Mike found this on breakfornews and posted it on RigInt and I think it should be seen here too. Hopefully not stepping on Mike's toes:


[quote:cf5ygfrw]Paul draws heavily upon an idealized image from the time when North America was still being colonized and there was always more land which could be stolen from the "Indians." He seems totally detached from the fact that banking crises were worse then in an unregulated environment and only relieved themselves by steady territorial expansion to the west. It's like he's created a world of make-believe wherein the USA of the 19th century was a territorially fixed entity that didn't depend upon external expansion for economic growth but just remained stable within a settled region while the magic hand of the free market brought prosperity to all. That's totally divorced from the actual development of capitalist imperialism in North America.

That is a succinct and quite accurate analysis of the make-believe world all right wing libertarians exist in. Ron Paul, included.

Discussing Ron Paul is interesting to me (although probably not the wisest use of my time) as a black male. I find it interesting on several levels.

1) The level of unreality so many Libertarians and RP supporters of varying shades must exist in to digest the fantasy of honest, clean unregulated capitalism. The psychologically dissonant character of the phenomena is interesting to observe and attempt to understand.

2) As an African living the US, I find the objections to Ron Paul by other (I assume) center oriented political types almost as interesting as the aforementioned blinders worn by the Ron Paul supporter. What I mean is that, as I've mentioned here before I think, the attempt to separate racism and US politics is a red flag indicating a not insignificant level of delusion. For instance, while I agree with dilbert_g's analysis just about to the letter, his dismissal of the racial aspect is a red flag indicating that while he is technically astute as to the policy flaws and some ideological flaws of RP, he misses a large part of the big picture. Just about every question dilbert_g raised to Dr. Paul, almost every contradiction pointed out leads one back to the question of white racism in the US (if you don't operate from an ahistorical premise where race is insignificant). So even the relatively extremely level-headed and informed politicos, sideline the issue of race. Not because they harbor racism themselves but because they don't understand it and because (the important part) they exist in a hegemonic cultural atmosphere were racism is assumed and normalized on the institutional as well as personal level. Meaning, for the average white US citizen, racism, unless it manifests itself in the form of the KKK, neo-nazis or similar entities, is invisible.

This includes the Ron Paul types as well as those that have problems with Ron Paul but (and they usually go to pains to make this point clearly understood) not racial problems with Ron Paul. Notice that dilbert said that Ron Paul's racial observations (as dilbert referred to them) were maybe inappropriate. On the white side, that is about as opposition or push back will go in regards to race.

It is an internalized conclusion that the race issue is overblown by irrational 'minorities' and not as serious an issue as they make it seem. This is interesting because this is the establishment line all the way but you can hear and see this line in the thinking and comments of folks that consider themselves and their political analysis to be well outside of the establishment sanctioned breakdown. And they are outside of it.

Until it comes to the issue of white racism inside the U.S., at which point they usually fall back in line with the typical Republican or Democrat. Making it all the more obvious that race, not the Fed, not 9/11, not any of these hot buttons is the real bright line for white folks when it comes to US politics. Even those that consider themselves radicals, balk when it comes to acknowledging the breadth, scope and penetration of racialized thinking on the white psyche. It goes so deep that the most supposedly enlightened whites see minorities, the documented victims of racism, as the ones who most lack perspective, ironically turning reality upside down.

Is Ron Paul a racist? Wrong question. The correct question is if a person or group's policy advocacy has a consistent history of adversely affecting a particular racial group what does that mean? Does it mean that he/she is racist?

Doesn't matter.

The functional effect is racial. And that's a fact, not an opinion. That is why Ron Paul (and all Republicans just about) are opposed by black people.

The sidelining of this issue by our supposed allies, is unfortunate.[/quote:cf5ygfrw]

Mike found this on breakfornews and posted it on RigInt and I think it should be seen here too. Hopefully not stepping on Mike's toes:


[quote:3rm3sb6t]Paul draws heavily upon an idealized image from the time when North America was still being colonized and there was always more land which could be stolen from the "Indians." He seems totally detached from the fact that banking crises were worse then in an unregulated environment and only relieved themselves by steady territorial expansion to the west. It's like he's created a world of make-believe wherein the USA of the 19th century was a territorially fixed entity that didn't depend upon external expansion for economic growth but just remained stable within a settled region while the magic hand of the free market brought prosperity to all. That's totally divorced from the actual development of capitalist imperialism in North America.

That is a succinct and quite accurate analysis of the make-believe world all right wing libertarians exist in. Ron Paul, included.

Discussing Ron Paul is interesting to me (although probably not the wisest use of my time) as a black male. I find it interesting on several levels.

1) The level of unreality so many Libertarians and RP supporters of varying shades must exist in to digest the fantasy of honest, clean unregulated capitalism. The psychologically dissonant character of the phenomena is interesting to observe and attempt to understand.

2) As an African living the US, I find the objections to Ron Paul by other (I assume) center oriented political types almost as interesting as the aforementioned blinders worn by the Ron Paul supporter. What I mean is that, as I've mentioned here before I think, the attempt to separate racism and US politics is a red flag indicating a not insignificant level of delusion. For instance, while I agree with dilbert_g's analysis just about to the letter, his dismissal of the racial aspect is a red flag indicating that while he is technically astute as to the policy flaws and some ideological flaws of RP, he misses a large part of the big picture. Just about every question dilbert_g raised to Dr. Paul, almost every contradiction pointed out leads one back to the question of white racism in the US (if you don't operate from an ahistorical premise where race is insignificant). So even the relatively extremely level-headed and informed politicos, sideline the issue of race. Not because they harbor racism themselves but because they don't understand it and because (the important part) they exist in a hegemonic cultural atmosphere were racism is assumed and normalized on the institutional as well as personal level. Meaning, for the average white US citizen, racism, unless it manifests itself in the form of the KKK, neo-nazis or similar entities, is invisible.

This includes the Ron Paul types as well as those that have problems with Ron Paul but (and they usually go to pains to make this point clearly understood) not racial problems with Ron Paul. Notice that dilbert said that Ron Paul's racial observations (as dilbert referred to them) were maybe inappropriate. On the white side, that is about as opposition or push back will go in regards to race.

It is an internalized conclusion that the race issue is overblown by irrational 'minorities' and not as serious an issue as they make it seem. This is interesting because this is the establishment line all the way but you can hear and see this line in the thinking and comments of folks that consider themselves and their political analysis to be well outside of the establishment sanctioned breakdown. And they are outside of it.

Until it comes to the issue of white racism inside the U.S., at which point they usually fall back in line with the typical Republican or Democrat. Making it all the more obvious that race, not the Fed, not 9/11, not any of these hot buttons is the real bright line for white folks when it comes to US politics. Even those that consider themselves radicals, balk when it comes to acknowledging the breadth, scope and penetration of racialized thinking on the white psyche. It goes so deep that the most supposedly enlightened whites see minorities, the documented victims of racism, as the ones who most lack perspective, ironically turning reality upside down.

Is Ron Paul a racist? Wrong question. The correct question is if a person or group's policy advocacy has a consistent history of adversely affecting a particular racial group what does that mean? Does it mean that he/she is racist?

Doesn't matter.

The functional effect is racial. And that's a fact, not an opinion. That is why Ron Paul (and all Republicans just about) are opposed by black people.

The sidelining of this issue by our supposed allies, is unfortunate.[/quote:3rm3sb6t]

Interesting - and the conclusion can apply to so much of popular politics. It is the FUNCTIONAL EFFECT that matters - not the intention, not the rhetoric, not the personality or the haircut. It is the functional effect which is a FACT-based measure. When you get into a discussion with just about any avid supporter of any candidate (incl Paul), that's where the conversation breaks down - when you try to get them past the rhetoric aka 'platform' and into the nitty-gritty, the real and tangible result of the candidate's actions/votes/etc. It's similar to the illusion that the Dems, in general, are anti-Iraq-War but their hands are tied. Bullshit. There is no such thing as 'anti-Iraq-War' except that which will end it. The Dems ain't it. The functional effect of their actions is to continue the occupation and the functional effect of the voters who keep putting them in office is to continue the occupation...they are all, in effect, pro-war, despite their rhetoric and hand-wringing and bumper stickers.

But the true believers refuse to address this. There's a Paul supporter in particular who constantly mentions Paul's desire to end the 'unjust and racist' War on Drugs. I have asked time and time again for some evidence that Paul understands and emphasizes the "RACIST' part and I get no response. The reality is that (particularly given our starting point) whether it is the war on drugs or social programs, the results of Paul's policies, if enacted, would result in increasing the divide between races, it's plain to see.

I think a lot of Paul supporters (and many others) DO operate from 'an ahistorical premise where race is insignificant'. I suppose it's easy to do so when one has never been discriminated against, never been to a ghetto and asked someone how it got that way, never been inside an inner-city school...This is a problem. There is no 'blank slate' from which to start, and there is no agreed-upon-shared-history to base conversation on.

THis is an interesting little piece. Thanks for posting it.

http://progressiveindependent.com/dc/dc ... ic_id=7896 (http://progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=196&topic_id=7896)

BTW Kid that bit about Communism was in the Wiki entry I think. Found it in the comments section of the Kos post.

And kudos for the straight talk over at RI.

Interesting - and the conclusion can apply to so much of popular politics. It is the FUNCTIONAL EFFECT that matters - not the intention, not the rhetoric, not the personality or the haircut. It is the functional effect which is a FACT-based measure. When you get into a discussion with just about any avid supporter of any candidate (incl Paul), that's where the conversation breaks down - when you try to get them past the rhetoric aka 'platform' and into the nitty-gritty, the real and tangible result of the candidate's actions/votes/etc. It's similar to the illusion that the Dems, in general, are anti-Iraq-War but their hands are tied. Bullshit. There is no such thing as 'anti-Iraq-War' except that which will end it. The Dems ain't it. The functional effect of their actions is to continue the occupation and the functional effect of the voters who keep putting them in office is to continue the occupation...they are all, in effect, pro-war, despite their rhetoric and hand-wringing and bumper stickers.

But the true believers refuse to address this. There's a Paul supporter in particular who constantly mentions Paul's desire to end the 'unjust and racist' War on Drugs. I have asked time and time again for some evidence that Paul understands and emphasizes the "RACIST' part and I get no response. The reality is that (particularly given our starting point) whether it is the war on drugs or social programs, the results of Paul's policies, if enacted, would result in increasing the divide between races, it's plain to see.

I think a lot of Paul supporters (and many others) DO operate from 'an ahistorical premise where race is insignificant'. I suppose it's easy to do so when one has never been discriminated against, never been to a ghetto and asked someone how it got that way, never been inside an inner-city school...This is a problem. There is no 'blank slate' from which to start, and there is no agreed-upon-shared-history to base conversation on.

Damn. That is really good Megan. Thanks.

I think a lot of Paul supporters (and many others) DO operate from 'an ahistorical premise where race is
insignificant'. I suppose it's easy to do so when one has never been discriminated against, never been to a
ghetto and asked someone how it got that way, never been inside an inner-city school...This is a problem.
There is no 'blank slate' from which to start, and there is no agreed-upon-shared-history to base conversation
on.

They gotta say something about race, if only to dismiss it, because you can't get away with denying it. Class is another story, there is no indelible physical indicator, it doesn't exist!

The denial of the existance of class has been the greatest single accomplishment of the minions of Edward Bernays. The dismissal of the relevance of race in American society runs a close second.

Or Kooch screws the pooch.


"I'm thinking about Ron Paul" as a running mate, Kucinich told a crowd of about 70 supporters at a house party here, one of numerous stops throughout New Hampshire over the Thanksgiving weekend. A Kucinich-Paul administration could bring people together "to balance the energies in this country," Kucinich said.


It would create a stunning, if dizzying, blend of beliefs, wedding two politicians who hold different views on abortion rights, the role of government in providing health care, and the use of government in fostering -- or hampering -- the public's greater good. Those are among the reasons it would never work, said a spokesman for Paul, a congressman and doctor from Texas.

"Dr. Paul and Rep. Kucinich are friends and there is a lot of mutual respect," Paul communications director Jesse Benton said in an e-mail when asked whether a running-mate spot on the Kucinich ticket would be attractive to Paul. "They have worked, and will continue to work, together on the ending the war and protecting civil liberties.

"However, Ron wants to substantially cut the size and scope of the federal government. There are too many differences on issues such as taxes and spending to think a joint ticket would be possible."

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2007/ ... on_ro.html (http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2007/11/if_kucinich_wins_nomination_ro.html)

That just about makes the nut. Whodda thunk, huh? Well, some people I can think of....

Have not looked yet, but I expect that PI will be an interesting, quotable place today.

Or Kooch screws the pooch.

[quote]"I'm thinking about Ron Paul" as a running mate, Kucinich told a crowd of about 70 supporters at a house party here, one of numerous stops throughout New Hampshire over the Thanksgiving weekend. A Kucinich-Paul administration could bring people together "to balance the energies in this country," Kucinich said.


It would create a stunning, if dizzying, blend of beliefs, wedding two politicians who hold different views on abortion rights, the role of government in providing health care, and the use of government in fostering -- or hampering -- the public's greater good. Those are among the reasons it would never work, said a spokesman for Paul, a congressman and doctor from Texas.

"Dr. Paul and Rep. Kucinich are friends and there is a lot of mutual respect," Paul communications director Jesse Benton said in an e-mail when asked whether a running-mate spot on the Kucinich ticket would be attractive to Paul. "They have worked, and will continue to work, together on the ending the war and protecting civil liberties.

"However, Ron wants to substantially cut the size and scope of the federal government. There are too many differences on issues such as taxes and spending to think a joint ticket would be possible."

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2007/ ... on_ro.html (http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2007/11/if_kucinich_wins_nomination_ro.html)

That just about makes the nut. Whodda thunk, huh? Well, some people I can think of....

Have not looked yet, but I expect that PI will be an interesting, quotable place today.[/quote:1stz0120]

Remind me - who is out of touch with reality? The liberals or the libertarians? Amazing that the right winger knows, and can articulate, why the dream ticket is an absurdity, but Kucinich can't or won't.