Cheering for Ron Paul?
Well!
In The Nation?
This is getting serious, yes?
From Scheer’s column:
What can you get for a trillion bucks? Or make that $1.6 trillion, if you take the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as tallied by the majority staff of Congress’s Joint Economic Committee (JEC). Or is it the $3.5-trillion figure cited by Ron Paul, whose concern about the true cost of this war for ordinary Americans shames the leading Democrats, who prattle on about needed domestic programs that will never find funding because of future war-related government debt?
snip
How damning that it takes a libertarian Republican to remind the leading Democratic candidates of the opportunity costs of a war that most Democrats in Congress voted for. But they don’t need to take Paul’s word for it; last week, the majority staff of the Joint Economic Committee in Congress came up with similarly startling estimates of the long-term costs of this war.
snip
Those now celebrating the supposed success of the surge might note that, as the JEC report points out, “[m]aintaining post-surge troop levels in Iraq over the next ten years would result in costs of $4.5 trillion.” Until the leading Democratic candidate faces up to the irreparable harm that will be done to needed social programs over the next decades by the red-ink spending she supported, I will be cheering for the libertarian Republican. At least he won’t throw more money down some foreign rat hole.
I have to admit, I really don’t know how to take this.
I mean, its great that Scheer is pointing all of this out and rightfully castigating Democrats for not having the cojones that Pail has for putting the hard figures on the table.
Yes yes and yes. To think of what could have been done with all of that money to make this nation stronger and its people healthier. The mind reels.
But when a liberal like Scheer jumps on the Paul bandwagon, my first response is not necessarily to cheer but to check that the political silver hasn’t been filched from the china cabinet.
Readers of this blog I’m sure will set me straight. I should love this, but I can’t help but be a little wary. Maybe I’m just too paranoid that any time mainstream liberals (or conservatives) for that matter, approach a movement like Paul they’re not seeking to join it so much as co-opt it.
Let’s assume for the present that Scheer’s support is good news.
After all, I’ve been writing for months that it seems many liberals and middle of the roaders fed up with the Punch and Judy show of our fixed and rigged political system are coming around to Paul.
Old line conservatives of the Goldwater stripe find a great deal to like about Paul. Liberals love the fact that he’s anti-war.
However there does exist a bit of a problem with some of the liberal community and Ron Paul and only time will tell if these difficulties are not insurmountable.
As someone who leans socialist, I understand Paul’s economic theories are free market libertarian. As a small business owner, if Paul casts his lot with the small business class in this country, I’ll feel a lot better about his economic stances. We all know there isn’t any such think as a true ‘free market’ being practiced in this country and I will also gladly join more libertarian brethren in the chorus that too much small business is hamstrung by Federal and (in many cases) onerous state tax codes and regulations.
But I still want some guarantees that product safety will be a priority in the Paul administration. And that the beef will be inspected and our food and drugs will be safe.
Give me that and I’ll feel better about Paul’s economics.
Abolish the IRS? Go for it. Trash NAFTA and GATT while you’re at it, no problem.
Economically, Paul needs to do only a little to assuage the concerns of progressives who applaud his anti-war stands.
On other websites that have been running Scheer’s column, there has been a lot made of Paul’s vote against the 1965 Civil Rights Act.
Here are Paul’s comments on that event:
Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.
This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.
Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.
July 3, 2004
While we can argue if Paul was right, should he become a serious threat to siphon anti-war voters from the Democrat side, you’ll see more and more reference to this particular stance in the media. Two questions: (1) could the media cast Paul as a genteel racist (in the Robert Byrd mold) and (2) can Paul sell position on the Civil Rights Act to mainstream as well as progressive voters?
In my estimation, he has his work cut out for him if the media really chooses to pick up on this.
Another question many progressives may parse from Paul’s remarks is: under what circumstances is it proper to interfere in the rights of people to hire, fire and enter into contracts? Progressives see no absolute rights in these things and may be more than a little intimidated by a ultra libertarian stance on these issues. Does Paul really believe its OK for businesses to discriminate against people as a Constitutional right? Or does he believe that any business foolish enough to try would be ‘corrected’ into oblivion by the free market?
Also there are those on the Internet that are dropping hints that Paul is the darling of white nationalists. Whether this is a targeted hit job or not is unclear. Paul certainly can’t stop people from supporting him but he can denounce haters of all stripes. I wonder seriously how informed Scheer is on these allegations?
No doubt, all manner of opposition research on Paul is currently being compiled. His fellow Republicans will probably turn on him in due time anyway, especially on these issues - they already have their belly full of his anti-war stances.
In another development, I’m already hearing Paul’s radio ads on Sirius which is also (pardon the pun) a serious development. If Paul is ‘flying under the radar’ that honeymoon is about to end.
I’d love to get the comments of Paul’s Internet Legions who pop in here. This is, without a doubt, the most fascinating political story of the year.
