The Key to Positive Change and the Keystone to Crush Hope

President Obama's "decision" to reject the Keystone pipeline deal illustrates a number of important political realities.

First, this is the typical bipartisan football punt issue. Keep this issue alive along with cultural wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage and you can fire up your base and discourage people looking for real solutions to complex and difficult problems like energy independence, national security, jobs and real environmental concerns. Millions will be spent on political ads and political resolution will come only after the election.

Second, Obama made a decision to decide after the election to go ahead with the construction of this pipeline. This way he gets to throw labor red meat later and greens vegetables now.  Environmentalists are swallowing this natural political laxative with the false hope that Obama II will not flush them the way that Obama I has.

Third, Mitt Romney now  has a jobs creation corporate Keynesian card he can carry to the white house with labor ready at his side to be ignored as much then as they are now. Look for this pipeline to lower the price of fossil fuels temporarily and crush advancement of green jobs long term.

Fourth, we need a trust busting campaign to break up the two major parties. The people are no longer represented by either party. Rhetorically, Republicans appear to be economic libertarians and cultural interventionists while Democrats appear to be cultural libertarians and economic interventionists. In actually, both parties global corporatists in the way they govern. What we need is for the global corporatists to have their on party to represent the 30,000 American clients. The rest of us need 4 parties: Libertarian, Green Peace, Cultural Conservative, and Labor. Combine that with diminishing the power of the US Senate, imposing term limits on congress and applying proportional representation to the House, and we will begin to establish government of, for and by the people.

Finally, it shows us that libertarians and progressives need to form a temporary alliance to bring this rhetorical bait and switch show to a close so that we can move on toward a real debate which result in real solutions to real problems.

Somebody give me hope that this can actually happen.

RP Campaign? Democrats? Liberals? Progressives?

Did you see the debate on Fox last night from Myrtle Beach , SC?

First, for the campaign staff, why is Ron Paul not in every church  and community center in the African American community in the state?  Ignore the race issue is going way wrong. Confront it head first. He is advocating for African Americans in a big way with his anti-war and anti-drug war message and in his criticism of discrimination in law enforce and judicial systems. Africa Americans will hear him. The red necks in the audience last night booing the golden rule are not with him. (Not to mention Jesus....) Come on!

Democrats, Liberals, Progressives? What are you doing sitting on your hands? Do you want to let the warmongers in the GOP to get a free pass? Punish them! Vote for Ron Paul in the primary! This is a no-brainer! No excuses left!

On PORPs, PUERPs and Redneck Country Preachers

I am pleased to see progressives begin to talk seriously about supporting Ron Paul. As we do, there seem to be two groups. One stands for Paul because of his stand on civil liberties, war, militarism and empire, drug war, the federal reserve's bailout of banks, etc. This group is not thrilled about Ron Paul's desire to end federal intervention in the economy. The second groups thinks his desire is so hideous that it disqualifies him from any consideration, especially as he has also opposed the Civil Rights Act and tolerated racist elements within his entourage and among his newsletters.

Neither group thinks that Ron Paul is wrong on all matters, and neither endorses all that he advocates. Progressive opponents of Ron Paul (hereafter PORPs) make a good  point. If progressives support Ron Paul unconditionally and he wins, he is under no obligation to listen to our concerns over his economic policy. He truly longs for the day when we are all Austrians. Progressives unconditionally endorsing Ron Paul (hereafter PUERPs) are  running a fool's errand, which might end wars abroad but start thousands in ever city, village and hamlet. (Think about who owns the guns.)

I am not sure that PUERPs actually exist. Some Democrats are actually libertarians who previously could not make a deal with coporatists, militarists and conservative cultural imperialists like their Republican counterparts. Now with Ron Paul not concerned with their legal sexual status or pot smoking, they have migrated to their homeland. Other progressives like myself, no longer disillusioned but realistic about the process of lowest common denominator politics, see in Paul a way to set Republican corporatism back by giving them a dose of their own divide and conquer medicine back.

We had more than 50 reliably progressive Democratic Senators on our side in 2009-10 with a huge majority in the House and a real progressive in the White House. Whether or not he was or is a progressive is meaningless. If Obama suddenly became George McGovern, we would still face the 60 Senator hurdle for the next 5 years, with several less than 50 reliable progressives.

Let's be optimistic and say we get the House back. The Senate is still too far gone and Democrats will be very lucky to hang on to 51 seats.The only way the Senate gets 60 anti-empire advocates is to turn 15 Republicans  libertarian. This will not happen without Ron Paul in the general election debate.

I'm guessing that if a 3 way race were held today he would get 20% of the vote with a fourth coming from progressive Democrats. He would insure an Obama victory. If he does not do well, finishing 3rd in the Republican primaries, he will probably endorse Gary Johnson. I think he might change his mind if he manages to get above 30% of the Republican votes and beats Rick Santorum for 2nd place. He would be a fool not to go 3rd party if he edged out Romney for first and forced the convention to reject him.

The only way for Paul to place 2nd or 1st in the Republican race is through a large influx of progressives.  Most of us being labelled PUERPs are totally on board with Ron Paul for the primary but are holding out on supporting him in the general election. We would like to see if he decides to go coalition or stick to his one winged message. I have yet to see any major progressive spell out why they reject this strategy. Could it be they have no sensible argument? I would encourage anyone reading this to pass the question on to Rachel Maddow, The Nation, Mother Jones, The Young Turks, Democracy Now etc..... Surely they have an answer to shut this redneck country preacher up.

Since, I'm guessing they want to keep their Democratic credentials, they ain't touching this, and as long as nobody important mentions it, they are probably safe. So I'll plow this lonely field by myself for now and pray that someone smarter and wiser than I will either show me the light or finally admit the redneck ain't so dumb after all. Until then, PORPs please pile on.

Quick debate...

Who do you think won?

http://dorkmanscott.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/why-i-wont-vote-for-ron-paul/#comment-1340

Give Huntsman Some Love and Progressives a Call

I am hopeful that Romney gets taken down a notch and the proto-fascist faction of the party is divided enough to give Ron Paul a victory in SC. After this the competition is going to get tougher as the field may be winnowed down to three.

The call center needs to identify and target progressives in SC. Coastal areas are the best place to start.

Huntsman needs to be courted. If I were Paul, I would go to him immediately and offer him VP if Paul is the nominee and Secretary of State if Huntsman is willing to join a coalition cabinet and support Paul in a third party run. Huntsman is the only other sane candidate in the GOP 6 calling for ending wars immediately. He is probably the only candidate Ron Paul could endorse among his 5 opponents. (I hate to leave Buddy Roemer out of the mix.)

It makes good tactical sense to make these offers to Huntsman. A Huntsman endorsement undermines charges of danger and extremism. It also makes sense for Huntsman since he is not going to be VP to a fellow Mormom. Ron Paul is closest to Huntsman in terms of policy and being the VP gets him closer to where he wants to be. It's maybe not a match made in heaven for either candidate but it would be a huge game changer for both of them. And more importantly, for the American people.

Comment on The Nation's Blog

I posted the following comment on Opinion Nation, a blog of the leading American leftist magazine, The Nation.  There is finally a real debate emerging on the left and libertarians would do well to show their support not only of Ron Paul but of progressives supporting Ron Paul.

Can anyone here tell me the down side of voting for Ron Paul in the primary? Lots of upside to forcing the GOP to reject him at their convention, especially if enough progressives get on board to give him a plurality of votes.

Having him in the debate in a 3 way general election race will serve to display the extremism of the GOP warmongers and to challenge Obama's willingness to go along with obscene military industrial catastrophe spending.

I understand the reservations progressives have about voting for him in the general election, but is it not morally irresponsible to refuse to help him in the primary when the Democratic primaries are, with very few exceptions, predetermined up and down the ballots?

Come on... give me one good reason for wasting my vote on Obama in the primary. There are no serious primary races where I live involving a progressive and blue dog opponent.

Not only is it a moral failure to not infiltrate the GOP and occupy their voting process in this rare instance when they have a serious peace candidate on their ballot and we do not, it is also politically stupid to not help Ron Paul.

The Nation is rightly supportive of occupations in parks which do little more than fire up the already convinced while alienating the could be persuaded. Why not do something that's maybe not as fun but which will have a concrete impact against those who perpetuate economic and political injustice?


Come on...anyone tell me one good reason for refusing to occupy the GOP to vote for Ron Paul in the the primary!!!!!

Racism and Ron Paul

One of the most understandable reasons for progressives as well as people from across the political spectrum to hesitate about voting for Ron Paul is the existence of racist rhetoric in some of his newsletters.  Ron Paul has disavowed these statements and for his most ardent followers, that ought to be the end of it.

He has also admitted that he followed bad advice when his campaign staff told him to claim that these statements were taken out of context. The one statement, about the swift footedness of young black men, that he tried to defend in that manner was embarrassingly incredulous. Fortunately for Ron Paul, he has, until this campaign, been able to take a minimalist approach to this problem in part due to the long accepted “southern strategy” of the Republican Party.

Thankfully for America, the Republican Party can no longer count on that strategy to gain them majorities in all southern states. I do not think that Ron Paul ever liked the strategy as is evidenced by his standing against the racial bias of our judicial system, especially with regard to the death penalty and drug law enforcement and sentencing.

Furthermore, in all the books, articles and public speeches that legitimately bear his name, Ron Paul has never used bigoted language or advocated racism. In fact, he has explicitly condemned racism as a violation of both his libertarian principles and his Christian beliefs.  

Ron Paul can certainly continue through this primary and not make the speech I suggest. He might even win the nomination without such action. While I doubt that most mainstream Republicans care a wits end whether Ron Paul renounces the party's central political strategy of the last 40 years, he may need to satisfy enough liberal voices that he is not a racist before he can get a big time endorsement from anyone on the left.

Satisfying his critics, however, is just not Ron Paul’s way, and certainly that’s a part of his character I hope he never gives up (as if he could, if he tried). Deep down I think that what Ron Paul wants is to do the right thing.  So what I would suggest he think about is how deeply the problem of racism has infected our American system to its detriment.

I would not presume to know Ron Paul’s heart or anyone else’s but my own, and that not very well. (I realize that last qualifier makes me unfit to be a libertarian.)  I do know what I see and hear. I was born and raised a southerner but I have lived up north and overseas. In the latter I have seen American imperialism at work. Our supposedly enlightened and liberal entertainment industry has taught the world that black men are to be feared as inherently violent and criminal.

Northerners are just as bigoted as southerners. White liberals pride themselves on not being racists but are as much segregated from African Americans as any other political segment of our population. White conservatives have been thinking since 1865 that we live in a post racial society. Black leaders, regardless of their position on the economic ladder or political spectrum, continue to have to battle the impression that they somehow do not deserve their status. African American youth continue to be told there place is not in seats of power but in the sports arena or on the entertainment stage and sadly far too many of them embrace the stereotype.

The continued endemic presence of racism in our culture is revealed in subtle and not so subtle comments. The other day I was standing in line to purchase some books. Among them were 3 books on the life of Martin Luther King. The cashier, a white woman, asked me, “What are these for?” I simply told her, “They are for my 7 year old son.” Her silent and blushing reaction to a white guy buying three different books on MLK for his son tells us much about what is still expected in our culture. If I were a teacher purchasing them for display prior to the King holiday, that would be understandable but not simply so that my son could get to know a national hero from 3 different perspectives.

People with liberal political leanings are rightly cognizant of the continuing problem of racism in America but they should be careful not to pride themselves on not being racists. Whenever, some begins a sentence, “I’m not a racist…,” I am almost certain to hear evidence to the contrary. Culturally sophisticated liberals would never use such a phrase but their inordinate shallow openness and high regard for the supposed supreme virtue of tolerance makes me wonder just why they protest so much.

Such skepticism is my reaction to liberals' reactions to the obviously racist statements in some of Ron Paul’s newsletters. I think he rightfully deserves criticism for how casually he has dealt and/or not dealt with them. I like to imagine that when he found out about these statements, he was deeply embarrassed and went quietly to Lew Rockwell and said to him, “I don’t want to know who wrote this filth, but never let anything like it come anywhere near to anything bearing my name ever again.”

That hope might very well be truly wishful thinking. Ron Paul was raised in a racist culture. The thought of him never having a racist thought or saying a racist word or participating in a racist activity is about as ridiculous as expecting me to never think about eating blueberry cobbler. I don’t dwell on it but it wouldn’t take much for me to start craving some. Our culture is addicted to racism and if not for certain legal and cultural barriers, we could easily slip back into its worst manifestations.

All this is not to say that we have not made significant strides or that all white Americans are inherently racists. It is to say that the media ought to expect to find some racism in politicians born before 1964. (Not suspecting it in politicians born after the civil rights would be just as naïve.) Ron Paul has shown his homophobia publically on film when he was baited. It’s not a huge step to believe that such irrationality might show up in matters of race.

I am not saying that the liberal sector of the media should ignore Ron Paul’s racist associations or perhaps real racist sentiments. I do however want to ask, how will such real or imagined racism likely guide his policy agenda and enforcement of the law?  My best guess is, if he is elected (and it hardly bears repeating my often asserted belief that he will not be elected except in coalition with progressives who would see to it that he not ignore the Civil Rights Act), he will do his best to prove, through how he governs, that racism is not his motive.

Beyond the usual affirmative action in hiring staff, Ron Paul would do something significant about our nation’s drug policy and penal sentencing by ending the federal death penalty(at least under his watch) and commuting and/or pardoning all non-violent drug offenders, thus releasing thousands of African Americans from unjust imprisonment to be reunited with their families. He would also greatly curtail the disproportionate number of minorities killed or injured on battle fields by bringing them back home from ill advised missions. These two measures alone would be of significantly more concrete benefit for African American individuals and families than any implemented or proposed by the current administration.

I would never pretend that Ron Paul is going to create a post racial America, but the criticisms of him on the matter seem to be more motivated by partisan politics than actual concern for racial justice.

All this said, I reiterate my call for him to deliver the exhaustive speech which affirms his commitment to both the presumption and the goal of racial equality in America. This is a necessity not just for political purposes but because it is the right thing for Ron Paul to do.