Popular Posts

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Response to a Progressive's Objection (at OpEd News)

Thanks for your response. I am certain you read the part where I said explicitly that Ron Paul is not a progressive and the part where I said that if Paul's economic policies were fully implemented our economic woes would only deepen. 

I think that you and I are pretty much on the same page when it comes to economic policies.

I am not sure that I would be in line with you on foreign policy. For me military non interventionism is usually a good policy and it does not have to be supplemented with isolationism. Much foreign aid has unfortunately ended up enriching dictators rather than the people it is meant to help. I think a draw down in our military presence combined with a healthy skepticism toward foreign aid would be good for us and others right now. I see Ron Paul most likely trying to find ways to positively engage other countries through support of open trade and positive involvement through NGOs. (Not a fully adequate foreign policy but certainly better than the bombastic solutions we seem addicted to now.)

He has proposed half a trillion spending annually on defense, which still puts us way ahead of all of our enemies. I think you are right that he would like to put much of the savings from reductions  in military and foreign spending into tax cuts. The question is: can he get 60 Senators to agree with him? 

I think that he will have to make a deal to form a coalition government with progressives if he is to stand the slightest chance of getting elected. In such a case he gets only tax cuts which are progressively structured and reductions in spending with the condition that half of it goes to debt reduction and and half to block grants for states to spend on their much pressing needs.

I plan to vote for him in the GOP primary. I have checked my Democratic primary list and down ballot there are no viable races between progressive Democrats and blue dog Democrats in any race for any office. I plan to give money to some progressive Democratic candidates like Elizabeth Warren, and in the general election I will most likely vote Democratic for every office. 

If by chance Ron Paul wins the nomination, I will consider voting for him against the President, but he will have to show clear evidence that he intends to govern in coalition with progressives. If the President reconsiders and decides to cut military spending by as much or more than Ron Paul, I will definitely support Obama again. 

Do you see what I am doing in the primary as in any way harmful to progressive Democrats? Do you not think that it would be better for the president not to have to contend with the outrageous accusations that he has gutted our defense when he faces his opponents in the general election debates? Don't you think it will be much better for our country to debate how much to cut fake defense and false security spending and how to use the savings from such reductions instead of hearing  how we have to cut entitlements and leave the Pentagon alone or worse yet feed it more budgetary steroids? 

Would you rather see Paul v. Obama or Romney v. Obama in the general election? I think there are several reasons for progressives to vote for Ron Paul, at least in the GOP primary, don't you? Wouldn't it be fitting for the GOP convention to be divided with no candidate having a majority of delegates until Romney and the other neo-con gang up to overtake the winner of a plurality of delegates and voters, Ron Paul? 

Actually, I am finding it very hard to find a good reason vote in the my Democratic primary when the outcome is all but predetermined all the way down the ballot. I think I can do progressives much more good by causing problems in the GOP primary and if enough progressives join in the fun we could make a huge change in the general election debate and in how we deal with debt and unemployment over the next 5 years.

I am very interested to hear more from you and thank you for your thoughtful response thus far.


  1. I've been a registered Libertarian since my first voting election in 1988 and I have been waiting for mainstream America to embrace a candidate that is dedicated to Libertarian principles. That being said, I have voted moderate choosing to research and do my best to vote for the best candidate regardless of party affiliation. I am pleased that Ron Paul's record speaks for itself and that the Moderates (Rep. or Dem.) as well as Independents are finally noticing that the majority of American's have more in common than the radical 2 party system thinks. It is time to come together and let the 2 parties hear our collective voices that have been ignored for far too long. I have been hopeful that Americans would quite listening to the rhetoric and spin of not only the 2 party system, but also the Corporate interests of the so-called 'mainstream media'! If one needs proof of the media, politics and the corporatism of capitalism, one must simply look at the amount of media time and the skewing of facts that follow Ron Paul in so many instances. Most recently, CNN's Republican Debate tracked viewers favorable ratings during the debate and the results were announced and posted after the debate. Ron Paul was considered the winner by an overwhelming margin, yet the next morning CNN presented a completely different poll showing that Ron Paul had 0% of their poll finding him as the winner. This peaked my interest so I dove deeper. I was able to find others who witnessed the same disparity. Interestingly, it was brought to CNN's attention that evening by none other than one of their own, Anderson Cooper! He exposed the morning results as being a different poll including only 54 likely Republican voters(yes 54, no zero's missing)! But if that isn't enough, research for yourself how each of the first 5 GOP debate results were initially reported and then either pulled mid-debate or skewed and spun later. What is everyone so afraid of? Let the process take it's course.
    By the way, for anyone out there that is unaware, General Electric (GE) paid Zero taxes on $14.5B profit for 2010 while coincidentally the CEO of GE serves as an adviser to Obama on job creation. This I find absurd at best as over $9B was made from plants that have either been moved or built overseas and GE continues to move jobs overseas. But it gets better, GE also owns NBC, MSNBC, CNBC among others media outlets! I find this a conflict of interest at best. This race for the Presidency (although it will be by far the most expensive in history and could top $1.5B between the 2 parties) is clearly no longer about money, it is about alliances with media outlets and the dissemination of information because with the mass conglomeration of cable TV channels, the candidates can now send out very precise and specifically tailored ad's with the help of very meticulous demographic information collected and provided by the major owners of multiple cable channels.
    Ron Paul is the only logical choice as our next president in 2012! He speaks the truth about both the Republican and Democratic Parties and has not wavered or voted party lines. He is what he says he is.
    Get the facts, educate yourselves, and for the love of God, please don't believe the media! We don't live in Socialism or Capitalism (although I submit that there are currently elements of each in America) but America lives in a state of Corporatism! Ron Paul believes that we should restore the American Dream and level the playing field! After all isn't that what we all want, a fair shot at what we were taught our fore fathers fought and died for, the right to freely pursue life, liberty and happiness?
    In the end, I urge each and every one to educate themselves on the true facts, and no matter who you vote for, please vote!

  2. livefreespeech,
    Thanks for your comments. I believe you are right that we are governed by corporatism which imo is a mixture of the worst features of capitalism and socialism. I also agree that we need to come together as progressives and libertarians to elect Ron Paul. Would you agree with me that Ron Paul stands a better chance of winning the national election if he selects a progressive for his VP and promises to build a foreign policy and domestic affairs cabinet that is also thoroughly a coalition cabinet? (This question assumes that he will not be allowed to be nominated by the GOP convention even though he comes to Tampa Bay with a plurality of votes and delegates.)