General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCrackpots Do Not Make Good Messengers
By Kevin Drum
So then: Ron Paul. Should we lefties be happy he's in the presidential race, giving non-interventionism a voice, even if he has other beliefs we find less agreeable? Should we be happy that his non-mainstream positions are finally getting a public hearing? This is a depressingly common view. For example:
<...>
Can we talk? Ron Paul is not a charming oddball with a few peculiar notions. He's not merely "out of the mainstream." Ron Paul is a full-bore crank. In fact he's practically the dictionary definition of a crank: a person who has a single obsessive, all-encompassing idea for how the world should work and is utterly blinded to the value of any competing ideas or competing interests.
This obsessive idea has, at various times in his career, led him to: denounce the Civil Rights Act because it infringed the free-market right of a monolithic white establishment to immiserate blacks; dabble in gold buggery and advocate the elimination of the Federal Reserve, apparently because the global economy worked so well back in the era before central banks; suggest that the border fence is being built to keep Americans from leaving the country; claim that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional and should be dismantled; mount repeated warnings that hyperinflation is right around the corner; insist that global warming is a gigantic hoax; hint that maybe the CIA helped to coordinate the 9/11 attacks; oppose government-sponsored flu shots; and allege that the UN wants to confiscate our guns.
This isn't the biography of a person with one or two unusual hobbyhorses. It's not something you can pretend doesn't matter. This is Grade A crankery, and all by itself it's reason enough to want nothing to do with Ron Paul. But of course, that's not all. As we've all known for the past four years, you can layer on top of this Paul's now infamous newsletters, in which he condoned a political strategy consciously designed to appeal to the worst strains of American homophobia, racial paranoia, militia hucksterism, and new-world-order fear-mongering. And on top of that, you can layer on the fact that Paul is plainly lying about these newsletters and his role in them.
Now, balanced against that you have the fact that Paul opposes the War on Drugs and supports a non-interventionist foreign policy. But guess what? Even there, he's a crank. Even if you're a hard-core non-interventionist yourself, you probably think World War II was a war worth fighting. But not Ron Paul. He thinks we should have just minded our own damn business. And even if you're a hardcore opponent of our current drug policy if you think not just that marijuana should be legalized, not just that hard drugs should be decriminalized, but that all illicit drugs should be fully legalized I'll bet you still think that maybe we should retain some regulations on a few of the worst drugs. They're pretty dangerous, after all, and no matter how much you hate the War on Drugs you might have a few qualms about a global marketing behemoth like RJ Reynolds having free rein to advertise and sell anything it wants, anywhere it wants, in any way it wants. But not Ron Paul. As near as I can tell, he just wants everything legalized, full stop.
- more -
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/01/crackpots-messengers
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)is the only national candidate talking about ending the drug war, ending the wars, and ending the surveillance state.
I thought Kevin Drum was smarter than this.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)came to her senses:
http://twitter.com/#!/KatrinaNation/status/152842211090903040
And Drum's point was specific to comments like hers.
"is the only national candidate talking about ending the drug war, ending the wars, and ending the surveillance state."
See: "Crackpots Do Not Make Good Messengers "
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Oh, that's right. Within minutes of each other. And then, the following day she tweeted Greenwald's article which mentioned her original post here:
KatrinaNation Katrina vandenHeuvel
I have big problems w/Ron Paul on many issues.But on ending preemptive wars & on challenging bipartisan elite consensus on FP, good he's in.
30 Dec
This is her follow up:
KatrinaNation Katrina vandenHeuvel
And to add, I consider Paul's racism & homophobia disqualifying/despicable.Need other candidates challenging elite FP consensus/
30 Dec
I am surprised you believe her since you don't seem to believe Greenwald who has posted over and over and over again that he does not support Paul.
Oh, and please see my sig line.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I am surprised you believer her since you don't seem to believe Greenwald who has posted over and over and over again that he does not support Paul."
...your point is that you want me to "believe Greenwald"?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)simply on her say so.
Rolling on the ground laughing!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Well, you seem to blindly believe Katrina that she is not a Paul supporter"
...based on your interpretation I should "believe Greenwald"?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)TheWraith
(24,331 posts)He's called President Barack Obama. And besides talking about it, he's actually DOING it, having ended the war in Iraq and on track to bring Afghanistan to an end probably ahead of schedule.
As far as the drug war, you're free to complain that more candidates aren't talking about completely impossible issues. Others are also free to point out that they're completely impossible. Believe me, I'm of the same opinion you are, but I'm certainly not under the misapprehension that it's something that's practical to do given the way our government works right now.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)TheWraith
(24,331 posts)The reality is he promised to end the Iraq War, and he did; he's formed a plan to end Afghanistan, and he is.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)RL
"He's called President Barack Obama. And besides talking about it, he's actually DOING it, having ended the war in Iraq and on track to bring Afghanistan to an end probably ahead of schedule."
...that doesn't count because he didn't want to do it. Besides, Ron Paul is allegedly anti-war, though no one can explain this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=110106
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)And, nobody is claiming that Paul, in reality is anti-war. They are claiming that Paul the candidate stakes out an anti-war position. Right now, people are sick of war and they want it to end. My entire life has been the U.S. military engagements in Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, Haiti, Cuba, Laos, Dominican Republic, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Libya, Lebanon, Grenada, Honduras, Libya again, Persian Gulf, Honduras, Panama, Columbia, Philippines, Iraq, Iraq (yes again - no fly zones), Somalia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Haiti Again, Iraq again, Afghanistan, Sudan, East Timor, Siberia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq again, Haiti again, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya.
This does not even include the horror that the CIA has assisted in.
Man, we sure do bomb the crap out of non-white people.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"So you admit he withdrew the troop according to Bush's schedule."
...was being sarcastic.
"And, nobody is claiming that Paul, in reality is anti-war."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100277632
Oh, and from the link above, this is hilarious: "anti-crony-capitalism"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002111290
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)My bad. And I totally agree!
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Oh! So you were laughing at The Wraith!
My bad. And I totally agree! "
I'm sure my point was understood, but it's good to know yours.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)The fixation on the vessel that makes the vessel supercede the messege is a fatal flaw.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"It is the message that is important not the messenger."
...which is why some people seem to be jumping to the defense of Paul? I mean, no one has held him up as an alternative, right?
As Paul's popularity grows, it's the "messenger" with a cherry-picked message, and people are not getting the full picture. How many times in the past week have people endorsed Paul without a clue as to what he really represents?
As Drum points out, does anyone really want to embrace Paul's version of these issues?
Response to ProSense (Original post)
Post removed
ProSense
(116,464 posts)girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)That's not my fault.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"There's another DUer on the witch hunt list."
...this belong in "Creative Speculation"?
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)Response to girl gone mad (Reply #21)
ProSense This message was self-deleted by its author.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)it to slam someone.
Response to girl gone mad (Reply #21)
Bobbie Jo This message was self-deleted by its author.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)RL
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)So posts the irony-challenged...
RL
ProSense
(116,464 posts)Drum's point touched a nerve.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)RL
:_!_:
RL
ProSense
(116,464 posts)laughter is good for you.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)So, I suppose there will be a cacophony from the ones who were wishing that the GOP was going to return to some semblence of sanity and stop worshipping the warmongering faction of their party.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"True, the guy who doesn't want war finished 3rd behind 2 guys who want to bomb Iran."
...because they're all liars, and Paul is no different.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=110106