Tag Archives: ron paul

by | January 11, 2012 · 9:12 AM

Defining Moderate Down

By Luke Brinker

Forty seven percent of voters in yesterday’s New Hampshire primary described themselves as moderate or liberal. Mitt Romney easily carried that group with 37 percent, compared to 26 percent for Ron Paul and 25 percent for Jon Huntsman. In a reminder of just how different New Hampshire’s Republican primary electorate is from that in other states, 62 percent of voters indicated that their views on social issues were moderate or liberal. Romney won among those voters, as well, taking 34 percent to Paul’s 28 percent and Huntsman’s 24 percent. Moderates, then, propelled Romney to victory.

Moderate Massachusetts Mitt would have been a natural fit for such an electorate. It’s unclear, however, how Romney could presently be defined as a centrist Republican. Like culture warrior Rick Santorum, Romney seeks to overturn Roe v. Wade, supports a federal constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, opposes embryonic stem cell research, and has raised doubts about the science behind climate change. These hardly seem like positions amenable to self-described moderate or liberal Republicans. Santorum’s pitch is that he believes these things harder than Romney does, but temperamental moderation should not be mistaken for policy moderation.

Compared to the rest of the field, Romney may be less of an extreme conservative. All GOP contenders call for even more tax cuts than were enacted under President George W. Bush, although Romney’s tax plan includes slightly less cuts for the top one percent than do the other candidates’ plans, as this graph from Ezra Klein shows:

So perhaps “moderation” is a relative term. That said, the New Hampshire exit polls show that there remains a GOP audience for genuine centrism on social and cultural issues. If GOP moderates want an old fashioned, centrist Rockefeller Republican in 2012, there’s already one in the race. He signed a health care reform law modeled on a Heritage Foundation proposal from the 1990s, supports a market-based climate change plan on the lines of George H. W. Bush’s solution to sulfur dioxide emissions, enjoys substantial financial industry support, endorses a mixture of tax increases and spending cuts to reduce the federal budget deficit, and supports a woman’s right to an abortion. That candidate, of course, is President Barack Obama.

2 Comments

Filed under 2012 Election, Mitt Romney

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | January 9, 2012 · 11:53 AM

Foreign Policy Platitudes Mean Little

By John Stang

Herman Cain was often mocked by liberals and conservatives for his foreign policy incompetence.  There was the famous Uzbeki-stan-stan video, his awkward silence when asked about Libya, and when asked about Libya again in a crowd shouted “999″ (most likely he didn’t hear the question).  So, needless to say, there was plenty of validity to the those claims.  However, one honest answer that I did admire in Cain was on Afghanistan and Iraq, he would ask for advice and get all the information necessary before making an informed decision.

While he can certainly be criticized, which he was, for trying to cop-out on giving a solid answer on each war, deep down, there is a kernel of truth to that statement.  Presidential candidates don’t have all the classified documents in front of them to make a good decision.  As a result, they make promises that they can’t keep.  Indeed, claiming that you would bomb Iran sounds good for a GOP war-hawk audience (as Rick Santorum often panders to), but after realizing the geopolitical implications of doing that, it sounds less appealing.

There are plenty of examples where presidents have promised one thing and did another.  Richard Nixon promised “peace with honor inVietnam,” yet he escalated the bombing campaign in both Vietnam and Cambodia.  He also visited China and began detente with the U.S.S.R.  George W. Bush heavily criticized Bill Clinton’s nation building activities in the Balkans, and then authorized nation-building in Iraq.  Barack Obama wanted to de-escalate the war in Afghanistan, yet he sent 30,000 extra troops into the country and authorized another war in Libya.  Not to mention, Obama continues the secret drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia.  He also failed to close Gitmo.  No matter what framework each president promised to view foreign policy, whether it was as a realist or idealist framework, they had to break with it after realizing the actual situation.

This is why I am heavily dubious of Ron Paul’s foreign policy ideas.  As Luke pointed out earlier, Ron Paul’s policies are not that liberal.  Not only that, it is difficult to enact.  Removing military bases around the world sounds like a great platitude, until you realize the domestic and international implications for doing so (i.e. lost jobs, threat of attack, etc.).  Getting out of international organizations like the U.N. would diminish our global role and exiting the World Trade Organization would hurt our commitment to following global trade rules.  Claiming that you would not start an unnecessary war is a great idea, until you find out that “necessary” is not easily defined in foreign policy.  Finally, getting rid of departments and lowering troop commitments would require an executive order, since Paul would probably not have a willing congress to do any of these things.  That would contradict his stance on taking power out of the executive branch.  Just sayin’.

Presidents must make difficult decisions.  Until that person does have all the intelligence or understands how difficult a timeline would be to implement, it’s not that fast, then most foreign policy claims during the campaign are pretty frivolous.

Leave a Comment

Filed under 2012 Election, foreign policy, Ron Paul

Tagged as , , ,

by | · 11:15 AM

Ron Paul, Trailblazer?

By Luke Brinker

An astonishing 68 percent of self-described “very liberal” voters view paleolibertarian presidential candidate Ron Paul favorably. It’s unlikely that Paul’s views on abortion rights, same-sex marriage, evolution, the social safety net, government regulation of the economy, or climate change are responsible for that figure. On all of those issues, Paul’s views are diametrically opposed to the liberal position. But Paul’s opposition to war and the curtailment of civil liberties have clearly resonated.

Paul’s civil liberties record certainly has much to recommend it. He raises important questions about the concentration of power in the executive branch and has consistently opposed the Patriot Act and the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects. Unlike most members of his party, Paul endorses the use of civilian trials for such suspects. And in a break with bipartisan orthodoxy, Paul is unafraid to call the War on Drugs the abject failure that it is. All of that said, Paul’s bigoted newsletters, combined with his opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, same-sex marriage, and a woman’s right to an abortion suggest that not all citizens would enjoy equal liberty in his United States.

Meanwhile, Paul’s foreign policy positions are far from left-liberal. To be sure, he opposes American overseas adventurism, but as Ben Adler notes, Paul’s anti-war views are rooted in a deeper isolationism:

Just because Ron Paul opposes imperialism and unnecessary invasions of foreign countries doesn’t mean he has a liberal or progressive bone in his body. Paul is a nationalist and isolationist, staunchly opposed to multilateral organizations. This isn’t good for international peacekeeping or other humanitarian efforts, nor arms control. Paul opposes all foreign aid. Promoting democracy and human rights are of no interest to Paul, even through peaceful means. He also opposes immigration and wants to eliminate America’s constitutional policy of birthright citizenship.

As Michael Cohen explains in Foreign Policy, Paul’s foreign policy would undermine many progressive aims. “There is far more to Paul’s view than just his opposition to U.S. military adventurism,” writes Cohen. “Paul also believes that the United States should depart from all international organizations and global alliances. This includes not just NATO, but also the United Nations and the World Health Organization.” Indeed, in 1990 Paul appeared in a crazed video of the John Birch Society claiming the UN would take away Americans’ gun rights, property rights and their right to practice religion freely.

In spite of all aforementioned flaws, however, might Paul make a useful contribution to American politics? Stephen Walt thinks so:

But I think it’s clear that Paul comes with too much baggage to persuade many people to follow his banner, and his views on other issues provides the media and other mainstream groups with an excuse to ignore the more interesting parts of his message.  If by some miracle Paul managed to win the Republican nomination, the general election would probably look a lot like Johnson’s crushing defeat of Barry Goldwater in 1964.

But that historical analogy got me wondering. Contemporary political historians argue that Goldwater’s defeat in 1964 laid the foundation for the modern conservative movement, which came to fruition with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Paul has done surprisingly well during this primary season, and his views clearly resonate with a sizeable core of young and fairly well-educated voters. Is it possible that Paul’s brand of foreign policy restraint just needs a better champion, one who is both more broadly appealing but also not saddled by so much poisonous baggage? In short, just as Ronald Reagan eventually built on the Goldwater movement and made its core principles appealing to many Americans, might Ron Paul’s views on foreign policy be awaiting the arrival of a candidate (in 2016, or maybe 2020) who can put them in a more attractive package?

If Paul’s strong youth support tells us anything, it’s that there’s a substantial audience among Millennials for a radical rethink of American foreign policy. (Okay, some young voters are probably thrilled that there’s a candidate who doesn’t care if they smoke pot.) But I’m not quite persuaded by Walt’s analysis here. Let’s start with his analogy: Goldwater certainly articulated many of the conservative principles that Reagan did in 1980, but it’s not particularly useful to think of Goldwater’s candidacy as a harbinger of things to come. For one, Goldwater ran squarely against the New Deal, including Social Security. Reagan, a onetime FDR Democrat, ran against the consequences of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society. Moreover, it’s a mistake to think about American politics as consisting of ideological periods. Reagan’s election was the result of Jimmy Carter’s perceived incompetence in foreign affairs and economic stewardship, not a resounding voter endorsement of right-wing conservatism. If one were to take each election result as an indicator of voters’ ideological mood, one would have grown very confused of late: Substantial Democratic triumphs in 2006 and 2008 were followed swiftly by a Tea Party wave in 2010.

Finally, if the US does scale back its imperial ambitions – and I believe it will – I doubt it will be because Ron Paul kindled a flame in the imagination of the popular consciousness. Instead, a more humble US will come about as a result of geopolitical factors that are already affecting international relations – the strain on American resources amid a torpid economy, military overstretch, and the rise of new superpowers like China and Brazil. Walt’s theory rests on a Great Man view of history, in which powerful individual actors decisively shape the march of events. But as students of history and politics know, complexity is the name of the game in world affairs. Events usually shape actors.

 

1 Comment

Filed under foreign policy, Ron Paul

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | January 7, 2012 · 3:29 PM

Race and the Republicans

By Luke Brinker

In his column today, Charles Blow recites a litany of recent Republican race-baiting. He cites three particularly egregious examples:

On Sunday, Rick “The Rooster” Santorum, campaigning in Iowa, said what sounded like “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.” At first, he offered a nondenial that suggested that the comment might have been out of context. Now he’s saying that he didn’t say “black people” at all but that he “started to say a word” and then “sort of mumbled it and changed my thought.”

(Pause as I look askance and hum an incredulous, “Uh huh.”)

Newton Leroy Gingrich has been calling President Obama “the best food stamp president” for months, but after plummeting in the polls and finishing fourth in Iowa, he must have decided that this approach was too subtle. So, on Thursday in New Hampshire, he sharpened the shiv and dug it in deeper, saying, “I’m prepared, if the N.A.A.C.P. invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African-American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps.” On Friday, Gingrich defended himself, as usual, by insisting that exactly what he said wasn’t exactly what he said. He was advocating for African-Americans, not disparaging them.

“Uh huh.”

The comments from Santorum and Gingrich came after a renewed exploration of Ron Paul’s controversial newsletters, one of which said in June 1992 about the Los Angeles riots: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began.”

Paul has, of course, insisted that he didn’t write or reviewthe newsletters, although they were written under his name, he made money from them and he used to brag about them.

“Uh huh.”

The ridiculousness of Santorum’s “blah” defense, Gingrich’s inaccurate and demeaning implication that more blacks use food stamps than earn wages, and the implausibility of Paul’s denial that he knew about the vile material published under his name are really beside the point. Santorum and Gingrich’s recent utterances can only be understood within the context of a Tea Party-dominated GOP base that holds outmoded racial views. I posted last week about how racism factors into the Tea Party’s selective opposition to government programs, and this excerpt from a Newsweek report pertains closely to our present topic:

So a new poll by researchers at the University of Washington caught my eye. The findings are sure to fan the flames further. “People who approve of the Tea Party, more than those who don’t approve, have more racist attitudes,” says Christopher Parker, a University of Washington professor who directed the survey. “And not only that, but more homophobic and xenophobic attitudes.” For instance, respondents were asked whether they agreed with various characterizations of different racial groups. Only 35 percent of those who strongly approve of the tea party agreed that blacks are hardworking, compared with 55 percent of those who strongly disapprove of the tea party. On whether blacks were intelligent, 45 percent of the tea-party supporters agreed, compared with 59 percent of the tea-party opponents. And on the issue of whether blacks were trustworthy, 41 percent of the tea-party supporters agreed, compared with 57 percent of the tea-party opponents.

Santorum may deny he was referring to “black people” on welfare, Gingrich may self-righteously appoint himself a guardian of African-Americans’ best interests, and Paul may plead incompetence on his newsletters, but there is no denying that there is a substantial audience in the GOP for race-baiting. As Blow notes in his column, Republican appeals to racial animosity date back five decades:

Racial politics play well for Republicans. Santorum and Paul finished second and third in Iowa. Time will tell if Gingrich rebounds. Playing to racial anxiety and fear isn’t a fluke; it’s a strategy that energizes the Republican base.

Kevin Phillips, who popularized the right’s “Southern Strategy,” was quoted in The New York Times Magazine in May 1970 as saying that “the more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans.”

This is why it is either deeply dishonest or pitifully asinine for Republicans to boast of their heritage as the “party of Lincoln,” or to note that segregationist Southern Democrats stonewalled civil rights for decades. Until the late twentieth century, the two parties were not the mostly-ideologically-unified parties they have become. An individual’s geographic region said a great deal more about his political views than did his party affiliation. In his review of Geoffrey Kabservice’s new book on the decline of Republican moderates, Timothy Noah notes the pivotal role of liberal Republicans in securing civil rights:

The story begins at the Eisenhower era’s end. Writing in 1961 about the return of “action and political dialogue to the college campus,” the young activist Tom Hayden cited three examples. The first was the left-wing Students for a Democratic Society (which Hayden helped found), remembered today as a primary vehicle for campus protest against the Vietnam War. The second was the right-wing Young Americans for Freedom (which Buckley helped found), remembered today for advancing the political careers of Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. The third was Advance, a magazine published by two Harvard undergraduates, Bruce Chapman and George Gilder. Today no one remembers Advance. Gilder and, to a lesser extent, Chapman are familiar names, but they’re known mainly as right wingers. Back then they were Rockefeller Republicans who played a significant role in rallying Republican Congressional support for the civil rights movement. When the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, Kabaservice reports, it had proportionally greater support among Republicans than among Democrats (who had to fend off opposition from Southern segregationists). But Goldwater, the party’s “presumptive presidential nominee,” voted against the bill.

When the two parties were not polarized, there was indeed no shortage of racist Democrats in the South. What happened to them? Almost all, including Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond, became Republicans. The Southern Strategy advocated by Phillips and implemented by Nixon worked. President Lyndon Johnson’s prediction that his signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would effectively concede the South to the GOP proved prescient.

Pundits may look to Santorum’s “black people” comment and see a “gaffe” or Freudian slip. The historically minded, however, cannot help but note the enduring legacy of Kevin Phillips.

Leave a Comment

Filed under political parties, race issues

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

by | January 6, 2012 · 11:25 AM

Liberals, Ron Paul, and Science

By Luke Brinker

Ron Paul-friendly liberals have long mystified me. His bigoted newsletters display contemptible racial animosity, homophobia, and conspiracy-mongering. While he opposes American military adventurism, his foreign policy is anything but left of center. Paul may oppose the War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, and the military detention of American citizens, but is  a supporter of a Mississippi-style personhood amendment, an opponent of virtually every aspect of the social safety net, and a committed gold bug really a candidate liberals should admire, much less support?

Chris Hayes took to Twitter today to make a valuable contribution to the debate over the relationship between Paul and the left. “Since @ggreenwald on Ron Paul has stirred up an interesting debate about progressive priorities & allies, lemme offer a provocation,” Hayes tweeted. He followed up with, “I am stunned by how low on the list of priorities global warming is for most progressives.To me it’s the most important issue by quite a bit.” Hayes raises an important point I neglected to mention in my Paul-related posts last week. Paul emphatically denies the scientific consensus on climate change. And it isn’t only on global warming that Paul displays a decidedly illiberal attitude toward science. He may be an M.D., but Paul refuses to accept the theory of evolution. As Michelle Goldberg reports, the Texas congressman is deeply tied to far-right Christian groups, which helps explain his anti-science views. If Michele Bachmann’s science-phobic, religious fundamentalist views made her a liberal laughingstock, why should Paul’s denial of global warming and evolution not disqualify him from serious consideration, as well?

Leave a Comment

Filed under Ron Paul

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,