Tweet
Ron Paul in Hollis, NH (photo: Gage Skidmore)
There’s something deeply bothersome about the way which Raw Story executive editor Megan Carpentier misquoted Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald in a post published at The Guardian on January 8 that was titled, “Ron Paul’s useful idiots on the left.” What she did was no different than what someone with a news organization like Fox News might do to form the basis for a news story designed to further transform someone into a person that deserves to be hated and ignored.
Carpentier, after listing off a litany of fair reasons why progressives should oppose Paul, wrote:
…There have been calls by progressives, most notably Glenn Greenwald, to ignore all of that and more, and focus instead on Obama’s policy failings to have “an actual debate on issues of America’s imperialism”. He went on to argue that there are no policy priorities more imperative than those – certainly not abortion, immigration rights, LGBT equality, racial justice or any other aspect of the US’s extensive foreign policy. (Greenwald, who is gay, was in the relatively privileged position of being able to travel to Brazil to circumvent Doma.) And so people whose lives, safety, livelihoods and health depend on them should accept that they are trading their concerns for, say, the lives of Muslim children killed by bombs in Afghanistan.
One does not have to speak for Greenwald and defend him. He responded in the comments section:
The paragraph that purports to describe what I wrote is an absolute, 100% pure fabrication – so reckless and false that it is inexcusable.
Not only did I never argue what is attributed to me, but I repeatedly renounced those ideas – I even put those sentences in bold-face print, at the start of my piece, to prevent these sorts of blatant, sloppy fabrications. Is this really too complex a thought for Carpentier to process? Apparently:
Hence: I’m about to discuss the candidacies of Barack Obama and Ron Paul, and no matter how many times I say that I am not “endorsing” or expressing support for anyone’s candidacy, the simple-minded Manicheans and the lying partisan enforcers will claim the opposite. But since it’s always inadvisable to refrain from expressing ideas in deference to the confusion and deceit of the lowest elements, I’m going to proceed to make a couple of important points about both candidacies even knowing in advance how wildly they will be distorted.
He noted he had written, “It’s perfectly rational and reasonable for progressives to decide that the evils of their candidate are outweighed by the evils of the GOP candidate, whether Ron Paul or anyone else.” And also, “There are, as I indicated, all sorts of legitimate reasons for progressives to oppose Ron Paul’s candidacy on the whole.”
Greenwald also addressed the outrageous statement by Carpentier that he is “privileged” because he is “forced to live outside of my own country in order to be with my same-sex spouse” calling it one of the “dumbest claims ever.”
…The reality is that issues of gay equality affect me personally more than any other single issue. Because I’m not Muslim, I’m unlikely to be put in GITMO, or drone-attacked; because I’m not a racial minority, I’m unlikely to be consigned to a cage for decades because of drug possession. If I were judging based purely on self-interest, I would be a single issue voter – simply asking which candidate is best on gay equality…
Now, you might be saying, what does it matter? Why recount this argument? Why not let it remain another clash between two progressives worth forgetting? And, because it involves GOP candidate Ron Paul, this is a waste of time. Paul is anti-reproductive rights, a gay-demonizer, a candidate opposed to public education and Social Security, a favorite congressman of the John Birch Society and someone with links to the Constitution Party, which promotes Christian Reconstructionism. That is all fair. But, that lets progressives condemning whom they call “useful idiots” off the hook.
Carpentier’s premise for her article is rather dubious in the first place.
If you told a liberal in 2008 that progressives ought to give Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul a chance because he was the most anti-war candidate on the ballot, you would have been laughed out of the room – or, more likely, the bar. But in 2012, some prominent (and white, male) progressives are arguing exactly that. What’s changed? Not Ron Paul, that’s for certain.
No, but then there was a Democratic primary with truly progressive candidates like Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel. There was absolutely no reason why “progressive voices” like Greenwald would have been drawing attention to how Paul brings attention to what they consider to be vital and important issues like war, national security and civil liberties because actual progressives aside from Obama were in the race challenging someone whom progressives now know was simply pretending to be a progressive and is really more of a pragmatic centrist.
This is why Greenwald wrote the posts on Paul. There are no primary challengers to President Obama’s re-election.
For the record, Dr. Cornel West and Ralph Nader, two individuals regarded by Democrats as egotistical pariahs, tried to organize a slate of primary challengers that would run against Obama. Spiritual progressive Rabbi Michael Lerner appeared on The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell just over a year ago and made a case for “primarying” Obama:
…The fact of the matter is, is that on one issue after another, where he has shown no backbone, whether it be in regard to escalating a war in Afghanistan, whether it be in regard to abandoning the public option for health care, whether it be in regard to not prosecuting those who ordered torture during the Bush years, whether it is on gays in the military, on issue after issue after issue, has shown no backbone whatsoever.
But as one of the commentators in the introduction to this program said, where does anybody have to go? If all we are going to do is sit on talk shows and complain, that`s not going to have any impact.
If you want to move Obama in anyway, there has to be a serious political alternative and we can`t allow the Republicans to win. The only way to have a serious political alternative is to run a serious campaign in the Democratic primaries…
With no primary challengers (which is likely the result of intimidation from the White House and Democratic Party operatives), progressives face this uncomfortable truth: there is no incentive or reason for President Obama to address numerous issues of war, national security and civil liberties during the 2012 Election, especially if Mitt Romney is going to be the GOP’s nominee.
Debates between Obama and Romney can be expected to avoid issues of indefinite detention, torture and Guantanamo. They can be expected to avoid discussion of American empire and whether the US should have 1000 military bases all over the world. The moderators from establishment media outlets have no reason to ask them about ending the war on drugs or repealing the PATRIOT Act because they mostly agree. There may be some debate on wars in the Middle East and striking Iran but those debates won’t be about the illegality or immorality of the wars. Rather, the discussion will be focused on managerial aspects like how one would do a better job than the other of handling threats properly. There would be no debate over the weak case for continuing to engage in nation building in Afghanistan or lack of evidence to support planning a strike against Iran that would likely devastate Iran and plunge America into another war.
How sad is it that President Barack Obama will not raise these issues during the 2012 Election?
Why is it so difficult for progressives to concede the basic point that Ron Paul’s presence in the race, the fact that he is polling second in many states and has been a part of primetime debates, means many Americans are exposed to talk about war, civil liberties (excluding reproductive rights and marriage equality) and national security and this raises their awareness and understanding of these issues?
Why does this point immediately become construed as anything more than this basic point, one where there should be no argument? Here’s why.
Progressives refuse to concede that Obama is that poor on these issues or that Paul is in fact genuinely antiwar or for individual liberty. Somehow, as Ben Adler of The Nation argues, his views against reproductive rights make the views he expresses on all other civil liberties issues insignificant. And, somehow, that he would in a perfect world abolish the United Nations renders what he has to say about foreign policy inconsequential as well. [Also, progressives widely agree he cannot win so why care about how he is promoting much needed awareness and discussion on key issues?]
Carpentier suggested on Twitter yesterday that Paul isn’t really antiwar because he voted for the Afghanistan War. Progressives are to ignore Paul when he talks about how he didn’t want to be drafted to go off and kill people in Vietnam and they are supposed to pretend he isn’t serious when he wholly condemns what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan because he voted for the Afghanistan War. This is a pretty purist stance to take against Paul, one that if held toward progressive Democrats would disqualify most from having “genuine” or “relevant” antiwar views (except for Rep. Barbara Lee who voted against the Afghanistan War).
Now, author, lawyer and civil libertarian Wendy Kaminer (who is not a heterosexual white male) writes for The Atlantic:
…liberal support for Paul is quite weak, and telling: it reflects the dangerous, anti-libertarian drift of today’s liberals and progressives. With some exceptions, liberals tend to focus on Paul’s alleged bigotry, his newsletters, and his opposition to anti-discrimination laws, while ignoring his lonely support for fundamental liberties.
You don’t have to overlook or make excuses for Paul’s weaknesses on civil rights or his apparent courting of virulent right-wing extremists to appreciate and applaud his support for liberty, where it arguably matters most. After all, Paul poses no threat to racial and religious tolerance, civil rights, or entitlements; he has virtually no chance of becoming president and his own alleged intolerance is, to say the least, unpopular. (It demonstrates the declining respectability of overt bigotry.) But he has an opportunity to organize and perhaps empower voters who oppose the Bush/Obama security state. If only that were a priority, for Democrats and Republicans alike…
Progressives should also stop and consider what it is like for people around the world to have their rights and civil liberties subverted and undermined by American efforts to “police the world” and make it “more safe” through wars and nation-building (all basically a cover for expanding empire to maintain and solidify control as the number one superpower in the world). Paul rejects the idea of waging empire and meddling in other country’s affairs. Given America’s track record under Bush and Obama, America has lost a lot of moral authority. Progressives worry a Paul presidency would mean America was not engaged in diplomatic “peacekeeping” efforts. For much of the world’s population, after reading documents released by WikiLeaks, this might not be that much of a problem. They might be more than happy if America would just focus on America’s national defense at home and stop trying to “help” them “build democracy” and tell them how to “address” human rights issues.
In conclusion, the back-and-forth on Paul exposes how presidential elections are a complete sideshow for the 1% or the powerful lobbies in Washington. The election industrial-complex limits voices and choices. It renders candidates, like Buddy Roemer or Gary Johnson, “unpeople” the moment it looks like they no longer have momentum, the instant they look like they have no chance of winning. They do this immediately to people constantly spouting off views that seemingly threaten the establishment. They will even do it to someone like Paul who has actually gone up in the polls in New Hampshire (see this report from CBS’ “The Early Show”).
Therefore, when progressives write about Paul’s presence in the election, they aren’t writing to help him build support to win primaries. They are writing because they know the confines of elections well and are impressed with how Paul continues to maintain momentum even as he boldly challenges them. And they appreciate how he might animate voters to confront both the GOP nominee and President Obama by questioning them in 2012.
21 Comments
On the one hand, I do think that Glenn Greenwald is being red-baited and blackballed by Obama loyalists way too much and his consistent civil libertarian stands and critical stance towards Obama’s obvious faillures being distorted by people who obviously have an axe to grind in defending a center-right Democratic President.
On the other hand, however, that does not excuse in any way the boosting of Ron Paul as a “progressive” alternative who will somehow expand the political spectrum by discussing anti-imperalism. At best, he will narrowly expand a pre-existing “American nationalism” which historically has been against foreign expansion and the military-industrial complex. But, at worst, he will do so solely within a reactionary, far-Right, antebellum context that denies the reality of race, gender, sexuality, and the need for equality.
The real failure of a bonafide independent Left that combines the true civil libertarian/antiimperialism that Paul appropriates with a legitimate respect for the social diversity gains of the 20th century and a full-scale movement for economic equality and expanded democracy, is what has allowed Paul to be perceived as the “magic bullet” for promoting independent progressive ends. The fact remains, though, that he remains as he always was from the beginning: a reactionary Republican appropriating some Left ideals to promote a fundamentally Right policy.
Far better for those independent progressives to hold out and build a genuine Left alternative that respects their principles, not merely glam on a reactionary merely because he may sound some of their objectives. The enemy of our enemy isn’t quite our friend.
Anthony
No one is boosting Paul as a “progressive” alternative. Actually, when progressives talk about Paul, they never use the word “progressive” when discussing his anti-imperialist positions or his stances on civil liberties or war. They identify him as a “libertarian.”
No one thinks he is a “magic bullet.” That is something people like Megan Carpentier have wildly inferred.
Yes, there needs to be a genuine Left alternative. All this conversation does is show how abysmal US elections are and how necessary it is for us to grow Occupy because that will be the force which ultimately wins this country necessary reform, like getting money out of politics, which will go a long way toward helping to build a Left alternative.
Just after the most recent GOP “debate” (New Hampshire) the ABC talking heads were going on and on about the money raised as if it were the determining factor for a legitimate or credible candidate. It’s just that blatant. The election industrial-complex is one big bribery network there to collect its tribute in no different a fashion than described by Cenk (time point 4:30).
From “The Truth About new Hampshire: The Media Mob Is Getting Totally Out Of Hand” (BusinessInsider.Com, by Grace Wyler, Jan. 9, 2012, 4:20 PM):
First of all, that reporter personally attacked Glenn with his most intimate features. I don’t think she would appreciate a publicly posted article that says she prefers something like swinging from the ceiling have animal sex with real animals, and therefore all Progressives should vote Romeny. She conflated a political article with Glenn’s sexuality, not in a kind way, but in a way that stabbed him and all in the Gay/Lesbian community.
Second, I’ve read all these articles that suggest/push a dialogue with Obama and Paul on those issues. I have to question exactly what that would gain. Obama was swept into office speaking on those issues and has failed on every single one. I don’t think pushing Ron Paul on the debate cause will do anything but prove that Obama is a better Oratory on stage.
Third, but definitely not the least or last is that our votes are going to be switched/stolen if we do not find some way in the next 10 months to address blackbox voting machines. This current season the attack reporter is writing about is a Republican season and has very little to do with Progressives, other than we like to laugh about it. There are currently challengers to Obama that have not been covered in the media. There is a Justice Party candidate that appears to have some morality, along with a Green Party candidate that will cause the debate with Obama to shift. Republican candidates won’t do it.
I’d also like to add to my rant that Debate means nothing to actual leadership. Didn’t we learn that lesson already?
ABSOLUTELY!
I can give an example on that establishment blackout. In 2004 the Kerry/Edwards ticket made it all the way to the top. Edwards was warning people way back then of the “Two Americas”, one for us and the best for the 1 percent. He proposed that we fix that problem with higher taxes on the wealthy. Bam! Boom-Slam, Jiggle, and the fix was in. Kerry was cowed and refused to stand for a recount. In 2008, Edwards was constantly marginalized and his speeches were not covered on MSM. At public debate forums, they constantly tried to jump over him with questions. The next thing you know, the NeoCons are on a Posse ride to get him for campaign fraud. Don’t you think they are more guilty of that?
Actually, that little reporter is on Cenk’s show right now.
And? Anything interesting said? (Plus, was Alyona on the show?)
Yes, Alyona was on the show and the smartest person on the set. No, nothing interesting. However, had Cenk allowed Alyona to respond when he brought up the banking system it would have been extremely interesting.
Unfortunately, because of the utterly corrupt money driven corporate/bankster/neo-fascist system in which we live, it is the determining factor. Check the results of presidential elections and what you will find is that the candidate that raises and spends the most money almost always wins.
Money is speech. Powerful speech. Actual speech is something less, at least in our system so long as people put up with it.
Kevin, your cool and clear logic cuts through the political divide. Have courage,son, to continue, for yor are leader, true leader, in this morass, in this divide.
“No, but then there was a Democratic primary with truly progressive candidates like Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel. There was absolutely no reason why “progressive voices” like Greenwald would have been drawing attention to how Paul brings attention to … war, national security and civil liberties because actual progressives aside from Obama were in the race ….”
A vital point. I’ve not seen it made elsewhere.
I liked jbade’s lede:
http://my.firedoglake.com/jbade/2012/01/09/obama-vs-romney-we-move-right-obama-vs-paul-the-country-moves-left-2/
Good on you, Kevin. To me, the most dismal aspect of this entire conversation is the degree to which so many are content to make the focus of their argument rest upon their view of personality and character, rather than the importance of the ideas involved. So sad.
Sibel Edmond’s been warning that Raw Story is in the MSM stable.
I’m sure that right wing, establishment women like Megan carpenter do support Obama because of his weak, lukewarm support (albeit littered with betrayals) on subjects like abortion and gay marriage. It gives identity politics a really bad name to so blatantly make the point that you’re choosing someone who gives hypocritical lipservice to topics like race while murdering children in seven countries. We need a left movement that truly combines these issues, and not in a token, ‘obama’ way either. Ending the wars and closing down the occupations and foreign military bases, withholding support from apartheid Israel and slashing the military budget would do so much good in the world, and the president has to power to do it, directly. I’d much rather have ron pail as president.
Huh.
Conceding that the guy on “our team” sucks and the guy on “their team” has a redeeming quality or two can cause some serious cognitive dissonance in our totally dysfunctional two party team sport-style political system.
Like Sartre said, paraphrasing and taking certain contextual liberties, when you first begin to see reality as it really is, your initial reaction is to be overcome with nausea. The degree of cognitive dissonance that you refer to is giving a lot of people their best opportunity to finally see reality as it really is. It’s a good time to invest in Pepto-Bismol.
I can remember a day when a liberal (progressive if neo-liberal gives you a gaspain) was mainly somebody who would listen to what you had to say and respond (as opposed to react – like a snake) with a reasonable argument if he disagreed; and do so without calling you bad names. OK, you caught me. I was born before WWII.
Glenn is a classic; he will discuss unpleasant alternatives and unpopular issues at enormous personal risk. Megan is not (not, not, not) a neo-fascist. I guess we have to explain her attack as a reaction. That’s sad, but not that uncommon is this political environment.
Perhaps, she, like me, is terrified that some unplanned event will cost the Democratic Party the presidency in 2012 and let the Republicans have another crack at the Supreme Court. Now that’s worthy of a contest.
Mostly I’m really sick about President Obama’s record as compared to his soaring promises, but really; most of what a candidate promises is BS. The POTUS can’t do much about lots of issues without solid legislative committment (and that’s like quicksilver.)
It is not wrong for us to get the some mileage out of people like Ron Paul. Seems to wake up the slugs who occupy the White House. Nobody in his right mind would vote for him, but it can’t hurt to give the Obama Administration a thrill.
There really isn’t any contentious debate about Ron Paul among progressives. What there is, is a constant harping on Ron Paul by Ron Paul supporters, people who are closet Ron Paul supporters, and people who want people to believe that they only continuously write columns advocating Ron Paul’s candidacy because they believe that his presence in the political scene, which they previously yammered about being a campaign season that nobody could take seriously because it was going on this early, is necessary for people to focus on their favorite issues which couldn’t be focused on otherwise, since their candidates of choice are people who poll at 0.5% (Gary Johnson, for instance).
So what it most accurately resembles, both when Glenn Greenwald screams and yells about the myriad people attacking him (which are usually only about 3) or when you scream and yell about the myriad people attacking Glenn Greenwald (which you say you don’t need to do, and I heartily agree), is the Christians complaining about the Great War On Christmas, which like the Great Progressive Intercine War Over Ron Paul, just really isn’t happening. The Ron Paul fans are bringing it to the progressive camp.
There are actually progressive anti-war candidates. One, Rocky Anderson, has his convention in February. Another, Jill Stein, has hers in March, and will be on all 50 ballots by April. Parties are allowed to pick candidates by any process they choose. So that’s why neither are necessarily in the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primaries. Both are anti-war, anti-indefinite detention, and anti-war on drugs. Neither has a racist newsletter past, neither gives speeches at the John Birch Society, and both would like to regulate or otherwise restrain capitalism. Both want an end to corporate personhood.
The rest of us can find truly progressive anti-war candidates if we want to.
The reason Greenwald can’t is because he is not now, and never was, a progressive. He’s a libertarian. And it’s increasingly uncomfortable being one and being honest, so the house of cards keeps growing, and the “alliances” between right and left keep getting pushed on the stack. But point of fact, Citizens United was a bad decision, Koch and Rothbard (of Ron Paul newsletter fame) started Cato Institute, The Reagan Revolution and its excesses were presided over by an Ayn Rand libertarian at the Fed and Hayek and Friedman libertarians on both sides of the pond in the executives. The mirror that needs to be held up is called Alan Greenspan.
And no amount of belittling progressives will out that damned spot.