Paul and Progressives: A Match Made in Confusion

I haven’t actually seen that bumper sticker yet, but I wouldn’t doubt it exists. On the cusp of the Iowa Caucus, pundits from Andrew Sullivan to Glenn Greenwald have endorsed or defended the candidate, who has been buoyed in polls by an impressive physical and online social network. On the site Progressives for Ron Paul, the final pre-Caucus post reads:

Progressives, ask yourselves, “Will Obama provide progressive tax reform and 2.5 trillion in stimulus the second go round?” Libertarians, ask yourselves, “Will Mitt Romney reduce taxes below the Bush rates for 99% of the population while cutting 2.5 trillion from federal spending his first go round?” If you both answer no, then you have to choose: get stuck with what you know is coming or change dance partners for 4 years and get a lot more than you’ll ever get by dancing alone.

The site also reaffirms support for Paul despite the racist newsletters, and says “Ron Paul will eventually need to do the speech on racial equality.”

It’s clear that one reason people like Ron Paul is because he’s declarative and makes bold statements. Unlike Mitt Romney, he doesn’t create a major government healthcare program and the go around railing against Obamacare. Unlike Rick Perry, Paul didn’t support abortion rights for rape victims or to save the life of the mother, and then have a conveniently-timed change of heart toward banning abortion for all reasons. Paul sounds like a man who knows his mind and speaks his truths clearly (except maybe for that I-dunno-who-wrote-those-racist-newsletters routine).

As The Nation Magazine points out, race is hardly the only deal-killer for people who consider themselves progressives and support Paul. Ben Adler gives a more comprehensive critique. Adler deconstructs the idea of Paul as a champion of rights, stating:

Paul says the Americans with Disabilities Act “should never have been passed,” because “it’s an intrusion into private property rights.” He even says he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If Congress passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to ban discrimination in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation, Paul would presumably veto it….

Adler also deconstructs foreign policy, the way people of different political persuasions have embraced Paul’s stance against foreign wars. As he writes:

Paul is a nationalist and isolationist, staunchly opposed to multilateral organizations. This isn’t good for international peacekeeping or other humanitarian efforts, nor arms control. Paul opposes all foreign aid. Promoting democracy and human rights are of no interest to Paul, even through peaceful means. He also opposes immigration and wants to eliminate America’s constitutional policy of birthright citizenship.

You can read a piece by Bob Scheer defending Ron Paul for progressive here. Just remember: things that seem simple don’t always make sense. Remember the 9-9-9 plan?

Tags: , , , , , , ,