« Woody Guthrie’s take on Jesus | Home | Thinking about my friend Bob Waldrop »
More leftist thoughts on Ron Paul
By jmb | December 17, 2007
Revised for style and grammar 11:36 p.m., December 17, 2007.
I have had a whole flurry of comments on my prior post about Ron Paul (Thoughts on a Ron Paul/Dennis Kucinich ticket, so I thought it might be helpful to post some more thoughts.
First though, let me say that my commentary is firmly rooted in a leftist political perspective. I don’t expect my readers to necessarily agree with this perspective, but do understand that this is where I am coming from. I’m not trying to convince moderates or conservatives to not vote for Paul, but I do want liberals to understand that Paul is not a liberal.
My main criticism of Ron Paul is the same criticism I have of most Libertarians — they are quite willing to attack big government power in some areas, but they refuse to stop the government from allowing the rich to have excessive private property while others are suffering. (let’s be honest, the government not only allows the rich to be rich, but protects the rich and keeps them rich)
I agree that free speech rights are paramount, and Libertarians would agree with me on this. However, is there actually free speech, when the means to speak are controlled by private individuals and companies? No. Our system allows the rich to say whatever they want in the mass media for the most part, but the poor are stuck writing blogs and maybe circulating zines photocopied at Kinko’s. Sure, you can stand on a soapbox and spout, but will it do any good in the onslaught of corporate controlled voices? No, not really. Maybe your voice will be heard, but it is definitely a David and Goliath kind of situation.
Private property rights in America are our sacred cow. Try speaking your mind at a shopping mall. If you as much as raise your voice, or do something crazy like pass out flyers, you’ll be thrown out in no time. Yet, these private spaces are increasingly the closest thing we have to a public square. Libertarians want to take all of the remaining public spaces (highway right of ways, national and local parks, public libraries, etc.) and make them private. What will this do to free speech? It will kill it.
Private property is the root of the problem. I agree (as did the early-day Oklahoma Socialists), that a woman or man should be able to make a living on their own terms, own their business, make their own go of it, either by themselves or working with others. However, socialists also think this right is meaningless if the poor have no means to ever acquire their own means of production (be it the tools of a trade or a piece of land to farm). And socialists believe that since resources are scare, that it is only right to demand that the rich give up some of what they have, if others don’t have enough.
A progressive income tax is one means of doing that. Poor people pay a very low tax rate. Middle classes are supposed to pay more. The rich have the highest tax rate. Now of course our current system is imperfect (I think that when you get past a certain amount, that the tax rate should be 100%– Does Bill Gates or Oprah Winfrey, or the Walton family, really deserve billions of dollars!? Who is to say that their contribution to society is so astronomically more valuable than that that of the working poor?), but it is a step in the right direction. I think there should be a point that this kind of income should be capped, and the excess be redistributed to those who don’t yet own their own means of production. But still our current system is better than nothing: and Ron Paul would even abolish that.
So, for a leftist like myself, I can’t support Ron Paul. I do appreciate Ron Paul’s criticism of the war in Iraq and his call to preserve individual liberty, but I also strongly believe that his support of the capitalist system in the end will cause violence too. The violence may come through future wars, but it also may come through the death and suffering of the poor, both here and abroad. The rich will keep getting richer, and the poor will increasingly be enslaved by a system that doesn’t give them the chance to rise up and make their lives better.
I’ll also add that if one coupled Ron Paul’s suspicion of coercive state power with a critical look at the private property rights of the rich, you might get somewhere. I would be a-ok with smashing the state in that case, if communities took care of their own needs with love instead of force, and if everyone pulled together for the good of all, and everyone had enough. We have enough resources to feed the whole world and to live healthy and rewarding lives, if we only changed the way we did things. It would take courage and it would take dedication but it is possible. I guess this is more of an anarchist argument, but so be it.
The answer is love, not force.
The answer is cooperation, not competition.
Topics: Politics, Republican Party, Socialism |
Ads by Google...
December 17th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
I think this is one of the best posts you’ve ever made on this blog, and not just because I agree with you. It’s well argued, well written, passionate and powerful.
December 18th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Thanks Rena for your kind words
BTW, one more thing I should mention (this is in response to an email I received).
Despite my strong criticisms of him, Ron Paul is hands down the best of the Republican candidates. He might be an uber-capitalist, but he also is anti-war and pro individual liberty, which is more than you can say about the other Republican candidates.
December 19th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Hi Mathew, its an interesting post. I think rather than explicitly money, the real issue is power. Money does equate to power for many people, but isn’t quite the same.
I think an important issue is making sure that people are given fair opportunities, whether in getting employment, politics, or education. Ron Paul is constantly repeating how collectivism, whether expressed as racism, classism, or income bias, is truly a cause of many problems.
I think without a doubt a progressive system of tax is a better approach, where those most able to pay are paying more, however, I don’t think the government should just take, because someone earns more than a certain amount. What the government takes should be based on the needs of the government (roads, schools, education, emergency needs, etc). To simply take something even if it isn’t needed by the government, because it has the power, is unreasonable force, and in a sense, is likely to be wasteful and no better than theft on a moral basis.
I think the government should look at the constant inflation of money and how that impacts the poor, and the skewed system where banks charge fees and pay almost no interest, but turn around and charge insane interest on the other side, on money they don’t even truly have in their vault.
I have always found this video
- http://www.ava.nu/despotism/ - to be interesting… It was on the National Archives website, and I converted it so I could watch it easier. It explains Despotism… how it can come from patriotic people who wave the flag, from private business, and even from well-intentioned people trying to fix things, unless we guard against it.
December 24th, 2007 at 8:53 am
This is an excellent critique of Libertarianism. I was discussing this last night and stated the same things rather clumsily, now I can send my friend to this site for clarity.
December 26th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Thanks for your kind words Neil
January 2nd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
I’ll start by admitting that I am an avid Ron Paul supporter. However, previously to registering republican in December, I had been registered and voted Green for 8 years.
Its true that Ron Pauls views on abortion and illegal immigrants are atrocious to myself and pretty much anyone who values peace and justice. Yes, as a Libertarian he is a strong advocate for private property rights. But what about the rest of it?
Imagine for a moment what a Paul presidency might do for the political landscape of our country…
In what ways might the Democrats be forced to react to a sudden shift of the Republican party to honest political dialogue?
Would it be so bad to have a severely weakened federal bureaucracy and empowered local government in its place?
Is it possible a more fair tax code would replace the existing IRS if it was gutted?
And really, can we afford to let power continue to accumulate in Washington DC under a Clinton or Obama or (god forbid) a Huckabee administration?
I think the majority of left-leaning people have dismissed Ron Paul in much the same way jmbzine has. To me that is worrisome because it resembles the common problem the left has of splintering potentially valuable coalitions with in-fighting. Contrast it to the broad voting base the monied interests of the right have won by allowing groups like social conservatives into their midst.
January 12th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
[…] This is a continuation of my discussion of Ron Paul (a mostly Libertarian running for President as a Republican) from a leftist political perspective. To see my last post on this topic, click here. […]