Ron Paul: Not antiwar, not progressive (Not that it should matter if he were)

That Ron Paul’s campaign has emerged as a “progressive” option does not change the fact that the man, from a progressive view, has mostly reprehensible positions, and reprehensible (or incoherent, or tepid) reasons for holding his ostensibly un-reprehensible positions. Nor are these irrelevant.

ron-paul-with-reagan.png

Ron Paul’s Flaky Antiwar Credentials:

The Votes on Iraq and “Afghanistan”

Not that Ron Paul is “antiwar” in any sense of the phrase activists should find interesting. Certainly, such a stance is not deducible from his congressional record.

Paul’s “Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq” complains that the vote ceded warmaking powers to the President rather than, properly, to Congress. This reflects that goofy, crude Constitutional fetishism of Paul’s which quibbles over where the “proper authority” for engaging some action technically rests rather than whether whatever is being authorized is actually a good idea. An “antiwar” legislator would oppose ceding warmaking authority to Bush not because it violates some point-of-order clause, but because, damn it, the guy might use it to start a war.

Paul also objects that the Iraq campaign was begun with no clear definition of what it would mean to win it. This reasoning is sympathetic and one can only wish Paul could be counted on to apply it. His antiwar supporters don’t much talk about his 2001 vote to authorize “Military Force Against [the 9/11] Terrorists” in what would become the War in Afghanistan. Like the Iraq resolution, this vote both ceded authority to the President to use “all necessary force”—against whomever he determines, at any later date, committed the 9/11 attacks or gave any kind of aid to those who did—and does not specify what it would mean to win such a campaign. Indeed, how could it?—as it names no targets nor the means to be used to target them. It does not even assume the President had yet made up his mind about who the enemy would be.

Paul regrets, “I voted for the authorization and…the funding, and yet it was completely misused…I was deceived…I didn’t vote to occupy and nation-build.” Paul speaks as though the vagueness of the resolution—that it never says the words “occupation” or “nation-build[ing]” or “regime change” or “war” as opposed to the swift and modest and localized police action he supposedly preferred—is somehow a defense for his voting for it. But its vagueness and wide-open applicability is precisely the problem. It could have been used to start a war or an occupation just because it says nothing to rule out those types of “military force.” You can’t “misuse” something whose use is never specified.

Unlike Paul, Rep. Barbara Lee had the sense and valor to vote against this resolution. Her defense of this decision reads just like (the better sections of) Paul’s 2006 Iraq “Statement”: “…I could not ignore that [the authorization] provided explicit authority, under the War Powers Resolution and the Constitution, to go to war…It was a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the Sept. 11 events—anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation’s long-term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit. In granting these overly broad powers, the Congress failed its responsibility to understand the dimensions of its declaration.”

This is precisely the thing Paul says he opposes in foreign policy, and he voted for it anyhow. Thus, if we believe him that his reasons for voting “No” in 2003 reflect long-standing principles, we must conclude that these are so flexible as to divest the word “principle” of all its normal meaning. (It isn’t as though his record is loyal to the rest of his stated values: His anti-tax, small government, free competition plank is belied by his heavy support for the same pork-barrel spending and corporate subsidies every other politician goes in for—including a weird coziness with the shrimp industry.)

Worse, by the time of Paul’s 2001 vote there was already so much evidence that Bush wanted the vote to “invade” and “occupy” Afghanistan (for starters) that blindness to this could only be willful. Within 24 hours of the 9/11 attacks, Bush had fingered the Taliban regime as a terrorist “harborer” and recalled the American ambassadors and UN delegates from Afghanistan. Paul knew Iraq had been the administration’s leading official “terrorist state” and held a policy of “regime change” against it, as well as against all the other top official terror sponsors. In fact, Paul believed what the U.S. was already doing to this “terror state” via the no-fly zones was an “occupation.” How, then, might he have been unaware that an “occupation” and “regime change” was off the agenda for “terrorist” Afghanistan? Add to this that Paul had by now heard Bush promise “a long [military] campaign, a determined campaign in a lot of countries.” (He would soon define “a lot” as “more than sixty.”) Secretary of State Powell had reiterated that the war “isn’t going to be solved with a single counter-attack against one individual, it’s going to be a long term conflict.” Bush’s use of mushy “War on Terror” phrasing only underscored this open-ended aspect.

Other Considerations

Ron Paul’s foreign policy is always fundamentally informed by his America First-ism, with all the moral and logical implications this kind of thing ever carries. This is marked by his frequent use of the dismissive phrase “in a foreign land thousands of miles away” to describe whatever situation he is urging us to stay out of. In brief, it isn’t clear how selfishness at the national level should be any more defensible than selfishness as a quality of persons.

Paul has said he does not want to dismantle the global network of military bases, but simply stop making (as many) new ones. Historically speaking, if a dominant military force has a weapon—and bases, among other purposes, are just a complex species of military technology—it tends to use it. Just assuming there is a point to these bases at all, Paul is by no means “anti-interventionist.” And are those “permanent bases” in Iraq the exception, the only ones to be dismantled? Paul hasn’t said so. Will the insurgents stop attacking the bases if we tell them the war is over?; Or are we not to fight them back when attacked? But if we fight back, in what sense will the war have been ended?

None of this need matter, as even regular foreign “interventions” of any scale are perfectly justifiable on straight libertarian principles. Globalization has taken those domestic interests needing of protection from “force or fraud” by the “minimal state,” and flung them across national borders. Not only could most American wars be justified rhetorically as defense of these interests, each was, more or less explicitly, more or less about this in fact. Global capitalism did not emerge without the blunt hammer of military force, nor could it be maintained without it—any more than domestic capital would be safe for five minutes if the threat of protection—i.e., cops, mostly—were removed.

Paul’s resistance to foreign aid rubs against his anti-intervention prejudice. Recalling his fight with Giuliani in the Republican debates, he is quick to note the “blowback” effect whereby a meddling American foreign policy angers its victims to retaliate. But if “just leav[ing]” occupied lands in the Middle East is a necessary condition of remedying this effect, things have gone too far for it to be sufficient. The grievances feeding Islamist anger are widespread in the Muslim world and won’t be satisfied without massive reconstruction and reparations. (This is also required by international law, and human decency.) The dreaded “entanglements” are already in place. A Ron Paul presidency makes reparations unlikely, which makes Islamic terrorism against the U.S. more likely, along with continued “interventions” which in a Paul presidency would be justified for “national self-defense.”

Finally, there is Paul’s racist view, expressed in the debates, that “we don’t understand the irrationality of Middle East politics.” (He attributes this to Reagan, an intervention-aholic who invented the first War on Terror in Central America.) It isn’t clear how, on such a view, Paul could confidently subsitute diplomatic negotiation for force or aid to resolve conflicts in the region. By definition, irrational people can’t be reasoned with. (Further, one might ask, negotiate with what, if not force or aid?)

Capitalism Needs War, and Ron Paul Needs What Capitalism Needs

Finally, as president Ron Paul would do nothing to challenge the free-market policies that make wars inevitable—and even necessary: It is not just that a capitalist “ruling class,” in Marxist terms, desires conflicts to protect its interests; the capitalist system itself requires “interventions” for its smooth functioning.

The story, in simple and short, is two-part:

(a) There is an enormous—and under normal conditions, growing—amount of finance capital in search of investment outlets; capitalist profitability requires that all of this be invested, and the commodities this investment will produce be absorbed by a market at a price covering production costs plus a profit. This is a concern not only of local capitalists but of the nation-state whose health depends on the health of the same domestic economy. But the “home” markets of the big national producers provide neither a means for absorbing these commodities nor sufficient opportunities for investment of the free capital.

Acting as competitors on behalf of local capitals, nation-states seek these conditions abroad: New outlets for capital investment, creating new markets to absorb commodities. And to compensate for the residual that is not invested, or sold, they seek control over raw materials to make production cheaper—just as domestic capitals seek to lower the cost of labor inputs by cutting wages and benefits. However, the world is finite, and so are the opportunities for expansion, while the sums needing investment (ideally) keep growing. Conflicting global interests lead to actual conflict.

(b) Normal consumer goods are a two-fold problem for capitalists: They need, again, to be absorbed in a market, plus they “feed back” into the same productive process they came from as they mentally and physically sustain the workers who consume them to produce another day (and allows them to produce tomorrow’s new workers—their children); this maintains [the growth of] the whole productive “machine” and thus the whole pressure for reinvestment. So one way to offset the pressure for profitability is to find some product which does not need to be absorbed in markets, and which does not “feed back” into the productive process. Heavy arms production, funded through taxes and loans from the state, is one such product. Arms are simply destroyed in use or lay fallow. Of course, these must be employed in the field of battle often enough to justify the state’s expenditure. The arms economy of World War II saved the U.S. from the Great Depression where the New Deal (alone) could not. (War also simply destroys vast amounts of productive capital—factories, crops, etc.—for many local competitors at once, leading to the same effect.)

ron-paul-as-che2.jpg

Latest sign of the apocalypse

Ron Paul on Issues Beside the War

But it isn’t enough that Paul’s “progressive” followers establish his antiwar credentials. It is not enough even that these credentials be measured favorably against his less progressive views (which includes pretty much the rest of his politics). What Paul would do on non-war related matters must be weighed against what he could actually get away with doing—in a net sense, in a lasting way—on the antiwar front.

A President Paul would liquidate or outsource as much of the good and useful parts of government he could get away with—federal protection for abortion, civil rights legislation, labor regulations, campaign finance reforms, environmental legislation, and Social Security. In turn, he’ll secure tons of tax relief for the wealthiest wealthy. He would work to see Roe v. Wade repealed and has introduced bills to end the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the federal minimum wage, the most prominent and longstanding antitrust laws, federal environmental regulations including all federal regulations on fuel production, and all restrictions on individual or business campaign contributions. In 2006 he voted not to renew the Civil Rights Act of 1964 desegregating schools and ending Jim Crow in the South, and he opposes the 1965 Voting Rights Act securing minority access to the polls. (In this vein, Paul even introduced a bill to deny student aid to any student who happens to be Iranian.) (See the voting record here.)

Most of what Presidents “do” has nothing to do with warmaking or peacemaking; and most of what Paul would do as to this majority is glaringly regressive. His record, combined with his meagre antiwar chops, suggest that the damage Paul would do by simply behaving during the presidential phase of his political career as he has behaved in its pre-presidential phase, is not at all clearly better than the best case scenario: A single president, initiating withdrawal from a single (phase of a single) conflict, somewhat earlier than it might have otherwise been initiated; leading to a massive, enduring backlash against “Ron Paulism” by the forces invested in “staying the course.”

Why Progressives Should Not Vote for Ron Paul, Whatever His Antiwar Credentials Look Like: A Sketch

More must be said about these “forces,” as it were, that “govern the governor.” A president, strictly speaking, no more just “makes” policy than those liberal reporters Bill O’Reilley harps upon “make” the news. Ron Paul would be subject to the same hard constraints Ralph Nader (or Karl Marx) would face as president. These constraints explain why those “neocons” Ron Paul says have hijacked our foreign policy haven’t been able to achieve, in eight years of supposed power, even close to their maximal program—attacking Iran and Saudi Arabia and imposing a royal Hashemite dynasty on Iraq. They also explain why historically, in terms of the issue of troop redeployment, a candidate’s word about what he will do is worth precisely nothing in assessing what he will actually do when elected.

These constraints are alternately describable as what Marxists call “material conditions,” or that social “ruling class” of capitalists in the role of responding to these conditions. One of many angles to this basic story is that: A “serious” president—that is, someone for whom the job is not performance art; someone who cares about not running the whole machine into the ground—is concerned about more than one issue, and looks beyond than one “moment” in his political life and the life of his Party. This requires compromise with other politicians and the monied forces that got him (and them) elected. Some of these forces will push for the foreign aid and military assistance which they have always pushed for. In face of these, a strict adherence to “principle” will marginalize Paul and ensure his replacement by someone they can work with. (These “principles” also ensure that Paul will never become President in the first place.)

But if Ron Paul offers no long-term solution to “War,” this still leaves the possibility of voting for Ron Paul as a short-term solution to this particular conflict. I suppose this is what Paul’s “progressive” supporters are up to. But even if he ended the Iraq war, this brings problems of its own, as does support for any “progressive” candidate that does nothing to challenge the (re. capitalist) power base of the major parties.

In short, the whole history of progressive movements shows that those which actually challenge the power base of these parties (and most don’t) have to work outside of them to avoid being co-opted by them (which would ultimately enhance these bases of power and make them harder to tackle the next try around). But successfully working outside of this system requires construction of an alternate social power base or risks being either destroyed by or absorbed back into the dominant one all the same. In this way, working for a progressive candidate (or a progressive movement—like the antiwar movement—which is attached to a candidate) minus the right conditions is always counterproductive in the longer term.

Understanding this dynamic is especially relevant on the eve of an election year and warrants a freestanding post, to arrive in the near.

Advertisements

10 responses to “Ron Paul: Not antiwar, not progressive (Not that it should matter if he were)

  1. Paul was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. He believed it would end in disaster.

    There is no way you can spin that, just youtube his speeches before the war started and you will see that position repeated over and over again on the floor of the House (if only Clinton could say that when she was in the Senate).

    And I can’t imagine after hearing progressives yammer on and on about US imperialism, voting against a candidate who’s publicly stated position is to dismantle the empire.

  2. Did you read the post? (I can’t imagine: I uploaded it and then refreshed, and there was your response.) I never said he wasn’t “opposed to the invasion of Iraq.” I said he isn’t “antiwar” in any sense that progressives should find compelling. (Being “antiwar” is not the same as being against any particular war. I’m sure Bush would be against invading Canada, or Mars, yet this doesn’t make him “antiwar.”) Also, a candidate’s “stated position” is neither the same as what he actually does (Paul voted for war in ’01) nor what portion of his “stated positions” he can actually get away with acting upon–as I tried to argue. I also tried to argue that a candidate’s “stated” or demonstrable “position” on anything is a separate matter from whether voting for him is a good idea. That is, electoral politics may just be a counterproductive way of getting “progressive” things done. Again, more on this later–but at least read the prelude.

  3. Libertarian Ron Paul Supporter

    Hello. Thank you for putting my comment here. First, let me begin by saying that Ron Paul is not progressive. Not in a Hillary Clinton definition, not in a Barrack Obama definition, a Dennis Kucinich definition, or even a T. Roosevelt definition. Whatever Ron Paul calls himself, it isn’t progressive what-so-ever. I suspect that despite your comments, progressives may vote for Ron Paul. Democrats may vote for Ron Paul. Liberals will not vote for Ron Paul, if that is where your article’s title is leading to draw. As for antiwar, well … I really think you are spinning your analysis. Let me go into detail, here.

    Paragraph 2: Ron Paul is a a Constitutionally oriented member of Congress. You cited that Ron Paul “‘Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq’ complains that the vote ceded war-making powers to the President rather than, properly, to Congress. This reflects that goofy, crude Constitutional fetishism of Paul’s which quibbles over where the ‘proper authority’ for engaging some action technically rests rather than whether whatever is being authorized is actually a good idea.” Well, first of all, you are spinning, but, former-wise, let me tell you what Ron Paul was referring to — Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10, 11, 12,14, 15, 16, and 18. Lader-wise, you are making it seem like Ron Paul is not concerned with “what technically rests rather than what is a good idea.” He instinctively went to the ‘War Powers’ section of the Constitution in which the power IS vested for declaring war and organizing overseas military engagements. You, sir, clearly, did not take that into account and dismissed it as Ron Paul acting “goofy”, which is a criticism largely encountered by people easily willing to dismiss Ron Paul’s sentiments as old fashioned and over-zealous.

    Paragraph 3: The next paragraph is an even worse blatant attempt at making Ron Paul look like a war-hawk. “Paul also objects that the Iraq campaign was begun with no clear definition of what it would mean to win it. This reasoning is sympathetic and one can only wish Paul could be counted on to apply it.” Hmmmm… “no clear definition of what it would look like to win…” Well … that sounds like information that George W. Bush wasn’t giving out (not willing to give a timetable, exit strategy, benchmarks…) and something that you would want to know about indifferent of whether you necessarily think that what Bush was putting the nation through was correct or incorrect.

    Also in paragraph 3 is criticism of Ron Paul’s approval vote for the Afghanistan thing, which is something that Ron Paul was going to vote against, but his staff and associates forced him into doing, threatening reelection and ability to reenter politics. No, it wasn’t strong willed to agree, but perhaps the staff were right that ridicule and political career ending may have followed at that time in American history had Ron Paul not voted ‘yes’ along with the war-beat then.

    Paragraph 5: This isn’t really a defense for Ron Paul, but Barbra Lee is a Democrat, and you liberals really are more likely to vote against necessary actions like the war in Afghanistan was. Ron Paul is a Republican.

    Paragraph 6: Ditto. The war in Afghanistan was obviously better than the next conflict. It’s not like we did that one on false intelligence and cherry-picking.

    Paragraph 7: Perhaps because the Afghanistan occupation was, initially, tactical, not strategical occupations, like the Iraq No-Fly Zone, which would have been wrong on a time-frame of many years, where, what happened in Afghanistan, may have been very short-term at the time that was taking place.

    Paragraph 8: Obviously, Ron Paul is referring to a direct attack and/or invasion of American land, which is, of course, a defense issue.

    Paragraph 9: Actually, I would like to see Ron Paul end all occupations overseas, and you are correct about hypocrisy in pulling out of Iraq and not the rest of the world.

    Paragraph 10: No, I think you are looking at a form of Libertarianism that is closer to Ron Paul’s views, such as ‘markets dictate peace.’ I do not know what your specific reference of “straight Libertarianism” may mean.

    Paragraph 11: What I think is going to happen here is, if Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, the Republicans are going to give Ron Paul a stiff compromise. They will allow Ron Paul to do whatever he wants in foreign policy, BUT Ron Paul will have to give aid to Iraq OR not be allowed to be the nomination. It would be the only thing I would imagine will take place. I hope this does happen.

    Paragraph 12: Come on … these are the Republicans, we are talking about … you have to bring up Reagan!

    Paragraphs 13, 14, & 15: Capitalism is just the umbrella-belief. What is closer to Ron Paul’s world-view is that Ron Paul believes that prosperity comes not even from corporations, but from giving and sharing.

    Paragraph 17: That’s my Paul! I don’t know, however, what you mean by “the wealthiest of the wealthy” when Ron Paul will get rid of all federal taxes not authorized in the Constitution. That is where he is coming from.

    Paragraph 18: You do not go into detail as to how Ron Paul’s anti-war “chops” are meager. Ron Paul believes that American government should not be in charge of designating peace among lands, but that American people do so. This is consistent and I like it.

    Paragraph 19: Ron Paul will get the run-around with Congress on his most radical beliefs. The worst case would be a lame-duck presidency, the best case is we get a nation more independent and noble than any time before.

    Paragraph 21: Except for oil, which American inventions and innovations will solve one day, we have very few interests in ‘taking’ anything from Iraq. Ron Paul’s plan, unlike previous presidents, will be centered around diplomacy and respectable American relations.

    Paragraph 22: So I guess this is so long, friend. Please correct your most gratuitous spinning in paragraphs 2, 3,7,8,10,13-15,18 & 19, the rest I will let slide. Oh, and nice try trying to make Ron Paul look bad.

  4. Pingback: Ron Paul redux: An incoherence of libertarianism « amerikanbeat

  5. You’re a fucking communist

  6. Jack: Well, duh.

  7. Pingback: Another hit for the Ron Paul fans: A second incoherence of libertarianism « amerikanbeat

  8. Dude, what’s the point of this column? Paul never claimed to be a progressive.
    Be honest. You can get hung up on nuance, but Republicans and Democrats are the same thing these days.

    And regardless of who’s in power, half the country feels alienated. Why? Cause everyone in this country is trying to jam their personal ideologies down each others throats. Isn’t that what makes us miserable? Gay people persecuted by religious freaks and the faithful getting a rash of shit for putting a manger in their front yard at Christmas. It’s all so damned frustrating. We need to get our thick skin back, baby. We need to grow balls and say what we want. That’s freedom from anyone telling you what to do and how to think. The past eight years and the next four will demonstrate this, I guarantee you.

    Why is Paul and the Libertarian movement the answer?
    Simple. The only ideology he’s jamming down your throat is the one that says that no politician has the right to jam an ideology down your throat. That my friend is the answer. The solution. No more anyone telling us who is and isn’t a patriot. I may not agree with you but I’ll take a bullet to the skull for your right to lay it out there in this blog. Otherwise, why not move to China? Chances are you’re gonna be the tallest guy in town and the economy is better.

    Whaddya think? Time for a REAL change?

  9. Denis:

    Yes, Paul never claimed to be “a progressive” but, as I write, he “emerged as a progressive option” during the election. As part of this some of his views have been claimed as effectively progressive (whether intended by him as such). My point is primarily not about his views but rather his reception, then. Also, libertarianism sure enough wants to cram things down throats. Deregulation, for example, can be described as the “absence” of something, but what’s in a name? (Indeed, a bullet wound is the “absence of” tissue and blood in a certain region of the body.) To deregulate is to take real action to affect real people in specific ways–right? I mean, argue that deregulation is good; but don’t pretend it doesn’t “do” anything.

  10. Pingback: NewsReload

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