General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNo, Stoller and Sullivan: there is no liberal conflict over Ron Paul
No, Stoller and Sullivan: there is no liberal conflict over Ron Paulby David Atkins
A few days ago, Matt Stoller wrote a post declaring liberals to be hypocrites over what he presumes to be their ad hominem mistreatment of Ron Paul. Says Stoller, progressives are forced to attack Paul's character, because Ron Paul is the true progressive who puts the lie to the ideals of those benighted so-called progressives who support the evil, awful Democratic Party and its war machine--a machine somehow managed and supported via the Federal Reserve, another of Paul's and fellow conspiracy mongers' bete noires. Stoller states these things matter-of-factly, as if Paul's anti-choice racist Objectivism were a mere sidelight to the real issues facing the country, whatever those might be, and as if America had somehow less of a bellicose history prior to the Woodrow Wilson Administration, or even the Lincoln Administration than it does today.
Stoller's post is an incoherent mess, but has earned the praise of civil-liberties-above-all-else bloggers like Glenn Greenwald, and holier-than-thou anti-partisan types like Andrew Sullivan.
(snip)
As usual, this is all so much hogwash.
Liberalism is and has always been about intervention. It is the opposite of libertarianism, and always has been. Liberals understand that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Left to their own devices, people with weapons and money will always try to exploit and dominate people without weapons and money unless they are stopped from doing so. It is not because we are taught to do so. It's just innate human nature. If this were not the case, libertarianism would work as an ideology. It does not, and never has at any point in history.
The rest: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/no-stoller-and-sullivan-there-is-no.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
spanone
(135,917 posts)
blm
(113,124 posts)to consumers, LESS freedom to labor, and LESS freedom to families to make their own reproductive decisions.
Paul and his followers are the biggest hypocrites in politics today. Paul is a Randian fascist underneath all his hypocritical blather about personal freedoms that he has always voted AGAINST. His supporters are too stupid to recognize his BLATANT hypocrisy.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)I would debate Ron Paul on his policies over character deformities ANYDAY. Stoller is wrong on this one. WAAAY wrong.
TheWraith
(24,331 posts)Being correct on one issue doesn't make him right, it just makes him less wrong. And then he makes up for it in other areas.
i_sometimes
(201 posts)But he still sucks ass.
Spazito
(50,549 posts)they can't be bothered to look at the reasons Paul takes the position he does on these issues. Once one does it is clear his reasons are completely antithetical to what progressives believe which SHOULD show he is NOT correct on any issues, imo.
From the article in the OP:
"Ron Paul is against the drug war, yes, but for the same reasons he is against preventing factories from dumping mercury in our rivers: he opposes any sort of intervention at all by the government to assist those in need, or to stop those who would do harm to others, except in the most simplistic cases of the use of force.
Ron Paul is against foreign interventions, yes, but for the same reason he opposes providing healthcare to sick people: he believes that the U.S. government should not be in the business of interfering against almost anyone, on behalf of anyone else.
Unless that person is a fetus, in which case state intervention is apparently just fine. Or unless that interference is taking place by, say, the State of Alabama, in which it's just fine, as opposed to the evil jackboots in Washington, D.C. trying to tell those good Alabamans just what they can and can't do with gays, undocumented immigrants, and women seeking abortions."
i_sometimes
(201 posts)But thanks for playing!
Spazito
(50,549 posts)Paul's seeming anti WOD position and his seeming anti-war position are the ones most often pointed out by DUers using the 'stopped clock' analogy.
blm
(113,124 posts)ends up putting us into war to protect THEIR profits.
Ever hear him admit that the biggest pushers and profiteers of the wars are the very same corporations and privileged elite who he wants to completely deregulate and UNLEASH their greed upon this nation and the rest of the world?
Spazito
(50,549 posts)he is nothing close to what some try to portray him to be ie anti-war, anti-WOD, he IS anti government and PRO privatization/corporation.
blm
(113,124 posts)Paul and his followers are completely bizarro-world when it comes to laying blame.
Spazito
(50,549 posts)Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.
TheKentuckian
(25,034 posts)and one may be correct on one issue for exactly the same reason they are wrong on many more.
Paul is correct on less than a handful of issues for all the wrong reasons, he reaches these conclusions only because of a trainwreck of a greater framework but by hook or by crook, he is one of a precious handful that is actually right on these few issues.
His general batshit insanity doesn't negate he is actually we are as party, like the TeaPubliKlans are wrong and rather than to get right, we have folks that want to make the conversation about Ron Paul being a fuckwit and away from the policy.
One does not need to follow Paul's unworkable and functionally evil ideology to arrive at the exact same place in these important areas.
Avoidance of the ideas seems to be the real issue, the same folks wailing and gnashing their teeth will defend to the last breath the actual adoption of Republican policies and positions. Making the entire debate a tired flogging of a personality is a willful tactic to keep off the actual ideas and nothing else because it cannot be anything else because all other possibilities are eliminated.
It cannot be promoting what might be considered "Republican" ideas by assuming if a Republican is saying it, it must be Republican.
It cannot be the perception of promoting a Republican from folks that generally pushed Crist hard and love posting Andrew Sullivan.
It can't be the perception of facilitating the Republicans from the espousers of bipartisanship.
Other than not wanting to seriously discuss civil liberties, foreign wars, privacy, and the drug war and they sure as hell don't want to push the party in these areas.
That is the hubub.
Spazito
(50,549 posts)is crucial to understanding if they REALLY do support the position you hold on the issue. For example:
I support civil liberties, full stop.
vs
I support civil liberties because then I can discriminate as to who can rent an apartment in my building based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation without interference.
Without my reasons, there is little to argue about. With my reasons, there would MUCH more debate, imo.
Frankly, I don't see why Paul is brought into the equation at all on these issues but, seeing as he is, his positions on those issues and his reasons why he is for them SHOULD be debated.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"He voted to double the size of the Department of Education," Rand Paul said. "He voted to expand Medicare and add free drugs for senior citizens and he has voted for foreign aid. Those are not conservative principles. Seventy-seven percent of the American people are opposed to foreign aid and Rick Santorum has voted for it every time it's come down."
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/02/ron-paul-santorum-is-very-liberal/
They're all corporate tools: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002103936
JHB
(37,163 posts)...how many of those "70%" can make a guess as to how much is spent on foreign aid, how big a part of the federal budget it is, and how much basically comes back to American contractors?
They tend to overestimate the first two (usually wildly), and underestimate the last (if it even occurs to them that it happens).
oberliner
(58,724 posts)People are always surprised to find out what a miniscule percentage it is.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)not only did Ron Paul propose spending $40 billion on a private army of mercenaries ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/100277632 ), this is from a budget Rand Paul proposed:
billion that will likely be spent funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for FY2011. The proposal seeks to
reduce war funding for FY2011 by $16 billion, in other words to provide $144 billion (President Obama has
requested $117 billion for FY2012, $27 billion dollars below our proposed level).
http://www.randpaul2010.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Overview-500-billion-cuts-2.pdf
How exactly does one justify increasing defense spending on war, but eliminating foreign aid? The Paul's can because nearly everything they advocate is anti-government propaganda
JustAnotherGen
(31,981 posts)Spazito
(50,549 posts)in any way, shape or form.
MH1
(17,608 posts)
closeupready
(29,503 posts)liberalism is about decentralization of power, empowering the individual. Liberals may favor 'intervention', whatever that means, from time to time, but ultimately believe in the supremacy of the individual, i.e., no intervention.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)It's about the government having a significant role to play in both affecting economic outcomes--as in Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, and, yes, the Fed--and social outcomes (Civil Rights Act), etc. It's about the government's right to intervene in private business via regulations that are in the best interest of society, preventing unsafe food and medications, workplace safety, and the environment.
Liberalism is about sensible interventionism for the public good. Libertarianism is about empowering the individual and eschewing everything else: it rejects government programs and regulations; it promotes isolationism in our international dealings.
The supremacy of the individual, as you put it, is anathema to liberalism. Liberalism is about the common, not the individual good, and government, in its view, consists of those things we need to do together to safeguard that public good.
No wonder people are mixed up and thinking Ron Paul is somehow "progressive."
closeupready
(29,503 posts)I am not a socialist, and have said so before. I am a big-time liberal, and have always been.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)What you describe is strict libertarianism.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Cheers.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)
closeupready
(29,503 posts)>>This is what liberalism is. It is unavoidably, inescapably paternalistic in nature. It is so because it understands the inevitable tendency of human beings to be truly awful to one another unless social and legal rules are put in place--yes, by force--to prevent them from doing otherwise.<<
Not the liberalism I know or studied.
Uncle Joe
(58,483 posts)is paved with good intentions and the "good intentioned" Drug War is definitely taking the nation in that direction.
"Which leads us to Ron Paul, a man whose detestable ideals are directly in opposition to those of liberalism--even if he happens, like a stopped clock, to end up in the right place a couple of times for entirely the wrong reasons.
Ron Paul is against the drug war, yes, but for the same reasons he is against preventing factories from dumping mercury in our rivers: he opposes any sort of intervention at all by the government to assist those in need, or to stop those who would do harm to others, except in the most simplistic cases of the use of force."
Paul's power comes from the fact that both major political parties have not represented the "weak and powerless" and if liberals believe that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely as the author contends, they should surely recognize the insane, dysfunctional, counterproductive, racist, draconian so called "War on Drugs;" for the oppressive, family destroying, dead end disaster that it is.
So long as liberals abandon or ignore that basic concept politicians; like Paul will gain increasing power with the people, whether their reasons for the right policies are liberal or not.
Thanks for the thread, WilliamPitt.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)the failure of either political party to represent the 'weak and powerless' as the force behind Ron Paul's appeal and the appeal of what is being sold today as libertarianism.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)Do we need yet another attack on a progressive posted here?
And I agree with one of the first commenters:
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)There is no liberal love of Ron Paul because Liberalism opposes all extremes and Paul is surely an extremeist.
But Liberalism is not interventionist by nature.
Liberalism is rational and conservative, in the real meaning of that word. It is about limited government—in opposition to the excesses of both Monarchy and the French Revolution, which were diametrically opposed except in being intrusive and total in their view of state power.
Liberalism favors many of the ideals of the French Revolution, but condems the methods.
Liberalism is scientific, as opposed to philosophical. It is interested in what works, not what should work or what one wants to work. (It does not care for the "pure" reason of the French Revolution, for instance. It prefers some intellectual humility.)
Liberalism saw no contradiction in despising both communism and the red scares. It is opposed to excess and devoted to individual rights, and both communism and red scares are extreme and suppress individual rights.
Liberalism is cautious and understated, doing only what needs to be done with the minimum of restriction of the individual.
Sometimes what needs to be done is large, like the Civil Rights revolutions of the 1960s-1970s or the WPA in the 1930s. Liberalism need not shrink from arge tasks but it would prefer, in a perfect world, to be as quiet and inobtrsuive as possible.
Liberalism thinks that governement is, in relative terms, an ill. A nessecary ill, but an ill. It does not take the wild leap of Libertarianism in saying that since government is a nessecary evil that it must be destroyed because it is evil.
Liberals focus on the word "nessecary."
The least possible government that is able to ensure both individual liberty AND the common good.
That is what liberalism has always been about.
That's why there is no liberal dogma -- it is the one non-dogmatic, non-ideological approach to government and that is why liberal Democracy has become the standard for stable first-world nations.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Liberalism thinks that governement is, in relative terms, an ill. A nessecary ill, but an ill. It does not take the wild leap of Libertarianism in saying that since government is a nessecary evil that it must be destroyed because it is evil."
...did you get this definition of liberalism?
frazzled
(18,402 posts)(see my post above). No wonder we are fighting like cats and dogs every day.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)What you describe as American Liberlaism is Progressivsm and you did a very good job of describing it.
I think that your post and mine offer a fine example of the subtle difference between the often-allied but distinct ideals of liberalism and progressivism.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)It's hard to find a document as skeptical of government as the US Constituion. (The entire Bill of Rights, for instance, is limitations on government. It does not grant anyone any rights. Those rights are presumed to be inate to humanity. It limits the power of government to infringe those natural rights.)
_____________________
Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion.[3][4][5][6][7] These ideas are widely accepted, even by political groups that do not openly profess a liberal ideological orientation. Liberalism encompasses several intellectual trends and traditions, but the dominant variants are classical liberalism, which became popular in the eighteenth century, and social liberalism, which became popular in the twentieth century. Classical liberalism is centred on the concept of negative freedom (freedom from harm), where social liberalism is centred on the broader concept of positive freedom (freedom to develop). It is now argued that in the twenty-first century there is an emerging new liberalism that is centred on the concept of timeless freedom (ensuring the freedom of future generations through proactive action taken today).[8] This is an idea that has been endorsed by the President of Liberal International Hans van Baalen.
Liberalism first became a powerful force in the Age of Enlightenment, rejecting several foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as nobility, established religion, absolute monarchy, and the Divine Right of Kings. The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property.
The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, Latin America, and North America. Liberal ideas spread even further in the twentieth century, when liberal democracies triumphed in two world wars and survived major ideological challenges from fascism and communism. Today, liberalism in its many forms remains as a political force to varying degrees of power and influence on all major continents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
"It's hard to find a document as skeptical of government as the US Constituion. (The entire Bill of Rights, for instance, is limitations on government. It does not grant anyone any rights. Those rights are presumed to be inate to humanity. It limits the power of government to infringe those natural rights.)"
...does your interpretation of the paragraphs translate to "Liberalism thinks that governement is, in relative terms, an ill. A nessecary ill, but an ill"?
Skepticisim, primarily health skepticism, is not about something being ill. The defintion contradicts that.
"Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally, liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion....The early liberal thinker John Locke, who is often credited for the creation of liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition, employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed, and that private individuals had a fundamental right to life, liberty, and property."
Power corrupts, yes. Government by definition is the "the social contract...that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed"
That's not a "necessary ill," but a contract for the common good. Absolutism is an ill, but our democracy was never defined by absolutism.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)"Because the writers of those documents were students of the Enlightenment, which spawned Liberalism."
...understand the origins, I'm asking about the specifics as it relates to American liberalism, especially in more modern times.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)FOR a Pro-Active Govt that works FOR the people, but not necessarily a big govt that would Nationalize the private sector full scale. On a scale of 2 extremes, Liberalism would fall somewhere in the middle, not wanting a complete Authoritarian state of BIG GOVT or likewise an ineffective small govt that would be unable to function when duty calls.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)I would say this:
Liberalism - government cautiously safeguards the public good
Progressivism - government proactively safeguards the public good
I am sympathetic to many progressive causes but I consider myself primarily a Liberal. (I'm a strong ACLU type but economically socialist-leaning, so not entirely Liberal either)
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Americans do not live without housing because we do not have enough houses. Americans do not go hungry because we have a shortage of food. They do without these things because the individual has no money.
Given: Liberalism limits government,
Given: money is an artificial construct created by the government and only given power because it is backed by the government,
Then: why is it considered non-liberal to oppose an economic model based on one's ability to acquire money?
Consider the start of this sub-thread in which you point out that the Bill of Rights grants no rights. They simply affirm some of our natural rights. As already pointed out there is nothing remotely natural about our economy. It is a construct of our government.
Given: Liberalism supports natural rights,
Given: there is nothing natural about our economy,
Then: why is it non-liberal to challenge that economic model?
I originally disagreed with Libertarians on the economy simply because (1) laissez faire doesn't work, and (2) it is morally bankrupt. The more I thought about it, however, the more I concluded that laissez faire is not truly liberal for the "natural" argument given above.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)I do not buy into the absolute property rights element of libertarianism which is why I am not a libertarian.
I call myself a liberal and a civil-libertarian, as distinct from an economic libertarian.
I agree that unregulated economics is malignant. It is also bound to be inefficient, in the same way a railroad without speed limits may well be slower, on average, than one with speed limits. Train wrecks slow things down for everyoone.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Before New Deal: an economic recession every 8 to 12 years on average.
Since New Deal: no economic recession in over 70 years.
Toss those facts out to a Rightist. The only "argument" they have is, "why?" To which my reply is typically, "I don't know, and I don't care. You could argue theories all you want. But I just gave you reality."
muriel_volestrangler
(101,400 posts)The first political use of 'liberal' recorded in English is from 1790:
"1790 Eng. Chron. 2 Feb., The progress of the Mal François, or of liberal and rational politics, is dreaded by the Aristocracy."
(Hume, in 1762, described a policy of the 9th century English King Alfred as "popular and liberal", but that was such a different world that it's hard to see that as a political definition in the modern sense). (from the Oxford English Dictionary)
'Liberalism' wasn't used until 1816 in English. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights basically predate the political 'liberal' meaning. Any description of them as 'liberal' has been backdated.
There was an 'Overton window' shift in the 19th century; yes, the first emphasis of 'liberal' views was democracy, and individual rights. But as monarchs and nobility lost power around the world, their former supporters - conservatives - gave up on that, and came to stand for the 'tradition' of power remaining with the rich. Meanwhile, liberalism developed, realising that equality of opportunity meant a social safety net, which enabled everyone to have equality of opportunity. Thus you found, by the start of the 20th century, the Liberal Party in the UK introducing state pensions and unemployment insurance, and the modern British welfare state, introduced by the post-WW2 Labour government, was designed by Beveridge - a Liberal.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)liberalism is socialism. It is not.
You should post your post here as a separate thread, that's how good it is. 
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"People here on this board seem to think liberalism is socialism. It is not. "
...one thinks " liberalism is socialism," but I think fear of socialism could be driving the flawed definition of liberalism as seeing government as a "necessary ill."
closeupready
(29,503 posts)But I do think some here are confusing socialism, in which the state always intervenes on behalf of the greater social good, with liberalism, which puts civil liberties and freedom highest, and will intervene when necessary in order to keep individuals from infringing on civil liberties of other individuals.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)If it were not an ill then there would be no reason to limit it.
All liberals would prefer an arcadian paradise with no rules but recognize that it would not work. They wish, however, to acheive that unfettered state as closely as is practically possible.
I am not sure what the semantic controversy is even about. Gloves are a nessecary evil -- that is why people don't wear them all the time. They are inconveneient but better than the alternative when doing certain work or when it is cold.
"Nessecary evil" is a standard phrase. I am not saying that gloves are EVIL like the devil. They are, however, not a good unto themselves.
Everyone except fascists and monarchists considers government a nessecary evil.
Every signer of the Constitution would reat the statement, "Government is a nessecary evil" as a mundane statement of the obvious.
(Even Marx dreamed of when the state would "wither away." )
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Essentially what I meant to say.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)then there is no real conversation to be had.
It's a core principle of the thing.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Today the word "liberalism" is used differently in different countries. One of the greatest contrasts is between the usage in the United States and usage in Continental Europe. According to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (writing in 1956), "Liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain."[19] In continental Europe, liberalism usually means what is sometimes called classical liberalism, a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economics, and more closely corresponds to the American definition of libertarianism—itself a term which in Europe is instead often applied to left-libertarianism. Some nominally liberal parties (e.g. VVD in The Netherlands) are actually conservative right wing "law and order" parties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States#American_versus_European_use_of_the_term_.22liberalism.22
American liberalism does NOT embrace laissez-faire economics or strictly limited government. As I said above, there could be no regulatory structure, no Federal Reserve, no Social Security or Medicare, without a definition of liberalism that did not see the necessity of government intervention in the name of the common good.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)Complete Nationalization of the private sector, that would be socialism. Liberals by nature embrace capitalism but not cronyism and believe the economy should be regulated. But regulated doesn't mean Nationalized. We are FOR a pro-active Govt working for the people, not necessarily a takeover of complete industry.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)People were protesting the idea that liberalism included the idea that the government is interventionist. Yes, liberal government (in America) is interventionist: in its progressive tax code, in providing Social Security and Medicare, in regulating industry for environmental and safety issues, in regulating even certain behaviors (hate crimes, for example). Those are interventions that conservatives (and right-leaning libertarians) abhor.
FarLeftFist
(6,161 posts)nailed it.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Yes, that is why it is a necessary evil.
I don't think we are disagreeing much here -- this seems to be about some fairly subtle weightings of words.
In my frst post I say that liberalism is willing to do big things with government to advance the public good when necessary. It does so reluctantly because government is always to be mistrusted, but it does so when necessary.
As for usage of the word in America, it is good to note that the American usage is driven by the Right Wing.
In America the RW has always wished to mischaracterize liberalism as a form of socialism, which is the reason the word has come to mean something different here.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)It corresponds more to continental European liberalism, which is center right. It echoes Reaganistic platitudes about the underlying "evil" of government and the need to curtail it or limit it as much as possible.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)I'm not sure what the big problem is with European center-right... that's to the left of a lot of American Democrats. Reagan was not "center-right" by European standards, he was a RW nationalist.
I am an ACLU type primarily.
If that makes me Reaganistic and platitudinous then that's what it is.
As George H. W. Bush said of Micheal Dukakis, I am a "card carrying memeber of the ACLU."
frazzled
(18,402 posts)That whenever we see these polls that involve self-identified "liberals" or "conservatives," they are meaningless, because even between you and me, we have vastly different definitions of the terms.
I was a card-carrying member of the ACLU for many years, but I let that membership lapse around a decade ago, when the organization just felt too narrow for the broad range of issues I considered critical to this nation. In fact, at times (e.g., the Citizens United case), it ran antithetical to my political interests. If you let the ACLU determine your entire agenda, you are probably not a liberal but interested fairly exclusively in individual liberty. It doesn't help to explain much at all about economic justice, the environment, foreign policy, or a host of other liberal causes.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)But thanks for guessing.
And the ACLU does not dictate my thinking. There is a coherrant view of these things that a person can develop on his own, which I have. And which the ACLU generally agrees with.
tomp
(9,512 posts)it seems obvious to me both in my own experience and in my reading of history, that there is ALWAYS a number of powerful people (with weapons and money, as Mr. Pitt put it) who are working against the public good. If one is not assiduously proactive against them the public good suffers. it's not evil at all, it is necessary for good to prevail.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)people without weapons and money unless they are stopped from doing so.
Is this meant as a criticism of libertarianism or the bipartisan consensus on using the military as muscle for corporations that don't want to negotiate with the natives?
MilesColtrane
(18,678 posts)
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Paul, Greenwald, Stoller, Sullivan et al. I have yet read. It sniffs out the Libertarian reaction to supposed deficits in liberalism, and defends the latter staunchly. Since I am a classic American liberal, I can only applaud this.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)Just the opposite, actually. It's a defense of neoconservatism disguised as liberalism.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)????? !!!!
Okay, whatever you say.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)no one can should criticize Sullivan either.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)In Atkins view, war is a great liberal tradition, and to criticize the killing of innocents abroad in our quest for global resource domination is to criticize liberalism itself.
Beyond that, Atkins argues that war and exploitation are "innate human nature," therefore governments must constantly intervene to redirect this human tendency for violence and social domination into state sponsored anti-terrorism programs.
This argument is rooted in a neoconservative statist political world view. It's an anti-scientific argument, and therefore also anti-liberal. There is no scientific basis for the idea that humans are innately violent and warmongering. Humans have been peace-dwelling animals for the vast majority of our existence on this planet.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)It doesn't look like these guys ever studied history.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Stoller's piece was flawed, but this author clearly hasn't read it. This article is a clear case of responding to the argument you wish you'd heard instead of responding to the argument that was made. In a word, dishonest.
"Stoller's piece was flawed, but this author clearly hasn't read it. This article is a clear case of responding to the argument you wish you'd heard instead of responding to the argument that was made. In a word, dishonest."
...what way do you think the author is responding in a "dishonest" way? He's not responding to Stoller's piece. It's a response to an argument being made by sevearl people: that liberals are being hypocrites.
I read Stoller's piece, and it's severely flawed.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100287685
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)David Atkins, the author, is responding to what Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan said about the Stoller piece. Those two, in the provided excepts, do seem to celebrate Ron Paul as a mirror for American liberalism. Greenwald used the mirror language and Sullivan cheers Paul for "broadening the debate." Those positions can, and should be, attacked because they miss the point. Ron Paul is not actually broadening the debate or acting as a mirror for liberals. He is a very, very faint ring of truth in politics when it comes to a select few issues.
He called 9/11 correctly in the 2007 GOP debate in SC (I was in Columbia at the time, so it sticks). He said it had nothing to do with "hating us for our freedoms" but it was entirely a response to Middle East policy. Without going into value judgments over that policy because it will just derail the current discussion, he was accurate in stating a fact that has been shoved under the rug for 10 years. When he attacks the Federal Reserve, he is right to attack it but it's for the wrong reasons. As I was once told, even if you're right, if you're right for the wrong reasons, you are all the way wrong. The Fed's "independence" has been disastrous and childish. It's disastrous because it's effectively functioned as a backstop for self-destructive policies and it's childish because monetary policy is not something technical to be left to the "experts." Monetary policy can be, and should be, understood by all and should be governed by the appropriate body, the Congress. He's right to question the goals and methods of foreign policy. His call for isolationism has a lot of appeal in America because it really does speak to our roots. We're such a self-obsessed people that the idea of not paying attention to foreigners is attractive. It's dangerous and dumb, but it's attractive.
The internet is not big enough to list all the things Ron Paul gets wrong. It's just not. His wish to utterly destroy the economy by instantly removing the federal government as an employer is just insane. There is no other word to use. The removal of half the federal budget in one year would produce chaos. His monetary ideas are typical of the far-right fever swamps, even if he cloaks them in the guise of the "Austrian school." Goldbugs, and he's definitely one, have an irrational belief that a commodity-based currency is somehow purer than other types. They never quite get that it benefits creditors to the detriment of debtors. In a debt-based society like ours, reverting to a gold standard would be the equivalent of nuking ourselves. Sure, we can do it. Is it really the smart play, though? There's more to say on the lunacy of gold, and its correlation with virulent anti-semitism, but I'm trying not make this a super wall of text.
Now that I've said the above, let me hit the real focus of my comments. Stoller's piece, to me, is about unintended consequences. From a civil liberties point of view, the presidencies of Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR were perhaps the lowest point in American history. There was mass imprisonment for thought-based crimes. Sedition, which really should be inherently unconstitutional, was a legitimate means of suppressing dissent. Habeas corpus was violated. Military tribunals were used to try citizens (in both McCardle and Quirin). There was a moral panic over some "other" that we usually associate with the wingnuts. There were also wars. Big, huge, massively destructive wars. In fact, the three most costly wars in American history. Does that expunge those sins? No, but it does explain them. The difference between right and left when it comes to civil liberties is always the same. The left violates them when a real threat exists, usually, and the right invents boogeymen to score political points.
You know, I just realized what Stoller SHOULD have said. He should have said that Wilson created the Federal Reserve and FDR a ton of federal agencies for the purpose of helping balance economic life. The fact that those instruments have been abused by others in the service of wars of choice, economic exploitation, and the radical attack on the American economy does not discount the instruments. Instruments are just tools. It's silly to blame the hammer when someone uses to hurt someone else instead of using it to build.
The only thing Ron Paul is doing is occasionally pointing out poor uses of the instruments. His prescriptions, to throw the baby out with the bathwater, are just ludicrous. It only looks like a viable plan to many because the political process is stuck in a broken (forgive for the next word, I hate it, but it really fits here) paradigm. The political class (I use class loosely here, just a means of associating the various politicians, pundits, lobbyists, people of influence, etc.) shows either an unwillingness or incapability of facing up to the fact that the current direction of the country (the last 30 years or so) have been an abomination. People know things aren't working and the system is lurching from side to side like a drunk about to spew. How could they not? The many diagnoses, from too much partisanship to "shared" sacrifice, are irrelevant to the greater issue: we need a new model for America. What does that mean? The Civil War, as it's popularly said, changed the statement from the United States are to the United States is. FDR changed the default viewpoint from the government as the handmaiden of business to the protector of the people. Those are examples of new models. Our current model is Reagan telling us that the 9 scariest words in english are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" and then proving it.
I felt Stoller was pointing out that liberals needed to revise and rebuild liberalism. Liberalism, for much of the last 30 years or so, has generally ignored economic and financial matters. I didn't say all liberals, I said liberalism generally. The fights have been over social issues like affirmative action, abortion, gay rights, guns, religion, etc. The economic battles have generally been conceded in advance because the people who actually get on TV never question the ideology of "free markets." They figured that if the aggregate statistics were going up, everything must be fine. Social liberalism is just fine, but nobody gets to question the neoclassical synthesis or its consequences.
I didn't find Stoller to be celebrating Ron Paul. He clearly has some admiration for him, which I guess comes from working with him. He didn't hold him up as some kind of role model, though. For Stoller, Ron Paul is that very faint (VERY faint) ring of truth that not all is well. It's like Ron Paul is the guy who says something that, for whatever reason, reminds you of something else entirely. He may make a good point, but then he follows it up with a solution that is breathtakingly hideous. Does that make him a mirror, as Greenwald claims? Hell no. It just means even dumb people can recognize problems on occasion. Has he broadened the debate, as Sullivan tells us? Yes, if you enjoy the abolition of the Civil Rights Act, the removal of any guarantee for the demand side of the economic equation, and setting the stage for massive civil liberties violations (the likely result of the chaos the Paulite plan is sure to produce). If not, then he hasn't broadened shit. Stoller's point is valid. Ron Paul has asked some tough questions. We haven't answered them very well at all. We still have no answer for the fundamental problems in the financial sector (Dodd-Frank is a bandaid at best). We have no clear timeline on when the "War on Terror" will be over (hell, we knew the Cold War would end when the other side gave up or we did). We have no real answers to income inequality and how to resolve it (progressive taxation is only one part of the solution). We have no solution to the fact that a service economy is a dumb idea both from an economic standpoint and a national security standpoint (the only solution we get is give everybody a college degree, but wouldn't that simply degrade the overall value of the degree?). We fail to argue environmental issues effectively (the fact anybody can claim lowered drinking water standards are a good thing is proof positive). In short, we got some problems.
Man, I wrote A LOT. Sorry about that. I meant for this to be short, but my motto seems to be "why write in 3 sentences what you can in 10 paragraphs?" In summary, Atkins is responding to what Greenwald and Sullivan said about Stoller, not so much what Stoller wrote. I know I didn't cite Stoller, because I was on a roll having a lovefest with my own brilliance, but that is why I find his claims to be dishonest.
Edit: woo, only 9 paragraphs. I'm only mostly long winded. Yay for me.
"Man, I wrote A LOT. Sorry about that."
...did write a lot, but Stoller's logic is still flawed.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100287685
I simply do not get the justification that basically states, "yeah, he's horrible/evil and would destroy everything, but..."
And Atkins is on point because there is no, as Stoller claims, "contradictions within modern liberalism."
You can't take reality and say that because things work out a certain way, with all the various factors, that it represents a "contradiction" in liberalism. It's a result of an imperfect world or the actions of one person in any given moment.
It's especially bizarre to hold up a lunatic as a possible alternative for this reason.
Overlooking the horrible and evil intent to destroy simply to argue a position on the war on drugs makes no sense. There are enough people who oppose the war on drugs who do not harbor dangerous views.
It also doesn't make sense because anyone who sets out to tackle a problem is going to encounter various obstacles.
Paul is a proven propagandist. His opposition to war is mythical, and Stoller and others still can't embrace these contradictions.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)1. You're right about there being no contradictions in modern liberalism. I was going to argue at first, but the real point is that there is a massive contradiction in the Democratic Party. Those at the top of the political, and usually income, scale have no problems with a social liberal/fiscal-monetary conservative outlook. Starting under Carter, elected Democrats have readily rolled back regulation of the financial markets and allowed wage suppression via a strong dollar policy (strong dollar allows more imports which puts pressure on wages). You can point to the Newt GOP all you want, but financial deregulation started under Carter with its primary sponsor being none other than Ted Kennedy. The Clinton administration gladly sided with finance when it came time to pass NAFTA, deregulate markets, and pervert accounting standards that promote short-term gain at the expense of long-term health. Sure, Clinton was better than the alternative, but honestly, so what? It's better, usually, to get stabbed rather than shot, but either way you're bleeding. Either way, damage has been done.
One way to really illustrate the contradiction is a little thought experiment. Imagine Carter, Clinton, or Obama saying, "in my first term, the forces of greed and selfishness met their match." Now imagine FDR telling us, "the era of big government is over." Or that no crimes were committed during the financial crisis. Seriously? Hundreds, if not thousands, were prosecuted in the wake of the 1929 crash because there were actual investigations, not pronouncements from on high. There is a clear contradiction in the outlook and behavior of modern Democratic presidents and their predecessors. The commitment to a free-trade, low wage America, which is the readily visible result of the neoclassical synthesis, is in direct contradiction to the wishes of the American people. Why else is populism on the rise? From the Grangers of the 19th century, who accurately diagnosed the problems of finance in their day, to OWS and the misguided and perverse Tea Party (they count as populist, even if it's severely deranged populism), the American people turn to populism when it's clear that their interests are not being served by the political class. Populism is a wholesale indictment not of politics, but of policies. This demented era of Reagan in which we're still living is barely contradicted by modern elected Democrats. Sure, there's some bitching about the edges, but it's rare, and noteworthy when it happens, that an elected Democrat actually embraces his or her activist predecessors (particularly FDR and LBJ) for the purpose of slapping down the right-wing lie.
There is a contradiction. It's primarily in economics and finance. There are other contradictions as well, but I'm not trying to write a book this time.
2. I think Stoller did a poor job contrasting Obama and Paul. If it were me, I'd ask how utterly pathetic is it when these are two of the viable choices for the presidency? It's unreasonable to expect perfection in any elected official. It's not unreasonable to expect elected officials of the national liberal party to occasionally remember that economic liberty (not in the Paul sense at all, I'll explain shortly) is a necessary precursor for other liberties. Instead, it seems that they've decided to support the professional classes at the expense of the large middle class, with occasional handouts thrown out to make everything seem kosher. This isn't a viable long-term strategy, which is why we've seen a relative decline of the Democratic Party over the last 30-40 years.
Quickly on economic liberty: the basis of it is an analogue of Maslow's hierarchy. You can't realistically expect people to contribute meaningfully to society and be full citizens without a stable economic base. They need to have those basic needs covered, such as making a living, having a home, being able to cover their debts, etc. Further, they need to properly share in the productivity gains of business, not simply be content with a philosophy that claims a rising tide lifts all boats. Economic liberty, in my view, is not about the freedom to run around shouting "caveat emptor" while you ream the public with shoddy goods and destructive services, but is about freeing the individual from the pressures of the average caveman so that we can actually prove that we have advanced, somewhat, as a species. FDR said it best, which is not a surprise, when he called for freedom from want.
Stoller may be wrong about Ron Paul on some things, but I don't think he's really a fan. The impression I've gotten from Stoller, from reading a fair amount of his stuff, is that it's frustrating to find a nutbag like Paul at all admirable. Republicans are so far out these days that I actually have respect for Barry Goldwater. That's not right. Barry was the paleo-Ron Paul. However, compared to any of these wackjobs, he looks respectable. It's a sad day when that happens.
Yay, I wrote less.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)Stoller is not against the instruments. Stoller supports having a strong Central Bank, for instance, and as such believes that the Federal Reserve must be nationalized.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)I said Ron Paul is against the instruments. I think Stoller is decrying the fact that the only person that seems to pointing out the poor use of the instruments is a nutbag like Ron Paul.
I'm pretty sure Stoller is sympathetic to the MMT vision which would preclude him from hating the Fed like ol Ronny.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)particularly not from the pro-Obama wrecking crew. They are happy with Obama's neoliberal economic agenda and prefer to live in la-la land, where the green shoots are growing high and every day is a new recovery.
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)I'm not fully sure how I feel about the MMT view, but I'm still learning about it.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)
one_voice
(20,043 posts) girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)The "centrists" can no longer pretend to be biding their time, waiting for an opportune moment to start moving the country back to the left.
At last they now admit that they really do support the Predator State.
It's a shame to see you support them, Will.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)not to your own inner monologue.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Please respond to my actual comments.."
...you didn't respond to the OP.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)Because I'm not a mind reader. You seem to be responding to something that you wish I had said, not to anything that I actually said.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"You seem to be responding to something that you wish I had said, not to anything that I actually said."
...I followed your lead and picked the topic I chose to respond to. I mean, nothing in your comment addresses the OP article.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)as well as the chorus of applause from "centrist" neoliberal/neoconservative apologists such as yourself.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"My comment directly addressed Will Pitt's re-post..
as well as the chorus of applause from "centrist" apologists such as yourself."
...for clearing that up!
mmonk
(52,589 posts)It was redefined by the Republicans and abandoned by the Democrats.
The Magistrate
(95,264 posts)abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)I do have a problem with Ron Paul's positions and anyone who isn't an extremely wealthy white male should have problems with Ron Paul's positions. There are people on the left who do not support war and to imply that all liberals favor war is complete BS. We don't need to buy into Ron Paul's other dangerous positions to end the war on drugs, end the war in afghanistan and investigate the causes of the financial crisis.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)than that. it's a psuedo-philosophy for right wingers - usually somehow outside of the overall in-group of right-wingers (gay or smoke pot, etc.) But it is still right wing bullshit.
SixthSense
(829 posts)"Liberalism is and has always been about intervention."
I think the LGBT community might have an issue with that. So might the anti-war community. And the folks who want to keep separation of church and state, and a whole host of other groups within the coalition.
I always thought liberalism was about acting with human decency and compassion, and mutual respect between and among all types of people, no matter how different they may be. Am I wrong?
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)Now all of those "85% of liberals support Obama" threads are starting to make sense to me.
Modern liberalism = state interventionism
Rights aren't inalienable by birth, they're all gifts from the state. War isn't a necessary evil to be avoided at all costs, it's just basic human nature. A little too much intervention might result in communism, but it's no biggie, we'll keep intervening until we know for sure.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Rights aren't granted at birth, they're gifts from the state. War isn't a necessary evil to be avoided at all costs, it's just basic human nature. A little too much intervention might result in communism, but it's no biggie, we'll keep intervening until we know for sure."
...Ron Paul wants to test that theory by repealing the Civil Rights Act. The slaves were born free, ergo, the CRA is unnecessary.
It has nothing to do with a "gifts from the state." It's about a social contract.
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)with the repetitive, off topic blather.
If all of our rights are derived from a "social contact," that would, in fact, make them gifts from the state granted in exchange for whatever you perceive this contract specifies, no?
I'm guessing that you and some of the others who recommended this article didn't bother to actually read it and reflect on what the true consequences this author's unrepentant defense of statism might be, which is why you keep attempting to go off the rails with your "RON PAUL!!1!" tic.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Last edited Wed Jan 4, 2012, 04:14 PM - Edit history (1)
by those who are not. Cheers.
