currently has the upper hand in the struggle is no reason to indict Zionism as an ideology. If Arab nationalism had had its way (or ever does), the results would be even more catastrophic. A pox on both their houses, is what I say.
The struggle to up-end racism and other forms of bigotry within the US is a battle americans can and have been winning, though the battle is still uphill. I don't feel completely disempowered on that front. But imperialism? That's been an uninterrupted constant since this nation's inception, and it has only intensified, mushrooming outwards across every sea as history progresses. It is easy to feel hopeless in the face of our imperial misadventures and disasters. Has grassroots activism ever really made a dent in the US's imperial disposition? - like it has on the domestic front in the struggle against racism, sexism etc. Vietnam plodded along for a decade before popular will kicked in. And the Iraq war? That was a cruel, pitiless force that beggared belief. I never felt so hopeless in my life. The american public was easily manipulated into purchasing that war because its foreign policy discourse was/stil is absolutely demented. I can see the tactical advantage of begrudgingly rooting for Ron for the sole purpose of holding our foreign policy to account. We'll never have true social equality at home as long as we mercilessly kill people abroad. Ron Paul may be one small uncomfortable step in that direction.
"I am a social libertarian but don't like many of Paul's small-government ideas" Why not?
Why not? As GWB famously said to a Monsanto representative - I think it was over the r Bovine Growth Hormone dispute - "Don't worry, I'm ' Dereg'." I think this means the precedence of big profit, big money, big food over governance of the common national interest. Paul's opinions seem contradictory. But who knows? Maybe American politics with its terrible preponderance to special interests needs its Gadfly.. I'm not American, so I won't be voting. But it affects us all. Good luck.
Why not? As GWB famously said to a Monsanto representative - I think it was over the r Bovine Growth Hormone dispute - "Don't worry, I'm ' Dereg'." I think this means the precedence of big profit, big money, big food over governance of the common national interest. Paul's opinions seem contradictory. But who knows? Maybe American politics with its terrible preponderance to special interests needs its Gadfly.. I'm not American, so I won't be voting. But it affects us all. Good luck.
Why not? As GWB famously said to a Monsanto representative - I think it was over the r Bovine Growth Hormone dispute - "Don't worry, I'm ' Dereg'." I think this means the precedence of big profit, big money, big food over governance of the common national interest. Paul's opinions seem contradictory. But who knows? Maybe American politics with its terrible preponderance to special interests needs its Gadfly.. I'm not American, so I won't be voting. But it affects us all. Good luck.
"What Paul wrote (or had ghostwritten) is pretty nasty stuff, but it's not that relevant to the tactical advantage of having him as a disruptive force in American politics."
If you think it doesn't matter what he believes about race because he plays a disruptive role (and he won't win) then just say it.
You defended him and now you're weaseling around. It's bullshit.
Ibi Abihi, please. Zionism is Jewish nationalism on stolen land. And Palestinians are Jews who converted a long time ago.
Racist Germans who don't like Turks, or Jews for that matter, at least have the advantage of being native to their lands. Most Israeli are mixed-breed descendants of expatriates from 100 AD, who expelled the descendants of ancestors who never left..
"A Jewish State for a Jewish people". If there has to be a Jewish nationalism I'll take the Rhineland and oceans of blood.
Take your moral earnestness and stuff it.
I should be clear. German nationalism is founded in direct links to the land, as Palestinian nationalism is.
But since I'm a Jew and have no sympathy for Germans (and they deserve none) and I side with Palestinians... I'll take the Rhine.
I really appreciate the kind and intelligent discussion I've read on this blog as opposed to some others. Have been reading a lot about the Republican candidates and have had many of the same thoughts. I do feel that Ron is bringing up a lot of very important issues and feel that it is time Americans began to address some of them. Real core stuff. From the anti-imperialsm/anti-war discussions to a new dialogue developing around racism that is invoking new communication. Think we're all a bit tired of the sex scandals, eh? I'd like to recommend another essential topic, libertarian of a sort, and a bit overwhelming. Interesting movie called "Money As Debt" by Grignon. Check it out and give it some thought. BTW-99% but too old to be Libertarian. :)
Issandr - whether you (or I) consider Paul to be kooky is not the issue - it's the fact that he's perceived that way in the mainstream of American politics and public opinion. He isn't someone who's going to bring an idea into the political mainstream, and in fact he could have the opposite effect, i.e. people will say "The fact that someone like Ron Paul thinks that US shouldn't give Israel financial support just goes to show what a kooky idea that is".