Matt Stoller rebuts his critics [View all]

[ProSense]

Last edited Tue Jan 10, 2012, 02:46 PM - Edit history (1)

via Daily Kos

A post I wrote two weeks ago, How Ron Paul Challenges Liberals, created something of a stir. It was the most commented article on Naked Capitalism, ever. And it kicked up a series of arguments among Democrats and civil libertarians. Glenn Greenwald, who has been talking about these problems in prominent forums, followed up with this remarkable post (and then this one), and has taken many insults as a result. This in and of itself is worth noting – the slurring of those who critique the structure of modern liberalism is an essential tool in the preservation of the status quo. I’m going to highlight a few of the reactions here without much of a rebuttal, because I think the reactions themselves illustrate the struggle that boxes in traditional partisan Democrats.

First, let’s go back to the idea of the piece. The basic thesis was that the same financing structures that are used to finance mass industrial warfare were used to create a liberal national economy and social safety. Liberals supported national mobilization in favor of warfare and the social safety net during the New Deal and World War II (and before that, during the Civil War and WWI), but splintered when confronted with a wars like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The corruption of the financial channels and the destruction of the social safety net now challenges this 20th century conception of liberalism at its core (which is heavily related to the end of cheap oil). Ron Paul has knitted together a coalition of those who dislike war financing, which includes a host of unsavory and extremist figures who dislike icons such as Abraham Lincoln and FDR for their own reasons. But Paul, by criticizing American empire explicitly and its financing channels in the form of the Federal Reserve, also enrages liberals by forcing them to acknowledge that their political economy no longer produces liberal ends.

- more -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/10/1053278/-

(emphasis added)

I mean, Paul's kooky economic theories that drive his desire to end the Fed is supposed to now be hyped?

Ron Paul: We're All Austrians?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002117079

David Atkins, who Stoller's piece is intended to rebut, responds:

<...>

No, the danger to liberalism comes when individuals become so single-mindedly upset with the current state of affairs that they begin to make irrational arguments about the warlike nature of the Federal Reserve, or to put libertarian whackadoos on a pedestal.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/matt-stoller-takes-aim-misses-wildly-by.html

Krugman on Ron Paul's theories:

Paleomonetarism
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/paleomonetarism/

Johnny Reb Economics
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/johnny-reb-economics/

G.O.P. Monetary Madness
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/gop-monetary-madness.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Ron Paul is just another corporate tool, end the Fed and eliminate corporate taxes, keep oil subsidies and tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, and agree to whatever else is in Grover Norquist's pledge, which he signed it in 2010 and 2008:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/120111-federalpledgesigners.pdf

http://www.atr.org/rep-ron-paul-signs-presidential-taxpayer-a1489

Ron Paul on Cordray appointment: ‘The president is not a dictator or a king’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002124972