Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member


(41,029 posts)
68. Firstly...
Wed Jan 11, 2012, 11:22 AM
Jan 2012

economic issues and public services are absolutely integral to progressivism. You *can* be left-wing on these issues and still be hard-right overall - there are examples from the distorted communism of the likes of Stalin, to some racist but populist groups. But you cannot be hard-right on these issues and be a progressive on most of the others.

In particular, if you oppose a social safety net, then you are fundamentally only in favour of civil liberties for those who can afford them. Living in fear of speaking your mind or acting contrary to custom because the boss may fire you without your having any recourse, and then you will end up starving and freezing in the streets, is no better than, or fundamentally different from, living in fear of speaking your mind or acting contrary to custom because the police might take you to prison.

The point is also that Ron Paul opposes some of the things mentioned for anything but progressive reasons. He doesn't oppose Wall Street bailouts because he thinks that government should be spending money on public services and not on the already-rich bankers; he opposes ANY sort of government bailout of ANYTHING. He would allow the rich to rob the poor even more than they do now; the fact that he would also allow them to rob each other more freely than they do now, and allow those who fail to go to the wall, does not mean that he wants the government to concentrate on helping ordinary citizens. He doesn't want the government to help anyone!

Also, his foreign policy is not more *progressive* than that of other politicians. It is more *isolationist*. This indeed means opposition to the recent wars, and a good thing too! But he also would reject any foreign aid to poor countries - resulting in even more people dying as a result of poverty than do now. He would have been prepared to have allowed the Nazis to take over Europe in WW2, rather than engage in an alliance with the Soviet Union (this is clear from things he's said in a speech available on his own website).

None of this is about partisanship in my case. I'm British. It's not up to me whether anyone does or doesn't vote for President Obama; though obviously I hope he gets re-elected. Nor am I in principle against *ever* voting for third or smaller parties - I've done it several times myself in my country. But the point is that anyone who is fundamentally opposed to social safety nets and public services is by definition a MONSTER OF PURE EVIL, and that even considering such a person as a valid option, or as even comparable to President Obama, is contributing to an attitude that is a real danger to the world. Of course people have the right to vote for whoever they want; but you do NOT have the right to be considered as progressive if you are prepared to let poor and sick people die in the name of the holy free market. Yes, that SHOULD be a progressive litmus test!

Oh ProSense Jan 2012 #1
It's not about Ron Paul's "liberal priorities", it's about liberal/progressives "liberal priorities" MrCoffee Jan 2012 #5
This ProSense Jan 2012 #8
OK then MrCoffee Jan 2012 #11
Only everything Ron Paul represents is anathema to liberals frazzled Jan 2012 #2
Virtual Rec. Wait Wut Jan 2012 #4
That is untrue. MNBrewer Jan 2012 #17
Note that Paul and the President share an opposition to marriage equalty. Bluenorthwest Jan 2012 #25
"end poverty" and "stop wars" are at least as magical as the words hfojvt Jan 2012 #61
I agree with your first sentence, but disagree with comparing Edwards to Paul LeftishBrit Jan 2012 #69
First, I was not comparing the two of them--but rather frazzled Jan 2012 #72
Fuck Ron Paul and anybody who promotes him. DevonRex Jan 2012 #3
Please take the time to actually read the article MrCoffee Jan 2012 #7
Thing is, I DO get the point. And if the first words out DevonRex Jan 2012 #12
I think our wars are racist, vile, mysogynist and homophobic. sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #13
I could not have agreed more cpwm17 Jan 2012 #19
I remember when the War in Iraq was in its beginning stages. I believe that was when it struck me sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #26
Yes, he is all these latter things - and also he is a right-libertarian! LeftishBrit Jan 2012 #70
Just like you're wrong if the first word out of your mouth after saying Barack Obama MNBrewer Jan 2012 #18
Well-reasoned, cogent, thoughtful response. TransitJohn Jan 2012 #60
Under Libertariansim your freedoms get taken away ... dawg Jan 2012 #6
That's so true cpwm17 Jan 2012 #20
It's being done now by corporations, they're just using the government as the middle man. I Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #28
I think Romney and Obama's dots should be overlapping and that Obama is a lot ddeclue Jan 2012 #33
that chart is depressing justabob Jan 2012 #67
Corporations are running this government right now. I don't know that it is Libertarianism, but sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #35
The government still does lots of things that he doesn't think it should do. dawg Jan 2012 #51
He is never going to be president, so I don't understand your point at all. sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #55
Our best hope is to start looking for someone who will better represent us in 2016. dawg Jan 2012 #56
I think we should stop saying libertarians take "correct" positions for "crazy reasons". Saving Hawaii Jan 2012 #62
What I mean is that even when they do agree with us on an issue, it's for ... dawg Jan 2012 #65
Another progressive writer under the bus! sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #9
Actually, ProSense Jan 2012 #10
I'm sure Sirota knows more than anyone here about Paul. Paul is not the point. The point is sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #29
Sirota makes a most astute observation re: the election of a President and not a government. Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #14
What a load of codswallop... Spazito Jan 2012 #15
1. That was the point in Sirota's column about electing a President vs a Government. Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #21
I didn't miss it at all... Spazito Jan 2012 #27
Paul is the only one openly advocating for legalization so if you agree with that, De Facto, Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #30
LOL, No, I don't have to agree with Paul... Spazito Jan 2012 #31
Great point re: what/why. great white snark Jan 2012 #34
Thanks for the support, great white snark... Spazito Jan 2012 #36
Of course he sees, we all see. What you are missing is that it doesn't matter. What matters is that sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #37
It DOES matter... Spazito Jan 2012 #38
The 'why of it'. Okay, Paul is saying all the right things for all the wrong reasons. sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #40
It would be more accurate to say the Democrats on the National Stage are... Spazito Jan 2012 #46
A majority of Americans on all national polls are opposed to Corporate bailouts. sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #58
So, forget Paul. Where is the Democrat who supports your opposition to the Drug War? sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #45
Congressman Steve Cohen, for one... Spazito Jan 2012 #47
Excellent, I never heard him talking about the Drug War before. sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #57
That's because the corporate media has little or no interest in broadcasting serious opposition Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #76
It's the media's fault? Spazito Jan 2012 #81
Absolutely kudos to Congressman Cohen, but my point regarding the corporate media is legitimate. Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #84
The media is appalling, you will get NO argument from me in that regard... Spazito Jan 2012 #86
Nicely put. Saving Hawaii Jan 2012 #63
My point is you don't have to agree with the why, not if Obama gets out in front of the what; which Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #73
And my point is YES you do have to agree to the "why" if you are supporting the "what"... Spazito Jan 2012 #75
No you don't because by getting out in front of the what, you have more power to dictate the why. Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #77
It seems I need to try and be more succinct... Spazito Jan 2012 #79
If you supported freedom for the slaves, I doubt many people asked the why as well? Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #80
LOL, better late than never re asking me the question... Spazito Jan 2012 #82
Great, in that case you support the what; legalization of cannabis, now the issue becomes how do we Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #85
LOL, it seems we agree on much, disagree in... Spazito Jan 2012 #87
Peace to you, Spazito. Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #88
Peace to you as well, Uncle Joe... Spazito Jan 2012 #89
Libertarianism is a fantasy (and a nightmare) cpwm17 Jan 2012 #24
Thoughtful post, Uncle Joe, thank you! sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #16
Thanks for the thanks, sabrina. Uncle Joe Jan 2012 #23
Great points in the OP and here. woo me with science Jan 2012 #48
Well, I keep seeing attacks on writers and on Paul and some of them may even have points to make sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #53
Why aren't you avoiding topics re endless wars, surveillance, police power, bank bailouts, AnotherMcIntosh Jan 2012 #22
Thank you. But actually, you don't even need a list of topics. woo me with science Jan 2012 #42
Neither is actually a progressive... ddeclue Jan 2012 #32
"Welcome to LibertarianUnderground" Son of Gob Jan 2012 #39
Can you elaborate on that? Is it not Liberal to oppose Corporate corruption? sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #44
What's sad is that you don't care about the reasons a Libertarian/Republican is doing so Son of Gob Jan 2012 #50
What's really sad is that you still have not shown me a Democrat on the national stage who sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #52
that is my dream 2012 mashup mdmc Jan 2012 #41
Ron Paul is already moving his anti-war message to the center. It's a joke. joshcryer Jan 2012 #43
If a woman's right to choose isn't a civil liberty JerseygirlCT Jan 2012 #49
He is not going to be president, so as a woman, he poses no threat to me. But the war machine sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #54
Well, I think we're seeing JerseygirlCT Jan 2012 #91
"and ties to racist newsletters" Saving Hawaii Jan 2012 #59
Ron Paul is not a progressive. Saving Hawaii Jan 2012 #64
Great post! LeftishBrit Jan 2012 #66
Firstly... LeftishBrit Jan 2012 #68
Sirota sucks....from a DU'er in CO Demonaut Jan 2012 #71
Neither of them are progressives. Tierra_y_Libertad Jan 2012 #74
Paul has more positions favored by progressives ozone_man Jan 2012 #78
the path to a thing is as important as the thing itself. LanternWaste Jan 2012 #83
DU rec for Sirota. bvar22 Jan 2012 #90
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama vs Ron Paul : both ...»Reply #68