Kucinich, Paul and the Alliance of the Elephant

So what's going on around here? All this chatter about Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Or Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Or UFOs and Ron Paul. Or Dennis Kucinich and right wing racist kookoo loons. It's all so hard to keep straight sometimes. But something is definitely going on. Something is definitely stirring and gurgling up from the depths of the internets and the fringes of American politics. What does this mean? What the heck is going on?

Before I continue, let me make a disclaimer for the record: I believe, like most posters on DU, that Ron Paul is a certifiable nut case. I believe that his views on the role of government serve as a case study in stupidity and heartlessness. I believe that his choices of association mark him as grossly ignorant and surely as useless in any position of leadership.

All that being said, I also believe that it's hugely important for us, as Democrats, to understand why Ron Paul has the appeal that he does. It's important for us to understand why so many Americans are drawn to Paul, and why, ironically, so many supporters of my choice for President, Dennis Kucinich, also seem so intrigued by him.

At first blush none of this seems to add up. After all, Paul advocates the virtual demolition of the social safety net while Kucinich preaches a social policy of compassion and humane involvement of the State. Paul rails against taxes of all kinds, while Kucinich advocates higher taxes on the rich and progressive taxation in general. They seem diametric opposites. And in almost all areas of crucial domestic policy they are indeed opposed. However....

What's critical to understand about supporters of Ron Paul's quixotic quest for the Presidency is that many of them - maybe even a majority - have a startlingly incomplete understanding of Ron Paul's agenda. I make this statement based solely on my experience speaking with large numbers of Paul supporters both on and off the internets. I firmly believe it to be true. Most of Paul's supporters don't know - or maybe even care - what he thinks about social programs for the poor. Or what he thinks about public education. Or choice. Or the Federal Reserve. Or affirmative action. Or a myriad of other critical issues on which Paul is full-bore kookoo. And yes flamers, certainly many of his supporters know these things - the die-hard Libertarians, the right wing hard-cores - these folks understand full well. But the newbies - and they account for huge piece of his support - do not understand. They understand different things about Paul. And it's in the realm of these different ideas where the overlap with Dennis Kucinich comes into play - and where I believe it's becoming imperative for Democrats who care about our Party to take note.

So what do Dennis and Ron have in common? What is it that could make left-leaning statists consider supporting a right wing nut, and/or make right wing nuts consider supporting a Chomsky-spouting lefty? What is it that all these Americans of hugely diverse (and/or undefined) political views have in common?

Answer: They all see the elephant in the room. The elephant is our failing democracy and our suicidal course in the world. The elephant is the lies and the unspoken truths. The elephant in the room of American politics is the background music to everything both of our major political Parties say and do on every other issue. The elephant is why we have only 50% participation in our fraudulent "elections." The elephant is why so many Americans laugh out loud at our political process. To many Americans the elephant is the primary problem. It trumps everything else. To others, both on DU and elsewhere, the elephant is invisible. The Paul/Kucinich alliance phenomenon highlights the fact that the difference between those who see the elephant and those who deny it's existence, is rapidly becoming more significant than the difference between right and left. The elephant is growing fat and blocking the sun.

So what do Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich jointly believe that brings these diverse elephant spotters together under one large and bizarre tent? I believe there are three points of critical importance:

1. Paul and Kucinich both oppose American imperialism. Not only do they both oppose the war in Iraq, but they both believe, unlike a majority of politicians in both major Parties, that our current policy of world domination through military hegemony is a recipe for catastrophe and ultimate defeat. I am convinced this is view shared by a majority of Americans.

2. Paul and Kucinich both speak honestly about what they believe to be true. In the case of Ron Paul, the beliefs about which he truthfully speaks are dangerous and destructive. In the case of Kucinich, I believe they are just what our country needs. Nevertheless, unlike a majority of politicians from both major Parties, they don't pull punches, equivocate or triangulate their words for public consumption. I believe this trait is desperately desired by a majority of Americans.

3. Paul and Kucinich both prioritize the U.S. Constitution in their political calculus. While Paul's view of the Constitution may be twisted around in a knot, his oft-stated reverence for it resonates with many Americans. And Kucinich... well, his actions and votes on impeachment and many other issues speak for themselves. Both Paul and Kucinich, unlike a majority of politicians from both major Parties, oppose the creeping loss of civil-liberties in strong and unequivocal terms. This is leadership that I believe is desperately craved by a majority of Americans.

So Paul and Kucinich both oppose America's suicidal foreign policy consensus, both speak honestly about what they believe, and both advocate for real, actual American freedom (In Paul's case, a hollow freedom, but that is decidedly beside the point). For these reasons, both have been marginalized by their respective political Parties and by the corrupted American mainstream media. In short, they both see the elephant, and their fellow Americans who also see it are often simply glad to know they are not alone.

So what then, as Democrats, does this mean to us? To me, of course, it means that Paul supporters are - at least the newbies who don't understand the full breadth of the Paul agenda - potential Kucinich supporters. But to all Democrats it should mean more than that. It should mean that our Party needs to begin acknowledging the elephant - that we need to begin to actually address it. I believe that this strange and flighty campaign season bed-fellowery tells us where we need to move. It's a pointer. Deflate the empire. Re-assert the Constitution. And tell the goddamn truth. It's what a majority of Americans want from their leaders. Paul will pass. Maybe too will Kucinich. But, I submit, this strange alliance of the elephant will surely live on until the pesky pachyderm is really removed from the room and kicked to the curb.

Ever wonder why?

So many of our fellow Democrats have fallen for the fairy tale of the "swing voter."

They think the only new votes to be had are somewhere in the mythical sliver of a land between Liebermanville and Snowe City.

They assume that the 50% who don't vote are simply too busy sucking on their bongs and watching Gilligan's Island reruns to know it's election day - when in fact many - if not most - are thoughtful Americans who have made a quite reasoned determination that the system is a fraud.

I've said this before, but the best possible outcome would be Kucinich vs Paul in the general. Debating REAL issues, and not the manufactured bullshit which has dominated the national agenda for probably a quarter century, but especially the last 7 years.

Were I a republican, I'd sure as heck would be supporting Paul. But I ain't a puker, so of course I do support Kucinich.

Whether it will come through the current Democratic Party or a new Populist Party is largely up to the Democrats.

The time is ripe for representation of the People. That is why so many love Kucinich, and so many fear him.----We all know he is right.

Notice that every post praising Kucinich is answered immediately by a Clinton supporter. If he was as irrelevant as so many like to claim, why the need to consistently, predictably take shots at him and his message?

Right now, Kucinich, and Paul, speak for and to the People. They are on the crest of a wave, a movement. When the wave of Populism breaks, it cannot be suppressed by money, media or force.

America is catching on.

better for a moment. :argh:

rather well-thought of at DU because he speaks his mind and opposes the war and imperialism.

He's still doing that and, as you say, he and Dennis both see the elephant. I don't know if they can overcome their ideological differences enough to be running mates but it occurred to me months ago that a Kucinich/Paul ticket could win the election, if the voting process works at all.

People are tired of both parties, tired of the war, and most aren't inspired by the candidates the media has selected as the top candidates. Lots of voters would like an alternative who isn't owned by the corporate interests.

Somebody's got to take down this elephant soon.

a ticket with Ron Paul on it will not get my vote. I love Dennis, I believe in what he wants for the country and the planet, he says everything I have hoped for in a leader of my country but I can't go with him on this journey. I am still waiting to hear from him, directly on his website about all of this. If it is just what you say, a way to educate those who jumped on the RP bandwagon based only on his opposition to the war and his commitment to the constitution (such as it is) then I can hang on a while and will wait until I hear otherwise. A journey with Ron Paul is one I do not care to make but I do agree with your analysis, it is time for honesty and fair play and there is precious little of it in any of the other candidates.

a ticket with Paul on it. I'm not sure I could vote for that either (although if he were just the VP with Kucinch at the top I'd have to give it serious thought). I'd much prefer Kucinich/Feingold, Kucinich/Boxer, Kucinich/Webb, or Kucinich/almost-any-Dem. :)

I did not mean that you did. I don't know. Paul a heartbeat away, nope I could not do it.

Anyway, good analysis.

now THAT's what I call a "Dream Ticket".....color me there.

Kudos to you Truth2Tell for a superb post. :yourock:


Kucinich 08...Right Then...Right Now...Right For America :patriot:

Kucinich is so blindly, rabidly anti-gun that he voted to water down 14th Amendment provisions to attack the 2nd. Feingold has a simultaneously more principled and nuanced position on gun/self-defense rights.

Furthermore, I think some of Kucinich's ideas are hopelessly naive (and I mean from a leftist critique, not just a "centrist" one), whereas Feingold is better ideologically and programtically grounded.

Still have plenty of problems with Feingold (as I do with the entire political superstructure), but I think he'd be worthy of critical support. DK ain't such a bad guy, but I've become increasingly disappointed with him over the years.

in today's age of miltarized police.

But good luck with that.

Why should I make an exception for self-defense? The right is deontological. The consequences of exercising that right is a different matter entirely.

Believe me, I'm not planning on shooting down cops or soldiers, in self-defense or otherwise, unless I suddenly decide getting myself quickly killed in a politically-motivated but counterproductive act of individualistic adventurism was actually a good idea. If anything, I've lived in working-class urban neighborhoods with relatively high rates of crime most of my life, so I would most likely exercise armed self-defense against criminals. In any event, my right to armed self-defense against aggression by ANYONE is absolute, even if I choose to exercise that right judiciously and/or rarely or never choose to use it. I have all kinds of rights I rarely or never exercise, but they're mine to do with as I choose.

Besides, it's not so much Kucinich's support of gun control that bugs me as much as his eagerness to violate the 4th and 14th Amendments in his zeal to eviscerate the 2nd.

The two candidates that are on the edge of their parties can afford to "Tell it like it is."
It would be a bazaar team, alright.

but are we sure that Kucinich even mentioned Paul as a running mate? I read an OP where only the Cleveland Plain Dealer is publishing this info and they are known for lying about Kucinich. To me, it just doesn't make sense for Kucinich to want to have a libertarian on his ticket.

To me, it sounds as if this was rumored....a sure way to make BOTH candidates look bad...like the 2 candidates from NY agreed on this.

We'll see, I guess.

I do love Dennis. Ron Paul...not in the least. Ick. Stingy hypocrite.

I doubt Kucinich would mention choosing Paul as a running mate, but I don't know.

Paul still represents something to a lot of folks, even on the left. And that's worth a look, IMO.

freedom as long as it's the kind of freedom he wants. He wants to kick it back to the state...so we'd end up with only clinics in NY and CA...Women in this country are NOT going to go back to the Middle Ages.

If you think guys like guns, you have no idea how much women like controlling their uteri. That's a deal breaker for me. I want my freedom and equality.

People on the left like him because he's anti-war, pro-constitution and anti-choice. Guys don't have children...they'll never get it.

edited for spelling

even his position on that issue is logically sound, clear, and consistent, not based on appeals to faith or political equivocation.

:hi:

And yes, at least when Ron Paul says what he thinks about abortion I know it's what he really thinks - so I can know not to vote for him. On the other hand, when Hillary says what she thinks about trade policy, she's full of shit - so people are fooled and actually vote for her. Which is worse? :shrug:

As much of a calamity I think a Ron Paul administration would be for the working-class in this country, it would be a decisive blow to the Empire and to authoritarian Federal government at home. Hillary will do better by American labor (despite a poor record on trade), but she's intent on strengthing the Empire through less reckless but an equally heavy-handed foreign policy than the unbalanced neocons, and she also supports expansion of the Federal government's tentacles.

So if the election were between Paul and Hillary, dunno, might have to go with Paul (or else not vote for either). Ron Paul wuld be a detriment to the American working-class, but the international proletariat would greatly benefit from reigning in the American Empire. And although the American working-class would suffer in the short-run from deep cuts in social programs, in the long-run we may benefit from the restoration in civil liberties and scaling-back of authoritarian government. However, it would be very difficult to support someone who would cause such short-term pain to my American fellow workers, even if would lead to short-term benefits for the international working-class and potential long-term benefits for both the American and international working-class. It's difficult enough for anarchists and revolutionary socialists like myself to choose between the lesser of two capitalist evils, it's even harder dealing with the constant tension of local vs. global allegiances and short-term reform vs. long-term revolutionary aims.

But that scenario's about as hypothetical as it gets. Paul's not gonna win the nomination and he's already ruled out the possibility of an independent run. So this is all intellectual masturbation, really.

besides his and most boy's hatred of women. And I beg to differ but his view is certainty based in religion and the politics of power.

And you call yourself a leftie? Get your fucking boot off my throat.

ta ta.

It's not like I said I agreed with him. Not everyone who doesn't share an identical analysis with you is "oppressing" you. My boot is on no one's throat. Sounds like the whining of petit-bourgoeis leftism to me-- "oh, I'm so oppressed, anyone who disagrees with my analysis in the slightest is a tool of the oppressive partiarchy".

before you are ignored. That avatar of Che is such hypocrisy.

I presented a differing analysis of Ron Paul's (admittedly wrong) views on abortion, and all of the sudden I'm a hypocrite and an anti-abortionist.

I'm sure your shrill, close-minded, middle-class sectarianism is no credit to real feminist fighters like Mother Jones, Margaret Sanger, Alexandra Kollontai, Emma Goldman, Lucy Parsons, Harriet Tubman and Leila Khaled either. They weren't spoiled student radicals sitting around whining about everyone with a different analysis but common goal-- they stood up, made common cause with their allies, and fought for their people's freedom (not just women, but other oppressed peoples as well).

God the "Left" in this country is such a joke-- a bunch of whining lefty liberals, ultraorthodox political necrophiliacs, scared left-leaning moderates, keyboard commandos, sectarian student radicals, individualist adventurists, unbalanced conspiracy theorists, and self-absorbed identity politics elitists-- no wonder we're so screwed. People like Mother Jones, Emma Goldman, Bill Haywood, Farrell Dobbs, and Fred Hampton, were they alive today wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry.

I can't fault you for putting me on ignore, though. Your posts make it quite clear you are unwilling to open your mind to even the slightest difference in opinion.

Especially Point 1. Point 2 rings true as well-- even when Paul is wrong (as he is on many things), he stands firmly on principle. He's one of about a dozen people in Congress I don't think deserve to rot in prison for their lies and imperialist, authoritarian crimes.

Something I've found very disturbing, however, is the number of White Supremacists who support Paul. Stormfront has endorsed him. Then again, politics does make for strange bedfellows, and it wouldn't be the first time the ends of the left-right political spectrum found a nexus when it comes to foreign policy (and even a few other things).

Well stated, Truth2Tell. :toast:

The only yard signs I've seen in a rural (read Republican) area were for Ron Paul this October on a fall drive. It took me aback. That there was a yearning for something-of course Ron Paul tells the truth about the war and on the other flip side wants to abolish all government. A true Republican heh? Well, I almost could live with that if we had the zillion back from the Pentagon that they plunder and steal.

I happen to think our military is a farce. It has ZERO to do with protecting and defending America. That's just a myth. And kids are still signing up! But I can barely say that the military is a farce even on the sometimes liberal DU. I just think until we get that little farce cleared up there is ZERO hope for America. This country is being bankrupted by the military. It's becoming something like the old Russia. We have money for Iraq but none for our own people! What the fuck is that? How can you tell some kid that signing up for the National Guard to protect America-you know-hey kid-America is not in Iraq.

So Ron Paul shatters some of that myth. Kuchinich tells the truth about this country-and what does the fucking media focus on-oh yeah UFO's! Because it's a propaganda hit job. Let's discuss the four hundred other things he's said that are just stunning facts instead. No can't have that.

The problem is not the money spent on social services-that Republican myth of fraud and waste-it's the unspoken thing that can't even be said-the military is a fraud and is bankrupting America. Good luck with that Ron Paul and Kuchinch. Those in power make billions of dollars-they will NEVER let you near power to shut that off. And that's the little secret of the 50% not voting. They know it's a farce.

with the left on personal liberty issues. Add the attitude towards foreign policy, and we have more in common with the libertarians than we have differences.

Libertarians are at least honest in their estimation of various laws - they really believe it. They can be reasoned with. Unlike Repugs.

and teach them about real patriotism - Kucinich style. :)

Anyone who can put on his own website such statements as

"Welfare is now part of our culture, costing hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It is now thought to be a "right," something one is "entitled" to. Calling it an "entitlement" makes it sound proper and respectable and not based on theft........Controlled curricula have downplayed the importance of our constitutional heritage while indoctrinating our children, even in kindergarten, with environmental mythology, internationalism, and sexual liberation. ........It is now accepted that people who need (medical) care are entitled to it as a right. This is a serious error in judgment........The welfare system has mocked the concept of marriage in the name of political correctness, economic egalitarianism, and hetero-phobia."

is just pure INDESCRIBABLE evil as far as I am concerned. Even if he does oppose the war.

At least if he splits the RW vote, that would be a good thing.

:) :hi:

Only the naive think he is a libertarian. I so wish that at least DU-ers would get this right - Paul ain't even a libertarian! he is against separation of church and state, rights of gays, he is a racist - only corporations get "liberty" in his book

:shrug:

A pitiful attempt to quantify complex political positions and ideologies, then place them into a neat little quadrant. It's like picking up a book of "Political Ideology for Dummies".

I wouldn't use it for the candidates within one party - but the big picture is not totally inaccurate. personally, I'd put Paul ahead of all Dem candidates in "authoritarian"- because of the large number of civil rights he's happy to do away with.

What civil rights is Paul happy to do away with? I know he opposes abortion rights, and he opposes free migration, but other than those two? Seems to me when it comes down to the power of the state and the empire, he's less authoritarian than most of the Democratic candidates ('cept for Kucinich and Gravel-- okay, so maybe you're right about the broad representation of the graph after all).

Not addressing the war and constitutional issues makes the parties look the same. Independents may end up being drawn to him.

ditto with the local pot smokers (but they dig on Kucinich too).

I groove on Kucinich. I dig in my backyard.

:kick:

Very good post btw! I will add a few of my own opinions.

I think they agree more than disagree on that. Paul would probably prefer abolishing the FED all together, while Kucinich would probably allow it to exist, but operate within the treasury. His wife works/worked at the American Monetary Institute.



http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/kucinich-health-care-infrastructure-federal-reserve-bank-video-2005/

Even Alan Greenspan, before he was FED chairman, was for the gold standard. Since Nixon took us off the gold standard, gold went from $35/oz to $800/.oz. Inflation hurts the working and middle class in particular. Kucinich and Paul understand this. It's a form of economic violence that "social liberals" like the corporate Democrats are not sensitive too.

In a similar way, the Iraq war, which was funded and supported by Democrats as well as Republicans comes with a final price tag of $3.5 trillion, which may spell the deathnell of Social Security, and many other programs. The "socially liberal" corporate Democrats seem to have a disconnect as to what their vote on the IWR or funding it has had/will have on these social programs. And CBS today says that we have no more debates. A win for the corporate wing.

Anti-imperialism is a broad subject, and I agree completely that they have that in common. Within that subject, both are anti-corporate welfare, antiwar, for fair trade, not free trade (NAFTA).

Regarding the Constitution, Paul has recently introduced a bill to restore it. They are both very strong on Constitutional rights, and privacy, anti-Patriot Act.

It may take an alliance to bring the elephant down, but only when people get mad enough will it happen. They are not mad enough yet and probably won't be by this election. Maybe by 2012 though.

in this essay, but it seems to put people straight to sleep. But yes, the Fed is largely a fraud and most people don't really understand how it works. Even as we descend into yet another economic meltdown precipitated by the reckless printing and lending of unbacked paper, none of our mainstream canddates will even breach the subject. Sad.

It is clear Ron Paul's outspoken truth-telling on American imperialism and politics as usual is resonating deeply with many GOP and Indies. They seem to be just as sick and tired of the same ol' same ol' on their side of the aisle as many of us Dems are with our tired retreads.

I wouldn't want Ron Paul near genuine power, but damned if I don't appreciate the hell out of his willingness to tell some hard truth straight to the GOPers faces.