Ron Paul, Libertarianism, and the Antiwar Movement

This is my extended take on Ron Paul and Libertarianism. Be warned, this is a polemic, and while I personally have no beef with Libertarians (I know one who makes a mean vegetarian chili), I do have issue with their political ideas, so all in good fun, but serious debate :)

Its not what Ron Paul IS, but what he ISN'T.

Ron Paul represents the interests of small business owners and highly paid professionals. People sandwiched between big business and the unwashed masses. They resent the domination of society by large corporations, not because they desire a more equal world, but because big business (and government) present obstacles to their own individual success. The disdain for ordinary people is hardly masked if you listen to their rhetoric about immigrants, minorities, and even the rights of women.

The problem is that the libertarian (classical libertarian) world is a freeze frame of 19th century American capitalism, a utopia of rugged individualism and small competition. Problem is that

1. that world never really existed (the one that did was built on slavery)
2. it rests on the ridiculous presumption that everyone starts out on a level playing field where raw talent is the deciding factor of success, life or death.

Unfortunately, power is inheritable. A cursory look at our current inbred crop of politicians will dispel any sense that the cream rises to the top. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton?

While romantic, the populist notion that the biggest problem is "government interference" is as Sean put it "hogwash." Some pigs just want their own spot at the trough.

I think we must reject this world view in favor of one that puts the resources of society to work for all that make it possible, not the rich that were born at the controls.

So why do progressives then support Ron Paul?

Because of the two party stranglehold, corporate control, etc. most Americans electoral choices are made through process of elimination of what is "beyond the pale" for them.

So their support for a candidate is based mostly on the positions their opponents take, not the positions their chosen candidate takes. So Ron Paul could accept a $500 donation from an open White Supremacist (which he did last week), but as long as Giuliani accepts Pat Robertson, and Huckabee rejects evolution, Paul is still in the ballpark.

For progressives, its a recognition that Kucinich (and Gravel) are not even viable enough to affect the positions of the front-runners of their own party, let alone affect the issues of the general election. Thats why I think Kucinich should leave the Democratic party like Cynthia McKinney did and run on the Green Party ticket.

The Republican party is falling apart and they don't have the apparatus to marginalize Paul like the Democrats can marginalize Kucinich. The Republicans don't fear a party revolt because the ideas Paul puts forward are pretty crazy (dissolve public education, no government control except over women's right to control the fate of her own uterus).

The Democrats fear Kucinich, because his ideas WILL appeal to the masses of people the Democrats count on for votes and that kind of party revolt would destroy the Democratic party, not pull it to the left. Corporate party, corporate rules, corporate efficiency in eliminating threats.

Finally, the "Ron Paul revolution" also flows from a mistaken (in my opinion anyways) position that leftists have to compromise their core principles in order to be "relevant" to the mainstream electoral process. Tom Hayden and Phyllis Bennis have made those exact arguments in the pages of the Nation magazine lately.

If they are willing to concede Healthcare and the War to Obama and Clinton in order to be "relevant", then why not concede abortion and immigration to a crazy old guy who speaks like a 19th century populist.

In my opinion, the solution to a 30 year assault by the right wing isn't to co-opt sections of the right wing, or to adapt to its politics, but figure out how to be firmer and better at organizing our side.

The right wing doesn't need huge numbers of regular Americans to get its message out and be effective, a small number of right wingers will have the ear of big media and the majority of politicians, because the right wing message benefits the rich and powerful (including Ron Paul). So their message is amplified and exaggerated by a media that shares their views.

The left on the other hand, needs to be extremely organized, principled, and disciplined in order to get its message out and be powerful enough to win.

The power of organized people demanding their basic rights is more powerful than any government, army, or corporation, but it is much, much harder to organize them (and the governments, armies and corporations also fear popular power and try to stop us for good measure).

So it takes a long time, much longer than a 2 year electoral cycle, and every 2 years (or 4 years) politicians tell us that we don't have to do all that hard work (or that hard work is not worth while), and you can just vote and everything will be OK. Its not that people are lazy, but people are desperate for change and will give politicians the benefit of the doubt without a strong alternative force to look to.

We need to build a core of folks to stand up to those counter-acting forces year after year, and walk along side those who agree with us on a number of issues, but don't have the confidence to put their chips in our corner yet. While walking and struggling, we should never, never be silent about the fact that this is a long-term struggle. We should figure out as best we can, who our friends are, and who our enemies are. And we should NOT think that hiding our differences is the best kind of unity. We should not aim to organize along the least common denominator, but aim to raise the level of confidence, the level of knowledge, and the level of skill.

Its not easy, but the payoff is a world worth living in.