General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why Ron Paul attracts some liberals. [View all]alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Many forget that it was the Left that worked toward intervention to stop global fascism, that military intervention was actually a left-liberal position when the left was strongest in this country.
That is certainly not to say that the interventionist arguments of the 2000's carry the same weight as those of the Popular Front, but it should demonstrate that the lines you assume as natural are anything but.
As for the supposed lack of equivocation, I think the point is taken, but it would also be a liberal position to recognize the complexity of social issues, rather than imagining them to have an easy answer. In this sense, Paul's lack of equivocation can just as easily be read as his lack of thoughtfulness and general fanaticism - as if somebody can simply will a state of affairs by fiat (which is, in fact, a deeply conservative understanding of the "leader" - indeed, it's more monarchical than liberal). The second point here is that the position is deeply childish, as is almost all libertarianism. I have no doubt it appeals to a kind of childish streak in many liberals, but the reason it consistently loses is that the thoughtful grown-ups actually do policy assessments.