Liberals and Neocons hate Ron Paul

I can’t help but notice there has been vocal hostility to Ron Paul from the least likely groups: liberals and neoconservatives. Before I go on, I would like to point out that there are two kinds of left-leaning groups in America: there are the progressive, who often lean on the left and are able to explain their viewpoints, and then there are liberals, who are often are automatically against anything from the right, resort to petty insults, or support an idea just because it sounds good without thorough evaluation. Examples of progressives include Dennis Kucinich, Morgan Spurlock, and Martin Luther King while liberals are best exemplified by Michael Moore, Mike Gravel and Rosie O’Donnell.

On the other end of the spectrum you have a group of right-leaning American who profess to be neoconservatives or Republicans. These people would simply support the Bush administration simply because they are Republicans without examining whether their policies benefit them as individuals and loyal party members, or they support the government because they think it is patriotic to mindlessly support it. Then there are those who decide to identify themselves as neoconservatives or conservatives without understanding the true nature of American neoconservativism or classical American conservatism itself.

These people actually believe that conservatism involves creating a strong state, trading away freedom for security or engaging in unprovoked wars. It does not help that these groups are reluctant to have objective dialogue on the issues but preferring to simply question people’s patriotism or insulting them. Examples of such individuals are Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rudy Giuliani, and Ann Coulter.

So let’s be very clear that this post is critical of both the so-called ersatz conservatives and irrational liberals in regards to Ron Paul.

So far, it seems both liberals and conservatives dislike Ron Paul based on the assumption that he is incompetent.

Some examples liberals give are the following:

1. He prefers tax credits for reducing healthcare costs rather than state-controlled health insurance

(counterpoint: Ron Paul would prefer the individual recoups his or her medical costs in the form of a tax deduction that can reduce the cost of income tax. In some cases these deductions can eventually lead to a tax refund check that will return funds to the individual and the amount of tax credit depends on the level of healthcare. He would also deregulate some of the health insurance laws so there would no be any limits of what providers would be available in each state.

Whereas, the government would simply tax everyone the same amount of money regardless whether the person received medical care or not in a state-run health insurance scheme. There would also be little or no alternatives available for socialised heath insurance and a two-tier heathcare system would remain for those who can afford private insurance.)

2. He is supposedly a bitch-ass pussy for wanting to reduce government

(counterpoint: Ron Paul has mentioned that the Federal budget needs to be cut in addition to reducing taxes. America’s current spending is catastrophic due to the rising costs associated with Iraq are increasing, the growing deficit from increased borrowing from China and Japan, the expanded bureaucracy such as Homeland Security, and from federal entitlement programmes. This is happening at a time when the Bush administration reduced taxes without covering for these increased costs and at a time when the dollar is loosing value as the world tries to find alternatives from American financial influence.

I am sure liberals and statists would love to have a bloated bureaucracy, but the reality is that America will become a bankrupt, backward, and excessively bureaucratic society if spending isn’t curbed in our lifetime. Also, Ron Paul will allow individuals to opt out of paying for entitlement programmes without cutting any of them.

This video explains the problem in greater detail, but I doubt many liberals would bother to watch because they may not like what they hear.)

3. He is a bitch-ass pussy because some racists support him

(counterpoint: Yes Ron Paul did receive some open donations from racists such as David Duke and Don Black. He has also received donations from thousands of non-racists, ethnic minorities, Christians, Jews, Muslims, the LGBT community, progressives, libertarians, conservatives, and genuine reformers. For every White Supremacist there are hundreds if not thousands of regular campaign contributors.

Some liberals enjoy making a big deal out of these handful of donors by making blog entries that imply Paul is a klansman, a neo-nazi, a Southern slaveowner, and other labels that imply Ron Paul is a bigot. Ron Paul is not a racist, but a man who supports basic freedom and a defender of minority rights from the “tyranny of the majority” that liberals and neocons would like to see happen if they got their way.

People need to remember that Ron Paul actually participated in the “All-American Presidential Forum” debates on September 27, 2007 to discuss issues that affected the African-American and Hispanic communities while Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and John McCain skipped it. We should remember that Romney admitted to crying when the Mormon (LDS) church leaders decided to allow African-Americans into their religion while Giuliani supported the NYPD officers who shot Amadou Diallo after he was racially profiled as a suspected rapist.)

Now here are some examples neocons give for hating Ron Paul:

1. He is a bitch-ass punk dickhead because he wants to abolish the income tax

(counterpoint: Ron Paul does want to abolish the income tax because it is already a heavy tax burden on those who are already paying taxes in the form of reduced interest rates, payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and telephone taxes. We are already paying just enough taxes and getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service would significantly streamline the functions performed by the Department of Treasury. Most of the income tax in the past was often set aside as a means to pay off the federal deficit, but now most of the income tax is going to pay for foreign aid and the military in Iraq.

The problem with appropriating these funds for defence is that most of the funds are being allocated to companies close to the Bush administration that received no-bid contracts and often overcharge the government for inadequate work in the region. Foreign aid is another problem because it doesn’t necessarily payoff and those funds could have been better spent taking care of America’s deficit and help the taxpayers in the country. Ron Paul is not out to abolish all taxes as people would think, but simply removing the income tax as a way to remove the IRS, and to allow taxpayers to keep more of their disposable income for better use.)

2. He is a bitch-ass nutjob because he wants to reduce America’s global military presence.

(counterpoint: America’s global military presence needs to be reduced because America no longer has the proper resources to maintain such a presence and still have money to finance an ongoing war and reduced federal taxes. Many of these countries do not like American troop presence in their country because they perceive as an interference of their national affairs and it undermines their national sovereignty.

For example, there is growing support among Koreans for the removal of US Forces in South Korea because they feel their presence is a barrier from eventually reunification with the North Koreans, US soldiers often the source of crime against locals, and see it as a another form of foreign imperialism. Japan on the other hand has problems with US troops in Okinawa who have been known to sexually assault the local women, create massive pollution from their bases, and are considered an impediment for Japan’s national sovereignty.

Most of all, nothing good has come out of America’s presence in Iraq. Although, America did oust Saddam Hussein from power, their post-war mismanagement of Iraq has resulted in increased violence, a civil war, and the eventual dismembering of Iraq by the Kurds, Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims. Most of all over a quarter million Iraqi civilians and thousands of American soldiers have been killed or horribly maimed from a war they fought without any clear goals or understanding. I hate to say it but America’s domineering military presence in the world has generated more harm than good in most cases.)

3. He is a punk retard who thinks good Americans provoked terrorists

(counterpoint: According to the 9/11 Commission Report and CIA analysts, Al-Qaeda attacked America on 9/11 as a culmination of America’s presence on holy soil in Saudi Arabia, for support of Israel against the Palestinians, and for enforcing a “No-Fly Zone” and sanctions on Iraq. The concept of blowback is defined as the unintended consequences from covert or military actions taken by the United States. So anyone who actually thinks America was attacked for being the largest economy in the world or being “free” simply does not understand the real purpose for Al-Qaeda’s attacks on US embassies, on the USS Cole, and eventually the attacks on 9/11.

If America was simply attacked for being one of the world’s largest economy, then how come Japan, China, Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Canada haven’t been wiped off the map yet? If America was attacked for its “freedom” then how come countries that are ranked higher in the World press freedom index not completely wiped off the map? There are many countries that are just as free and economically developed as American, yet they were never considered a target by terrorists until they collaborate with America in their War of Terror. Something worth considering for those who actually believe that a crusade against “Islamofascists (who are actually just a radical minority)” through endless war will bring peace.)

I think this is it for tonight. Liberals and self-professed neocons should seriously consider visiting the library, reading the news and form an opinion before taking sides on a particular issue. Taking a side without any research or an unwillingness to have dialogue with others will simply lead to a shouting match and insults based on misguided views that will only make the situation worse. This holds true for most of the liberals and neocons who decide to bash Ron Paul without knowing the facts and doing it purely for emotion.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “Liberals and Neocons hate Ron Paul

  1. How about this?

    Ron Paul – like other libertarians – has a deeply flawed understanding of “freedom.” For Paul, individuals possess in their entirety “autonomy” and “freedom,” which for them boil down to a Nozickian freedom of acquisition and freedom of transfer. All individuals possess within them the right and ability to do what they please and interact/trade with whom they please, provided their interactions/transactions aren’t coercive.

    That all sounds great, until you realize that people aren’t self-contained bundles of “liberty,” and that our conceptions of freedom and liberty are bound up in community and circumstance. Freedom for an American is almost certainly different from freedom for an Afghan woman. And more than that, even if we possessed limitless freedom and autonomy within ourselves, unless we have some means of actualizing said freedom – through a stable economic position – then it doesn’t mean anything.

    Paul’s message is dangerously simplistic, and though he serves a good purpose – focusing the wider publics attention on constitutional abuses – he isn’t defending “liberty” in any meaningful sense.

  2. Are you actually suggesting having a welfare state to promote perceived economic freedom at the taxpayers’ expense? When he is talking about liberty he is talking to the voters and I am sure we all are clear that freedom is relative to those outside of America. Besides, American intervention has done little to improve Afghanistan and life for women is no different from life under the Taliban. All America did was create a mess that resulted in an explosion of opium production and a needless burden for the UN and NATO.

    Most issues can be quite simple once you break down the complexity and understand the history behind it. Paul’s message is quite complex and he does explain his reasons in detail for taking a position. Please read before making comments about Dr. Paul’s supposed ignorance.

    I would be more worried about Giuliani’s simplistic message of claiming that all terrorists are Islamofascists and that America was attacked because we’re “free”. I hoped you actually took the time to read the post before going on your comments. Hillary on the other hand would simply suggest we increased government spending to solve all problems, which is equally simplistic as Giuliani’s stance on terrorism and foreign policy.

    Paul is defending liberty though his actions in voting against the PATRIOT ACT, voting against misappropriation of entitlement programs, and voting against the Iraq War which has left the country in worse shape than when it was under Saddam.

  3. The notion that Neoconservatives have morphed into Bush-loving robots is a radical and sickening simplification of a complex movement. In reality, Paul’s isolationist foreign policy simply doesn’t make sense to people who hold the political opinion that America has both a responsibility and an interest in intervening in conflicts overseas, even if those actions don’t fit the classic definition of “war”. Indeed, Paul has continued to manipulate the issue of Iraq again and again in order to court support from groups who ignore the rest of his platform.

    It is funny that you should suggest that neocons read more– you could use a refresher on Al Qaeda’s stated justifications for terrorist attacks world-wide, which are primarily cultural in nature. (Indeed, to ignore the continued spread of Western capitalism and its influence on traditional cultures as a spark for some of the more contemporary conflicts on the globe shows an astonishing ignorance to the larger sociopolitical trends that have evolved in the ashes of the Soviet Union).

    I am glad to see that Paul’s small government message is taking root– one can only hope that, once his inevitable and embarrassing defeat in the primaries is behind us that his supporters will back the conservative candidate– even if they disagree with their foreign policy. (If they don’t– and I’m guessing a very large segment will not– it will expose just how much Paul has overused and overemphasized his childish and frankly ignorant views on Iraq).

  4. I never mentioned anything about the welfare state, I’m just making the claim that “freedom” can’t be actualized unless you have the means to do it. I have the “freedom” to travel to Japan, but unless I have the money to do so, it means nothing.

    But that’s not my main point. My main point is that people – speaking ontologically – don’t just contain freedom. That people aren’t these autonomous beings, and that we are bound to communities and various identities. Ron Paul’s blathering about “liberty” is useless because the liberty he speaks of doesn’t actually exist.

  5. Wow, both liberals and self-professed neocons are taking offence to this post. When I talked about neocons I wrote the following:

    “Then there are those who decide to identify themselves as neoconservatives or conservatives without understanding the true nature of American neoconservativism or classical American conservatism itself.

    These people actually believe that conservatism involves creating a strong state, trading away freedom for security or engaging in unprovoked wars. It does not help that these groups are reluctant to have objective dialogue on the issues but preferring to simply question people’s patriotism or insulting them. Examples of such individuals are Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rudy Giuliani, and Ann Coulter.”

    Paul’s is not an isolationist as he makes clear in all of his interviews. He is an non-interventionist who is more than happy to promote free trade and positive bilateral relations, but against directly intervening in their national affairs as we had done in Iran, and what we’re doing in Iraq. America’s overseas intervention has created more uncontrollable and unintended consequences that sometimes result in extreme negative responses such as the US Embassy bombings, the USS Cole suicide attack and recentl 9.11.

    Yes I said Al-Qaeda’s reasons for their attack was partly cultural on the basis America was having a troop presence on Muslim holy lands in Saudi Arabia among other things:

    “According to the 9/11 Commission Report and CIA analysts, Al-Qaeda attacked America on 9/11 as a culmination of America’s presence on holy soil in Saudi Arabia, for support of Israel against the Palestinians, and for enforcing a “No-Fly Zone” and sanctions on Iraq.”

    Jihad versus McWorld suggests that radical Islamic terrorism is partly a response to globalisation. However, if that is the case how come European nations and some Asian nations are not direct targets from these terrorists since they also are a contributor to foreign goods and services like America?

    The non-western world has grown tired of America’s presence in the world. Some of this has worsened as a result of invading Iraq and abusing the world’s support after 9/11 to increase global troop presence. America has already helped overthrow governments in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine in favour of more pro-American rulers yet they failed in Venezuela.

    People need to understand that America’s overseas adventures have created more uncontrollable and unintended consequences that adversely affect America in the short and long-run. America has a responsibility to its taxpayers and it is not the world’s policeman or the world government.

    People may not agree with all of Ron Paul’s policies, but they can be assured that Congress will be a reasonable check to allow for consensus politics and one can expect him to be consistent and honest as a statesman.

    Can someone explain why they think Ron Paul’s views on Iraq are simplistic. I always find it distressing that liberals would bash Dr. Paul without giving meaningful explanations on why his views are “flawed”

  6. Jamelle – You do realise you need to work for your money to enjoy your trip to Japan? Living in a free society does not entitle people to have free money to do as they please. I am sorry if you don’t have money to travel to Japan, but you need to work towards that goal like many others in America. Many socialists and liberals would like to have the right to travel or buy luxury items for free, yet we are in a capitalist society.

    Liberty exists in America. It’s unfortunate that you’re under the assumption that Americans aren’t independent individuals but drones who are closely controlled by their community.

    I am sure this was the case in Eastern Europe during the Cold War, but again Paul is referring to liberty in America and promoting positive relations with the world to spread this brand of liberty instead of using armed conflict.

  7. Okay. I’m going to spell this out real slowly.

    First. You keep on wanting to call me a socialist or something to that effect. Notice how I’m not advocating any particular policy, I’m merely saying that “freedom” – in the sense of full autonomy over all of one’s actions – doesn’t exist. In some cases that means things we are free to do can’t happen because of material constraints.

    Second. Slaves to community? That’s not what I was saying at all. Again, you want to read communism or socialism in what I’m saying. Here’s my point: the problem with saying that “Americans have liberty,” is that there’s the crucial question of “what is liberty?” It seems like for you guys, liberty is the ability of the individual to pursue whatever course of action she desires.

    The problem is that there is no such thing as the fully autonomous individual. Are conceptions of “freedom,” “liberty” and “autonomy” are deeply connected to notions of community and community interest. That’s not to say that individual desires and ends are subliminated to the community, but merely to say that the community shapes everything we do and think.

    Libertarianism doesn’t acknowledge that reality in the least bit, which in my opinion at least, makes it deeply flawed.

  8. You essentially do not support Paul on the basis on finding perceived flaws in liberatarian ideology?

    I am sure you can have this philosophical discussion of the essence of individual liberty with local libertarians. You can find more detailed counterpoints on the meaning of liberty from the Ludwig von Mises Institute – contact@mises.org AOL-IM MainMises

    You do realise that there is a war going on, a looming economic crisis, and a declining quality of life in this country. I am sure these are those who wish to sidestep the issues and dismiss Ron Paul because of minor differences of opinion over foreign policy and political ideology.

    Although many people do not fully agree with all of Paul’s views they nonetheless support him because he is consistent in his views and they know what to expect from him. Despite being a right-leaning libertarian, he still is willing to work with other factions to come to compromises on his views and understands the political process quite well as a 10-term congressman.

  9. The most important thing for everyone regardless of their viewpoints is that Ron Paul will work to restore the checks and balances in our government.

    The other candidates seem to be drooling at the possibility of enhanced executive power. Our government is becoming a fascist police state, and the only one who talks about it is Ron Paul.

    So if you are a liberal, progressive or a neo conservative and you value the future of your children living in a free country, Ron Paul is the only viable opportunity we have right now. (and IMHO he’s a pretty good choice)

  10. “I’m merely saying that “freedom” – in the sense of full autonomy over all of one’s actions – doesn’t exist.”

    Jamelle, I don’t really get your point, by your definition no one has full autonomy over their actions because if I was truly free, I would be able to decide that I want to fly or walk on water, or magically transport myself anywhere in the world.

    “unless we have some means of actualizing said freedom – through a stable economic position – then it doesn’t mean anything.”

    I’m still missing it, your point, Ron Paul wants to stop the federal reserve from stealing the value of the money in your pocket, so I’m lost, it sounds to me like you want the word freedom stricken from political speech, because freedom by your definition is physically impossible, what should we call it then, this state of being not entirely unfree? From my point of view Ron Paul offers the most not entirely unfreedom than any other candidate out there, without the ability to grow money on trees or disobey the laws of physics, what more could you possibly want?

  11. I realize this post is old, but I wanted to throw my two cents up here:

    1. True ‘freedom’ as you’ve defined it, would allow women the right to choose.

    2. Mr. Paul claims he would make no move to limit a woman’s right to chose at the level of the Federal government, despite being pro-life himself.

    3. However, Mr. Paul wrote and sponsored H.R. 776, also called the “Sanctity of Life” act. This act defines life as beginning at conception and gives states the right to protect that life.

    That sure sounds like hypocrisy to me. If he was concerned about the State’s Right’s aspect of this argument, he should have left out the entire first part of the bill about defining life as beginning at conception and giving States the rights to protect that life. The second part of the resolution, which removes the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over the matter, would’ve been sufficient.

    It was a poorly closeted ploy to make aborition illegal, and it directly contradicted his previous promises to not mess around with abortion on the Federal level.

    It also limits the personal freedom he champions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s