What's more interesting, of course, is the shallow schematism of 'racist reactionary'. Guy's a racist reactionary. Stop thinking immediately. Next case.
He's exactly right.
Now here's the thing. I believe racism is real. I believe reaction is real. That's another discussion.
But, as the commenters are keen to get immediately, WAR is far more destroying of life, and far worse a weapon of ethnic, class, and ideological persecution than literally anything Paul or a Paulite could write in a frigging newsletter.
So Obama represents not merely potential, but fucking active destruction of human life, both in the use of our various "volunteers" and in the employment of Arabs and various other Middeleestern folks as human squibs. This much is obvious. I've been talking about this IRL for a few days, actually.
And if anyone's confused about personal vs. political virtue, we might want to talk about a vegetarian war hero I know who loves animals!
I guess the problem with Paul is not that he does or does not do more actual damage as a fringe, unelectable Bircher throwback.
ReplyDeleteIt's that he provides a facile and easy excuse for dismissing his anti-war, anti-empire, anti-drug interdiction policy points on the basis of his frankly embarrassing racialist positions. Guilt by association may be logically untenable, but it cannot be dismissed. (You see anyone signing up for Cynthia McKinney's poverty initiatives, lately?)
It doesn't really matter if you're already on the other side of electoralism, but as we well know, that won't stop our corporate press-masters from mixing their own narrative for mass consumption.
I'll never cease to be amused by people who are so up in arms over the personal deficiencies of their elected officials. As though running for office wasn't already a massive character deficiency.
ReplyDeleteJack, I'm sure you can find someone to help you learn to tie better flies.
ReplyDeleteAh, but Mr. Wolff, wanting to murder and wield power is a common damn trait. Most people can't judge their rulers for doing what they want to do.
ReplyDeleteAnd Jack, Buchanan's from a similar pile (though his Nixonian work tars him, as I guess Paul's genuflection before Reagan does too). We can say that the media is only allowing libertarian ideas to appear alongside racist reaction and paleoconservatism, all that shit that classical liberalism had in spades, or we can see that electoral libertarianism is formed out of an entitled 1950s white boy ethic and hasn't much moved beyond it. I can either reject him for his abandonment of social revolution or join him for the tactical agreement he offers. I think there's a side to either.
But what I cannot abide is the inconsistency. If Paul's got dangerous ideas, Obama's got a dangerous reality, and these two facts, taken together make me want to strangle some of my friends sometimes, honestly.
Cuneyt,
ReplyDeleteI don't personally think Paul has particularly dangerous ideas, mostly because I know Paul is a gadfly. The combination of events which would propel Paul into the White House is so unlikely, that it would be welcome comedy for it to occur (especially with a GOP controlled House that attempts to stymie him at every turn).
But, Paul isn't just gaining ground because "the media" wants a narrative. He's doing well because his entire schtick depends upon his clarion call for whitey.
Here's Paul, acting as if all these intrusions into privacy and overruns of liberty are new. They're not. It's just now that a certain caste of white folks are discovering that it just doesn't happen to black people anymore.
(That's Buch's cry, too.)
He also is popular with a lot of young people who weren't able to pay attention to what was going on 10 years ago. They make me feel old, but they do matter. They may not be as well wielded by the "Ron Paul Revolution" as some of them were by "Hope and Change," but there is that.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I see a lot of what you're talking about in the frenzy over the TSA. I felt like some white people were like "Hey, they're not just doing this to Arabs and guys with dreadlocks? HOW TYRANNICAL!"
Obviously, there's some overlap here between white and middle class culture, and God only knows how people identify.
ReplyDelete