[statecom-discuss] Fwd: [articlesUJP] A Reply to the Left on Ron Paul

[gary hicks]

Michael Pugliese <michael.098762001 at gmail.com> wrote:  To: demvictory <DemVictory at yahoogroups.com>, progchat_action at yahoogroups.com, 
articlesUJP at yahoogroups.com
From: "Michael Pugliese" <michael.098762001 at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 10:10:06 -0700
Subject: [articlesUJP] A Reply to the Left on Ron Paul

        In a Hole? Dig Deeper!
A Reply to the Left on Ron Paul
by Sherry Wolf
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/wolf191207.html
There is a section of the broad Left today that is so demoralized by
the miserable state of the world, the repugnant electoral options for
2008, and the dismal place the antiwar movement is in that they are
flailing -- both politically and organizationally. In response to my
article, "Ron Paul, Libertarianism, and the Freedom to Starve to
Death," written for the Jan.-Feb. International Socialist Review and
posted to several Web sites, literally hundreds of people have written
nasty screeds to comment boards or e-mailed me their invective. I
want to respond to the small segment of them who are self-described
leftists who continue to challenge my argument that the Left should
not be embracing either Ron Paul's candidacy or his libertarian
constituency.

There is a deep cynicism informing the idea that since the Left is
weak, we must turn rightward for strength. The Left's primary
weakness in this country is its refusal to jettison an electoral
strategy that has led us to the political cul-de-sac of antiwar
activists placing an effective moratorium on mass protest to not
embarrass prowar Democrats they feel they must support, as the
movement did in 2004. The current crop of Democrats heading into the
2008 primaries murmur their tactical differences with the losing
strategy of Bush and Co. in Iraq, while their party votes for more war
funding and exposes its liberal imperial aspirations by threatening
war against Iran and Pakistan.

As Adolph Reed recently wrote: "The Democratic candidates who are
anointed 'serious' are like a car with a faulty front-end alignment:
Their default setting pulls to the right." In other words, the
rightward drifting strategy of the movement has failed, so the
antidote, some insist, is move even further to the right by supporting
a Republican. The prescription: In a hole? Dig deeper.

There are other weakness to be sure, including the collapse of a broad
Left that once understood the need to oppose U.S. foreign adventures
under ALL circumstances, including those called "humanitarian." This
devastated a Left that lost its political rudder when it began
supporting ventures in Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, and finally
Afghanistan. A trail of death and poverty lies in the wake of those
great acts of the white man's burden.

Some of Paul's defenders complain that since he supposedly didn't
actually write some of the racist crap in his own eight-page 1992
newsletter, then he's cleared of any racist aspersions. Get real.
This is a man who argues that cross-burning shouldn't be a crime,
unless it's violating someone's property rights. Threaten someone's
life with the tactics of the Klan, no worries; singe their lawn, watch
out! Paul has a 100 percent approval rating from the unabashedly
racist John Birch Society and his political career, according to Texas
muckraker Molly Ivins whose columns exposed his batty ideas, was
helped by crazed holy-roller homophobe Pat Robertson. If those allies
aren't bad enough, wrap your brain around the fact that he received an
endorsement on KKK leader David Duke's site. The Web site's motto,
"White Civil Rights: The Website for Europeans and Americans Wherever
They May Live," can't be parsed by Paul's defenders -- they hold
proto-fascistic ideas and give enthusiastic support to Ron Paul.

Then there's that little problem he has with separation of church and
state, a fundamental aspect of any modern secular society. Paul
argues, "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has
no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our
Founding Fathers." Come on folks, how far to the right does a guy
need to be before his antiwar position ceases to corral leftists into
his camp?

If all a guy needs to be is antiwar to embrace his supporters or even
offer up endorsement, then why stop at Ron Paul, a man who isn't even
pretending to stand outside the two-party stranglehold of big
business? If it's his antiwar stance that gets progressives excited,
then why not embrace Pat Buchanan too? In 2004 he blasted the war and
the Bush administration at great length in Where the Right Went Wrong.
Afterall, Buchanan is a far better known opponent of foreign
adventures, is more pugnacious toward the do-nothing Democrats, and
shares a lot of Paul's other individualist politics. Most leftists
would say that Buchanan is a nasty bigot; does this mean Paul's folksy
style and apparent nice-guy persona cancels out his pro-business and
racist natterings? Nasty racists, no; affable ones, okey dokey?

Since many progressives who wrote me don't seem to be repelled by Ron
Paul's actual anti-labor, anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, defiantly
sexist, homophobic, and outright racist voting record and statements,
perhaps a gander at what his supporters have to say would be
instructive. Those who endorse uniting with the Paulites to build a
stronger antiwar movement, such as left-wing writer/activist Joshua
Frank, ought to know who they're getting into bed with. Here is a
tiny sampling of the responses I've received so far from his committed
followers.

Most numerous were the puerile personal attacks devoid of any
political content -- I'll spare you those. Though it's worth
mentioning that quite a few (men) addressed me as "sweetie," "hey
lady," and "girly" -- diminutive and sexist means of attempting to
belittle a woman whose arguments, in the minds of chauvinists, don't
deserve a political retort. Gee, they would make fine movement
allies.

Then there are the old-school McCarthyites and a handful of
anti-Semites, a couple of whom attack the organization I'm in, the
International Socialist Organization, as "an organization of Jewish
run hypocrites." More common were these: "Your interpretation is
simply Marxist and Un-American as well as manipulative" and the more
colorful "Keep your views to yourself as I think they stink like your
farts! If you don't want to learn to follow and obey the US
Constitution get the hell out of this country we don't want you." Or
the delusional red-baiting type: "You socialists cause inflation
through your support of The Federal Reserve's unceasing creation of
money out of thin air. . . . Let us alone to be free people.
Everyone in our country will benefit except for the oligarchs such as
you."

I won't bother reprinting the tirades against Stalin and Mao used to
"refute" my arguments, since as a member of a political tendency that
has never defended Stalinism or Maoism, I found these folks simply
avoided dealing with the actual political issues involved. As do
screeds, like the one on Antiwar.com, "Ron Paul: Slings and Arrows,
Left and Right," which argue that I'm shilling for Hillary Clinton,
who, if she ever had a progressive stance, has had it triangulated
into its poll-tested opposite. For the record, I do not now vote for
or advocate a vote for, nor have I ever in my adult life voted for or
advocated a vote for, a Democrat.

The racists claim: "Multi-culturalism is being discredited more each
day, we don't all need to live together in harmony." And the
immigrant bashers: "I would like to make an objection to your use of
the term 'undocumented immigrant.' There is a reason that these
individuals are not documented . . . that is because they are in the
country illegally. These illegal aliens come to this country because
they get free healthcare, social services and their children are born
citizens." The first note speaks for itself; as for the second, not
only are 96 percent of undocumented males gainfully employed (higher
than any other sector of the population), but the National Academy of
Sciences found that immigrants benefit the U.S. economy overall, have
little negative effect on the income and job opportunities of most
native-born Americans, and may add as much as $10 billion to the
economy each year. I can't see too many Arab, Black, Latino, and
other immigrants feeling welcomed into a movement with the likes of
these correspondents.

The more thoughtful notes actually betray the pro-employer class bias
at the very heart of Ron Paul's libertarianism. There were lots of
overt defenses of the free market and privatization, among which was
this e-mail that really sums up the ramifications of Paul's politics:

"You talk of Bosses exploiting employees. You probably think
employers should pay employees what they are worth -- because it
sounds good to you. . . . The simple fact is if you were paid what
you were worth, then there would be no profit left to the employer.
If you cannot live cheaply enough for your income level, go live
somewhere else. No one points a gun to your head in either case. If
you are not satisfied working for someone else, go to your secretary
of state's office, and pay the tax if you wish to incorporate, or just
be a sole proprietor -- you be the Boss you so despise."

Though he does make Marx's point about where profits come from, his
solution that everyone should just get up and start their own company
has the charm of both denying reality and deeming exploitation
inevitable and desirable.

A surprising number of self-proclaimed leftists wrote in to argue in
defense of Paul's "colorblind" vision of society as being similar to
Martin Luther King's, while dismissing Paul's racist writings on
Blacks. Let's be clear: MLK had a dream that we needed to fight for a
world in which people would be judged by "the content of their
character, not the color of their skin," BUT he didn't pretend as
though we actually live in that society today! Anyone who can look
around at the terrifying incarceration, unemployment, and mortality
rates of Blacks and say that we have achieved that dream and should
therefore support a man who opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is
either suffering racial myopia, is a racist, or is someone who thinks
reality is a mere diversion. So long as we have institutionalized
racism, we will need affirmative action, including quotas, and other
legal and social protections to challenge the racists in power and
defend groups under siege.

Finally, I want to address a couple of things lurking beneath the
surface of many progressives' arguments, elaborated by Josh Frank --
someone I respect and with whom I often agree. He argues in a recent
radio interview that we should "Put the false differences aside and
come together in common cause," with the "beer drinking red-necks from
Tennessee" he wrote about in his initial online article, "Ron Paul's
Campaign Deserves Our Attention." He states plainly that abortion and
gay rights are "wedge issues" that "distract us from the big issues."
While nobody is advocating a litmus test for antiwar folks to join the
movement, certainly not I, we need to be clear that there is a
difference between a movement in opposition to a racist and imperial
war having some reactionary elements float through occasionally and
activelycourting racists and know-nothings.

If a left-wing movement seeks alliance with these folks, we will find
ourselves dropping demands and protests of things such as the attacks
on Arabs and Muslims -- the domestic front of this war -- among other
accommodations. Ignoring Paul's more outlandish ideas is an
expression of the same opportunism that some progressives have
embraced as they hold their noses and vote for Democrats with
repulsive politics except for abortion, or whatever.

If a Left is to strengthen, it must take on backward ideas in its
midst, not cater to them. There are literally millions of
progressive-minded people in this country, most of them working class
of every race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation who are facing a
looming recession. Paul's politics provide no answer to the
catastrophes afoot and will only repel the very people who need to be
brought into the Left. Let's not pander to petty bosses' ideology and
racist electoral campaigns and pretend we can walk away unsullied.
Sherry Wolf is on the editorial board of the International Socialist
Review. She can be reached at sherry at internationalsocialist.org.
Comments (20) | Trackback | Print
MR
StatCounter - Free Web Tracker and Counter

-- 
Michael Pugliese


__._,_.___   Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic 
  Messages 
    MARKETPLACE
      
---------------------------------
  Earn your degree in as few as 2 years - Advance your career with an AS, BS, MS degree - College-Finder.net. 


   
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) 
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional 
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe 

    Visit Your Group 
      Yahoo! News
  Kevin Sites
  Get coverage of
  world crises.

    Dog Groups
  on Yahoo! Groups
  discuss everything
  related to dogs.

    Curves on Yahoo!
  A group for women
  to share & discuss
  food & weight loss.



  .

 
__,_._,___                         

       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.