Duly Noted
Greenwald vs. Pollitt on Ron Paul
Gage Skidmore, Creative Commons.
Katha Pollitt of The Nation is getting tired of the tongue baths Ron Paul has been receiving from her fellow progressives lately. And they are mostly fellows, perhaps because one of Paul's most glaring defects is his desire to criminalize abortion. Pollitt praises some of Paul's positions, but she has no illusions about whether progressives should find his ideology attractive as a whole:
Ron Paul has an advantage over most of his fellow Republicans in having an actual worldview, instead of merely a set of interests—he opposes almost every power the federal government has and almost everything it does. Given Washington’s enormous reach, it stands to reason that progressives would find targets to like in Paul’s wholesale assault. I, too, would love to see the end of the “war on drugs” and our other wars. I, too, am shocked by the curtailment of civil liberties in pursuit of the “war on terror,” most recently the provision in the NDAA permitting the indefinite detention, without charge, of US citizens suspected of involvement in terrorism. But these are a handful of cherries on a blighted tree. In a Ron Paul America, there would be no environmental protection, no Social Security, no Medicaid or Medicare, no help for the poor, no public education, no civil rights laws, no anti-discrimination law, no Americans With Disabilities Act, no laws ensuring the safety of food or drugs or consumer products, no workers’ rights. How far does Paul take his war against Washington? He wants to abolish the Federal Aviation Authority and its pesky air traffic controllers. He has one magic answer to every problem—including how to land an airplane safely: let the market handle it.
That paragraph neatly sums up the good and the bad of Ron Paul's candidacy. He's a crank with a few great ideas.
Progressives can draw distinctions as finely as they like when discussing Paul because he's never going to win the GOP nomination. Most of us will never have to go into a voting booth and make the decision to pull the lever for Paul vs. anyone else.
When 3quarksdaily linked to Pollitt's column, a handful of 3qd commenters condescendingly pointed to Glenn Greenwald's post about progressive "fallacies" on Paul as a corrective to Pollitt.
"That Greenwald piece is like a shock of cold water, isn't it?" wrote commenter uncontrarian, "I have long admired Katha Pollitt, perhaps more for her style than her political views, but clearly Greenwald has presented the more nuanced and mature (not to mention progressive) view of the Paul candidacy in reference to Obama's politically ambivalent presidency."
If you liked Greenwald's column, you should also respect Pollitt's. If you think that Greenwald's arguments apply to Pollitt, you've misunderstood one or both columns. Greenwald's column came out first, so we know he's not addressing Pollitt directly, but I'm juxtaposing the two because the 3qd commenters later cited it as a good rebuttal.
Greenwald writes:
The thing I loathe most about election season is reflected in the central fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute “Ron Paul” is mentioned. As soon as his candidacy is discussed, progressives will reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position? The premise here — the game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy.
Pollitt does not fall prey to Greenwald's "central fallacy." She readily praises parts of Ron Paul's candidacy.
Pollitt's column strikes a balance that Greenwald's lacks. Unlike Greenwald, Pollitt is candid about which aspects of Paul's platform she admires and which she holds in contempt.
Ironically, Greenwald agrees with Pollitt and disagrees with Paul about the merits of the social welfare state, abortion rights, and countless other issues. He is not okay with racism, homophobia, or black helicopter conspiracy theories which Paul has associated himself with over the years in his newsletters--by either writing those ideas himself or by signing his name to ghostwritten products expressing those views and getting rich off them.
Greenwald is adamant that he's not endorsing Paul, i.e., not telling people they should vote for Paul. Okay. But he's pretty sympathetic to Paul within the context of the Republican primary. After all, Paul's the closest thing civil libertarians have to a standard bearer on the national stage right now.
It is rhetorically ineffective and embrassing to admit that your guy is strong on drugs and war, but a complete crank on economics who wants to destroy the federal government to save the Republic.
Instead of taking the measure of the man in full, Greenwald goes on the offensive against a largely imaginary contingent of fallacy-prone progressives who won't let anyone say anything nice about Ron Paul.
Greenwald chooses to deflect attention from the more noxious aspects of Paul's ideology that he must consider ugly for much the same reason that some partisan Democrats are squeamish about contesting Obama's record on indefinite detention, the war on drugs, and the war in Afghanistan. They've decided that they like their guy enough to talk up his good points, despite his flaws.
That's basically what Greenwald is doing for Ron Paul in the primary, except Greenwald has the luxury of knowing that Paul has no chance of becoming president.
SAVE 53% OFF
Comments
But Beyerstein overlooks the more crucial differences between Greenwald & “some partisan Democrats”: namely, those partisan Democrats want to deflect attention from the noxious aspects of Obama’s ideology (& policy) not in order to help change mainstream political discourse (as Greenwald wants to do), but rather in order to put Obama into another term as Commander In Chief (whereas Greenwald has no particular desire to see Paul achieve that position). In fact, partisan Democrats, for the most part, want to *maintain* the status quo in mainstream political discourse, because there’s no other way “their guy” can win. And that’s precisely what Greenwald is criticizing & what he thinks is so harmful about their stance. And, based on my own experience, Greenwald’s target is not “a largely imaginary contingent” of progressives.
What I took from that Greenwald post is: If it’s permissible for Obama’s supporters to routinely ignore valid criticisms of his Presidency, (neoliberal agenda…extension of the militarized police state…continuing war strategy…among other things), it’s permissible for Ron Paul’s supporters to ignore valid criticisms of his political career, (libertarian anti-regulatory economics…social darwinism…continuing connections with white nationalists…among other things). What’s good for The Cheese is good for The Cracker…so to speak.
While Greenwald’s argument may be valid on one level, it is very dangerous on another. By encouraging a blind-eye tolerance of Paul"s extremism for the sake of his alleged antiwar and civil liberty positions, he encourages continuing a promulgation of falsehoods, (Paul’s a Progressive…a 99Percenter…he’ll restore the Constitution and fight corporate plutocracy…property ownership trumps civil rights…among other things), manufactured to lure young, primarily white male, voters to his candidacy that’s showing an alarming degree of success on this current campaign. Particularly troubling is the coalescing of systemic racism, white nationalism and “Progressive” politics. This marks a significant advance in the mainstreaming of white nationalism that began in the Reagan/Atwater/neoconservative era and benefits today from progressing, albeit backstage, support of an increasingly neoliberal Democratic Party. In an environment growing more and more hostile to any criticism of Obama’s Presidency, it’s irresponsible for anyone who claims connections to “Progressive” ideals to lend any degree of validity to extremists like Ron Paul.
While I agree Pollit’s article was accurate, it lacked sources. She failed to adequately reinforce her assertions about Paul with links to source material. Without sufficient links in support, an internet audience, particularly a young internet audience, may simply reject her assertions in favor of another showing a greater strength of resources. Like it or not, no one, in these times, should be expected to accept the assertions of any writer based solely on their “credentials” or “reputation.”
Pollitt and others, including Beyerstein, underestimate the growing appeal and momentum of Paul’s candidacy this time around. Discounting his viability and electability without questioning the significance of a growing migration of young independents and progressives to his camp is Just What The Doctor (Paul) Ordered. Those migrants will join the Anybody But Obama movement if he commands it…and then where will we be? Things may not get much better with Obama and the Democrats, but they could get substantially worse with any of the Tea Party Nationalists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzIuUW9VUr0
Many people who watch this video change their vote.. the censorship and smears are getting ridiculous
http://tekgnosis.typepad.com/tekgnosis/2012/01/ron-paul-many-people-who-watch-this-whole-video-change-their-vote.html
@Juan
Maybe….
But they might change their vote after taking a peek at Paul’s tactics…
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/ron-pauls-covert-youth-ops-iowa
…or they might change their vote after taking a peek at some of his long-term supporters…
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/top-10-racist-ron-paul-friends-supporters/
…or they might change their vote even if they think Paul’s racism, antisemitism, and homophobia aren’t the worst things about him…
http://crooksandliars.com/kenneth-quinnell/ron-pauls-racism-isnt-worst-thing
…then again, they might not.
Pollitt and Beyerstein vs Greenwald
Embarrassingly for Katha Pollitt, she says “Salon’s Glenn Greenwald is so outraged that progressives haven’t abandoned the warmongering, drone-sending, indefinite-detention-supporting Obama for Paul that he accuses them of supporting the murder of Muslim children.” But Greenwald never says anything like this.
Greenwald in fact says, “no matter how many times I say that I am not “endorsing” or expressing support for anyone’s candidacy, the simple-minded Manicheans and the lying partisan enforcers will claim the opposite.” (emphasis in the original)
Greenwald’s article in fact says that because Obama joins the Republicans in supporting, “covert endless wars, consolidation of unchecked power, the rapid growth of the Surveillance State and the secrecy regime, massive inequalities in the legal system, continuous transfers of wealth from the disappearing middle class to large corporate conglomerates,” that those of us who oppose these policies have no chance to see our opposition expressed by the main stream media except in exceptional cases, like the candidacy of Ron Paul. We can agree that in most ways Ron Paul is a dangerous crank but we should also be happy that he is debating important subjects that otherwise would not be discussed.
But apparently Pollitt and Beyerstein would rather shout Greenwald down than face that in a number of important ways Obama’s presidency has simply continued the policies of George Bush.
Pollitt and Beyerstein Vs. Reality
The art of slide of hand is mostly distraction; make the victim look in the wrong direction as you steal their wallet. Does anyone really believe that Ron Paul has any chance of winning the republican nomination? Count on the republican establishment to make sure that this never happens. And if he were to win more the pity for the republicans, he could never win a general election.
The candidacy of Ron Paul is not the real danger, far more dangerous is Greenwald’s list, “covert endless wars, consolidation of unchecked power, the rapid growth of the Surveillance State and the secrecy regime, massive inequalities in the legal system, continuous transfers of wealth from the disappearing middle class to large corporate conglomerates,” and the way our current President has embraced these policies.
If Pollitt and Beyerstein divert our attention away from these real dangers (in Pollitt’s case with the outlandish claim that the problem is that Greenwald is a white man) it is perhaps not that they wish to distract but because they are so distracted that they do not realize that their will be no way to fight for a woman’s right to choose when our civil liberties have disappeared.