The Revolution and the Right
This is the third installment in a four-part symposium on the Ron Paul movement to be published in Taki’s magazine. John Derbyshire and Justin Raimondo have made previous contributions.
Although it might be premature to claim that Ron Paul’s campaign is winding down, plainly the candidate has not done as well as his supporters had expected and as his online fundraising might have foretold. In the wake of disappointing showings in Florida, Michigan, and South Carolina, Daniel Larison wrote a column in The American Conservative (Jan. 28, not online) in which he treats Paul’s run as pretty much over. Larison believes, nevertheless, that the “campaign has the potential to be the start of a movement rather than an enthusiastic fad” and that its “mix of constitutionalism and cultural conservatism with hints of Jeffersonian populism is a powerful, appealing combination.” Unfortunately Paul also has “some of the most unpopular ratings of any Republican,” and beyond ‘his relentless demonization in the Republican media,” he has also suffered from the sharp divide between himself and “roughly two-thirds of the party” over the war in Iraq.
Larison raises sound points, but it is possible to sharpen his critical focus by noting Paul’s other missed opportunities for attracting Republican votes. The Congressman did not really articulate a foreign policy, as opposed to telling Americans that the war in Iraq and almost all other wars the U.S. has engaged in during my lifetime have been “unconstitutional.” His attempt to place the problem of Islamic terrorism entirely at the doorstep of our government, moreover, while based on valid concerns about American overreach, is also clearly an exaggeration. Islamic fundamentalism is a menace whether or not the neocons are trying to exploit it—and particularly given that the multicultural Europeans have allowed Muslim maniacs to get more than a foothold in their countries and that our own border controls have been incredibly lax. Even if Dubya had not launched his war of choice in Iraq, we would still be facing a considerable foreign danger. This is fact Paul should have acknowledged while presenting his own foreign policy and his own measures to insure domestic tranquility.
Paul’s blaming of America for armed crackpots outside our borders has played disastrously among Republican voters, who are often wrong-headed but remain instinctive American nationalists. Paul’s outbursts have also made him seem less than reflective about America’s unavoidable position as a superpower and about the reality that there are groups in the world that mean to do us harm. This is, of course, different from arguing that Bush and his friends have done the opposite of what might have been advisable to deal with our present dangers—for instance controlling our borders instead of fawning on Hispanic voters and not getting entangled in “democratic’ nation-building in Iraq. Still, Paul was right to express his annoyance at mishandled problems, and he was at his best lambasting the neoconservatives as troublemakers.
On the other side of the ledger, the Congressman struck me as a less than effective TV debater, and I found myself wondering why he alternated between ferocity and appearing to be removed from the ongoing discussion. When asked about his views on foreign policy, he would typically snarl at the moderator and then mutter something about this “unconstitutional war.” But then when urged to pose his own questions to the other candidates, he would ask something so esoteric that I had no idea what he was talking about. (In one case, the target of his question, John McCain, looked as puzzled by his query as I was.) Paul is highly educated and never at a loss for words in conversation, but debating on TV is clearly not his forte.
Having been a Monday morning quarterback, let me also stress that I’m not sure Paul would have done much better even if he had taken my advice. Even if he could have transformed himself into a silver-tongued orator with the yuppie looks of Mitt Romney, I don’t think the outcome of the primaries would be significantly different. It is the content of Paul’s old Republican message that is the sticking point, and this would be the case no matter how that message was presented. Unlike the party regulars, the TV pundits, and American (mis)educators, Paul calls for eliminating social programs instead of increasing them, and he disdains anti-discrimination laws and other forms of behavioral manipulation whether introduced by Congress or imposed extra-constitutionally through judicial decree. He is also serious in the matter of sending back illegal immigrants, unlike Hillary, Obama, and McCain, all media darlings, who seem to have never seen an illegal visitor whom they didn’t want to bestow citizenship on. Moreover, Paul is really against nation-building abroad, unlike the New York Times and Washington Post, which regularly showcase “pro-war conservatives.” Indeed these may be the only “conservatives” whom the national press would care to call attention to. On social issues, what have leftist journalists to fear from Bill Kristol, David Frum, and David Brooks? As for wars to spread democracy, that bad idea spread from Clinton and Gore through the neocons to the Republicans. The Times was ecstatic about the vision of Bush and Michael Gerson when the Democrats tried to build a pluralistic, democratic Kosovo in 1999.
When Ron Paul at last caught hell for not giving back money donated by a “white supremacist” and then for not having kept out of his newsletter certain racist remarks that appeared there in 1998, I was not unduly critical of his conduct. What struck me was the feeding frenzy that these presumed slip-ups evoked among the liberal-neocon media and beltway libertarians as opposed to the studied indifference that has greeted Barack Obama’s membership in the Afrocentric Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Obama’s choice of membership in the congregation of Jeremiah Wright, a pastor whose sermons seemed to have been scripted for Louis Farakhan (and may have been) and the fact that Obama, even according to his enthusiastic well-wishers at the New York Post, has the most leftist voting record of any U.S. senator have sparked less questioning of this “moderate” representative of racial conciliation than Paul’s relatively innocent faux pas. The double standard, which has been outrageously characteristic of the entire political class, tells less about Paul’s ineptitude or Obama’s “moderateness” than it does about who is in power. And for those who haven’t noticed, it’s not Ron Paul’s friends. Until our side can erect our own media infrastructure, the present tropism toward the left and its candidates will continue to operate.
The bright spot in this situation is the likely presidential nomination of John McCain, to the joyous cheers of the neocon journalists, who seem to be faced with an embarrassment of riches, as Fred Barnes has been explaining on FOX and in The Weekly Standard. Poor Fred seems to adore McCain and Obama with equal intensity, and he may have to make a choice between his two superheroes on Election Day. In the best of all worlds, Fred and the rest of the FOX contributors would be able to have the “moderate” black Obama representing what they imagine to be the legacy of MLK at home, while McCain would be free to embroil us in military crusades abroad. In the last few months, Frum, Brooks, and the other paid “house conservatives” have been frantically warning “social conservatives” to get with the program and support what really counts, an aggressively internationalist foreign policy.
But the likely nomination of the “moderate conservative” McCain as the Republican presidential candidate has not thrilled certain usually dependable movement conservatives. Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and the editors of Human Events, all of whom have usually cheered on the GOP, are now piling on McCain. And though they’re strong enthusiasts for the war who have dutifully praised McCain as a war hero, they nonetheless consider him a sell-out on immigration and other issues on which he has made common cause with liberal Democrats. For Southerners he is still remembered as someone who had insisted that South Carolinians desist from flying the Confederate flag on public buildings, a position that put McCain to the left of Mike Huckabee and Bill Clinton (at least during Clinton’s 1996 presidential campaign). His upsurge of support among party regulars and the decision of the neoconservatives to throw their mouths behind him, in the absence of a thriving Giuliani candidacy, have ignited a war within the conservative movement. But at the present time, that war does not affect our side. It is a struggle going on among those groups that have excluded us from their debate.
Our interest here (to repeat a point that my friend Leon Hadar has already made) is in seeing this strife intensified, until it results, if I may use Obama’s term, in “change.” And this could occur if the fight over McCain’s candidacy continues to divide the strictly neoconservative wing of the movement from those talk radio populists appealing to a predominantly heartland Republican base. Although this cleavage already became apparent during the summer over the immigration question, it has continued to widen as McCain has moved forward to lock up the nomination. If I were a mean-spirited rightwing extremist, I would be happy to see John McCain lose dismally in the forthcoming election. And it would be pleasing to have his defeat attributed to his close association with the neoconservatives.
Although the Democratic contenders are arguably more leftist than McCain, whether or not he is “reaching out” to them, either of these lefties might bring unintended benefits to the Right by getting elected. One possible advantage of getting Hillary or Obama is that inexorable push toward the social left, generally promoted by the American government and the media since the 1960s, might reach a kind of culmination. If the voting patterns that Hillary and, even more, Obama have established in the Senate hold up and if Obama turns out to be even half the whacky, conflicted Afrocentrist-cum-post-racialist that his writings and church membership would suggest, we’ll be in for interesting times. An old Russian proverb might apply to such a situation:” If you hold someone’s head under water long enough, he may decide he doesn’t like it.” The problem here is that the human recipient of the water might also act like the yuppie, multicultural public in Europe who are handing over their countries to Muslims while punishing the “hateful” Christians who notice what is going on. That’s the chance one takes when all hell break loose. But I suspect that we’ll continue to move in the same direction more slowly with McCain, and especially if he embraces the New York Post’s counsel and puts Lieberman on his ticket. Then we may suffer the fate of the lobster being slowly boiled until it suffocates. Of course, a reaction might also set in, if things become worse more quickly and if the neoconservatives are implicated in the defeat of a socially moderate, war-hawk Republican presidential candidate. In that case, the Right will likely grow larger and more vocal.
Ron Paul can aid this effort by staying in the race and by giving us someone to vote for, as a symbolic opposition. Any vote that the real Right bestows on a Democratic candidate would be interpreted by the media as a show of support for the sharp move leftward that the chattering class wishes to see. No one but a few scattered Old Right journalists would make the observation that disgusted conservatives voted for Hillary or Obama to underscore their disgust with the GOP. But a five percent vote for Paul running as a third-party candidate would make the point that we’re opposing McCain as Taft Republicans rather than as advocates of more set asides for minorities or friends of a European-style welfare state. Although Richard Spencer, and not Leon, may be the more accurate predictor of what the proposed McCain candidacy would bring, it is still worth the try. That may be the final service that Congressman Paul could render his now badly disappointed followers.
Paul Gottfried is a professor of the humanities at Elizabethtown College. He is the author, most recently, of Conservative in America: Making Sense of the American Right.
Comments
Until our side can erect our own media infrastructure, the present tropism toward the left and its candidates will continue to operate.
This is the most important point you made in the above essay. Real power in the USA is denominated in 1.) money and 2.) media, not in votes at the ballot box. If you have money and media, you have the power to set the table and brainwash lemming voters. Ron Paul had the money to compete, but he was frozen out by the gatekeepers.
That gets us halfway to the end zone. In hindsight, the money that Ron Paul raised would have been better spent on building a new media empire than on a political campaign. I think you need your own television show. How does The Gottfried Factor sound?
The split within the conservative movement is also an opportunity. Mainstream conservatives like Coulter, Savage, Limbaugh, Ingraham, and Beck have the media reach to change minds. Do you think there is a chance that some of them might see the light?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Ann Coulter has no meaning any longer, except in the minds of some men who swoon over her. Her day is done. Limbaugh was a day late and a dollar short on immigration. I have much hope for Ingraham. Savage is peerless, most of the time. None are any good on Israel, although Savage has, on more than one occasion, damned all foreign aid, especially to Israel.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“On the other side of the ledger, the Congressman struck me as a less than effective TV debater, and I found myself wondering why he alternated between ferocity and appearing to be removed from the ongoing discussion. When asked about his views on foreign policy, he would typically snarl at the moderator and then mutter something about this “unconstitutional war.” But then when urged to pose his own questions to the other candidates, he would ask something so esoteric that I had no idea what he was talking about. (In one case the target of his question, John McCain, looked as puzzled by his query as I was.) Paul is highly educated and never at a loss for words in conversation, but debating on TV is clearly not his forte.”
At times, Paul seemed so confined by ideology that he appeared to be in a world of his own, his complaints always anchored in a rationale at no small distance from the moral. Something quite like this confinement can be found in the biblical positivism of Evangelicals who treat Holy Scripture as context rather than the reality of Jesus Christ, God The Son, to whom scripture points. The whole phenomenon carries with it an air of unreality, a sense that one has bought into an abstraction from which extrication is utterly impossible.
That notwithstanding, the hope of an independent Paul candidacy that easily might direct a sufficient number of “peace” or disaffected Republicans away from McCain now appears to be a forlorn hope, one killed by Paul himself just a week ago. And while likely I would have voted for Paul, comfortable with his stand on abortion if not with his argument and, unlike you, accepting of his analysis of American foreign policy, there’s a certain relief in the fact that, with his withdrawal, there can be no longer the possibility of an identification with a rationalism in which the moral dimension is submerged.
John Lowell
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The non-neocon Right absolutely needs to build its own media matrix if it wishes to have real influence. In the meantime, I have been wondering for a while if there isn’t some way to get Dr. Gottfried in a regular position appearing on some talk television program. MSNBC, for example, has been pretty friendly when interviewing Ron Paul, and it’s also the station with Pat Buchanan and Tucker, who isn’t the worst GOP pundit in the world. And its ratings are the lowest among its competitors, so it should be looking for ways to get attention. In any case, we who are forced to stare mutely back at Bill Kristol’s smirking face should not also be denied the pleasure of watching Gottfried perplex Republicratic mouthpieces on news station debates. Someone get him on the air!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The interpretation of Paul’s performance during the debates can be debated. Generally he performed very well, with a lot of substance and detail, when he had the chance. His answer to the elect\ability question was one of his best, and his CPAC speech one of his very best. Of course every good candidate should learn some skills through the whole process, and one could see progression with Dr. Paul. The limit in time makes it difficult to explain the subtle issues in short. Here and there he could have used a different wording, so as to avoid misunderstanding. His question about the financial markets (the “protection plunge team"), I thought was very good, and aware others were not so positive about it. It exposed McCain’s inability to understand basic eonomics. The average voter/TV viewer did not need to understand Paul’s question exactly, to understand that McCain had no idea and demonstrated his own ineptness. It was correct for Paul to point out the connection between war in Iraq and the current economic situation (to Tim Russert), he should have done it only in a different, more kind way IMHO. His question about the financial oversight was very well thought out, I thought. About the reference that there should be more sunlight, Paul gave the sublime message that the workings of the committee, on which McCain’s own people would be sitting, are - just like the Federal Reserve - very secretive: Nobody know really what they do with taxpayers money to pump money into the system and to buy beaten down stocks in order to help stabilize the market, an inherently state/socialist enterprise. It implies it is not up to the free markets to go through the crisis, it is an artificial pumping of stocks and can be risky, as the stocks can fall further (cf. C for instance). The printing of USD by the Fed which also does not always help the market with the lowering of interest rates, is also a suspect market. The question also demonstrated - intended by Paul - his competence and intelligence to voters.
Paul has a touch balancing act to do between criticizing the ideas and oppositions of his opponents in the party and appearing as a uniter. He could have shown himself as a uniter, not only in the party, but also of the country (between the parties) perhaps a bit stronger, but he did not really had the time for this. During the debates differences should be debated. He never had any negative campaign against his opponents. For those who come to know him, his kindness is an example and source of attraction, besides his honesty, intelligence, humbleness and sincerity. It is not easy to explain a laissez-fair economic, social (according to what the constitution allows) and foreign policy (non-interventionism), as the gOP has drifted so far from what it once was. Dissent among current GOP practices, is seen as not acceptable and unpatriotic by some, whereas Paul represent not only his own positions, but also those of the GOP establishment has been 8 years plus ago.
With two-thirds of the GOP for the Iraq war, it is indeed a difficult case to defend yourself and it will take more than one year to really overcome the “neoconservatives”. Paul could have stated the danger of extremist elements in religious groups, perhaps stronger, but he had to combat the reasons and misperceptions about how it came about, and one should indeed take a deep historical tour: which is difficult to explain in short. I think he done a good job of it.
There are always things one could have added and said. Some oneliners wordings that could hit out his opponents, could have meant a lot, but none of the opponents had this also and it can be risky (could backfire). Dr. Paul has demonstrated he can think very fast. His kindness was/is mistaken as a weakness. If he complained too much about being left out, the media would (mis)use this again and portray him as a disgruntled politician that is so negative.
If the Iraq invasion had occurred during a Democratic administration (it was planned under Clinton!), Paul would have been the frontrunner in the GOP from the start. With the fact that it happened under GOP administration, Paul is seen as a rebel in his party and as a liberal. Paul could have stressed, with his defense of civil liberties and criticism of the Patriot Act, that security is also of prime importance to him and pointed out that with the troops from overseas back in the US< it would make the US not only safer, but also provide with jobs. Lately, he has done this.
With more than 2/3 of Americans against the war, Paul does have a lot of potential and related to his performance compared to the equally outspoken anti-war Kucinich and Gravel, he has been much more successful. IMHO there is still a possibility that he could be the GOP nominee, for various reasons: a lot can still happen during the next months till 1 September in St. Paul.
Paul’s campaign has made some mistakes, but the media blackout had a big effect in limiting exposure to his message thus far. One can understand Dr. Paul wanting to use only people he can trust, but one wonders what influence the use of a well oiled and experienced campaign would have been.
If he has voiced his personal religious beliefs more strongly, it could have helped a lot in rallying the christian power base in the GOP behind him, but he is principled in not misusing religion in politics (unlike someone like Huckabee has done).
More campaign by recognized politicians within the GOP like
Barry Goldwater - who did campaign in H - and Gary Johnson (he coudl still campaign in the future with Paul), would help a lot in rallying especially middle and older aged people. Paul’s support among young voters are high and a big encouragement, for the future.
It would be a mistake for him to run as third party, in any case at this stage. He could get 10-15% at this stage (not 5%) IMHO, but that would not really help the cause in the middle to long term, as he would have to resign his seat and isolated from the GOP. In case he does not get the GOP nomination, it is best for his supporters to focus on electing Ron paul Republicans and then after the election, which the GOP is expected to lose substantially, the GOP will be in an identity crisis and the neoconservatives in disarray and this could be the ideal moment for Paul to step up and take control, giving the GOP new identity by returning to its roots after the soulsearching. Given a very specific certain set of circumstances, it could possibly be a possibility for Paul to go third party/Indy (Reform Party, not LP or CP) and then his aim should be to win, no protest vote. Otherwise he will be in the political wilderness, even if he get more than 20%. It would appear that there is a possibility that the combination of Huckabee and Paul could enforce a brokered convention after all, where Paul could be a kingmaker. In any case: he has been already successful in more than one way and want and should ensure that this is a lasting movement with concrete success to be achieved in later elections.
BTW: Certain pro-war conservatives within the GOP like Ann COulter is on record of saying she vote rather note only vote, but also campaign for Clinton over an above McCain. The GOP can then take control in two years time in midterm elections, rather than having a RINO administration that erodes the conservative principles, and then getting a left wing Democrat elected at a later date. If a “left wing Democrat is elected now, they would be responsible after two years and be a rallying point to unite on a conservative base.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Paul must sound like he is from Neptune to all the Tarzans and Hucksters in the GOP who lack the intelligence, education, and patience to understand and appreciate constitutional republicanism.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dr. Gottfried, with all due respect, Israel is the cause of Islamic fundamentalism as well as American and British imperialism since 1918.The Israeli Mafia that runs the media will never let a pro peace constitutionalist get any honest discussion going. There can never be a rational discussion of middle east as long as this gang is running things.Islamic radicalism is absolutly no threat to the USA as long as we treat Israel as the pariah it deserves to be.Dr. Paul’s position is correct and considering that Obama is stealing a lot of his lines, is proof of it.Your whole essay is an attempt to split the antiwar vote so McCain can get in.The Lobby is terrified of Obama. Why I don’t know, he has groveled enough.His taking a Dr.Paul lite position on Iraq is what has proprelled him above Clinton.This whole essay is on reflection just neocon drivel,Israel is not our concern the sooner we cut the knot the sooner Israel can be on its own and let the arabs take care of themselves as well.A third party would be disasterous , let the neocons sink the Republicans,then we will start over.Let the delouge come under the Democrats.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
McCain’s big problem is with the conservative base of the GOP.
The GOP knows this and they know they cannot get the support of Ron Paul supporters in any case, but also not from a substantial group of conservatives.Even if most of them do vote for him as lesser of two evils, Mcain & CO should know that he has NO chance in the leection without an enthusiastic grassroots campaign (a la Ron Paul), which he does not have. The GOP has candidates have raised considerably less than their Democratic counterparts, attract much less youth support than the D and McCain is no debater, and make a tired impression at times. Some McCain delegates are anti-war, so they may not vote for him as well. If the GOP wants to win, they should have a brokered convention with another candidate.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0213/p09s02-coop.html
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Accusing Gottfried of attempting to “split the antiwar vote so McCain can get in” was, mercifully, the stupidest of Jack’s remarks.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
1. “Unfortunately Paul also has ‘some of the most unpopular ratings of any Republican[...]’”
It’s the Money, Honey. Our RP wants to take away a lot of folks’ putative free lunch. Until taxpayers who aren’t tax-takers can check tax-takers, RPism hasn’t a chance.
2. “Until our side can erect our own media infrastructure, the present tropism toward the left and its candidates will continue to operate.”
And “our side” would deserve no media infrastructure if what we offer is: Essai sur L’Inélgalité des Races Humaines, Die Grundlagen des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts , Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Der Stürmer, The Völkischer Beobachter, Il Popolo d’Italia, and National Vanguard.
3. Our situation can’t be compared Europe’s situation. ON 11 Sept they were over here because we were over there.
4. To vote for Clinton (or to offer even a bit of support) is to vote for Waco. So if it’s McCain vs. Clinton, don’t vote. (I don’t know if Obama would do a Waco.)
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It is a work of mercy to educate the ignorant. It is the opposite to pander or confirm them.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Unless Ron Paul can get 15% in a third party run, then he should not even attempt it. Unless you can get in the debates, it’s useless, adn 15% is the magic number.
The legacy of Ron Paul’s candidacy is that he brought the terms “internationalism” and “interventionism” into the debate on US foreign policy.
On the economic front, he was the only candidate to bring up the fact thahat the “Republican” economic plan is to fund short term prosperieity and tax cuts with long term debt. The Republicans have taken “supply side” economics and transformed it into the Wall Street version of a “free lunch” for the rich. Ron Paul laos was the only one to point out that the US cannot AFFORD a “police the world” foreign policy that uses long term debt sold to the Chinese to fund a “no-win” war to convert radical Islma into the equivalent of the Unitarian faith.
Yes, he remained absolutely consistent on the social issues that appeal to the great middle majority---opposing abortion-on-demand, unrestricted immigration, and the racial preferences for jobs, housing and educational opportunities.
If the “movement” arises out of the Ron Paul campaign, it will succeed if it concentrate3s on these “populist” issues.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dr. Paul made a brave attempt, but the time was not
yet ripe. The Republican Party still holds the
allegiance of its base, and that means slavish devotion
to the current Imbecile-in-Chief. And the two party
system is too firmly entrenched in the national
psyche for a serious Third Party run. The best showing
was that of Ross Perot, and Dr. Paul does not have
the necessary charisma to do that much.
People need to become thorughly disgusted with the
Republican Party so that either they abandon it in
droves forcing a through cleansing or the creation of
a serious Third Party, which then becoms the Second
Party while the Republican Party marches into oblivion
(I think Sid would love to see the Lincoln party go
that way...).
But as with other addictions, first the Right has to
get over its denial that there is something wrong.
Somehow I think that a serious trouncing in November
might deliver the shock badly needed, and that the
Right touches bottom and decides to get its act togethr
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Since Evan was kind enough to defend me against the
incomprehensible charge of trying to split the
anti-war vote in such a way so that Mac could win
the election, I won’t bother to respond to this. But
even more misleading is the idea that the Israeli
lobby is masterminding this presidential election.
If by that lobby one means the neocon power elite,
then one is left having to explain why the neocon
press has gone nuts over Obama, who is the weakest in
his support of the Israelis of all the current
prominent candidates. Barnes, the New York Post,and
many of the FOX contributors seem to adore Barack,
quite independently of his views on the Middle
East. Moreover, the hot topic in foreign policy on
FOX this week, aside from the success of the Surge,
has been the Russian nationalist danger and the
necessity of putting Putin in his place. Supposedly
Mac will do this job for us, while extending NATO
eastward to include “all democratic peoples.” It is
arrant nonsense to assert that neocons are “only
about Israel,” any more than Hitler was only about
Poland. The neocons have a global vision of empire,
in which bringing to power their Isreali clients is
only a very small part.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dr. Gottfried’s main points about Islamic radicalism come straight from the neocon playbook.His call for a third party is perhaps a call to divide and conquer the anti imperialist vote. Dr. Paul can do more good fighting in the Republican party as it rebuilds from the neocon led disaster, about to come.At almost 73 and after a hard year on the road he can’t lead a third party.He always said he wouldn’t but that he was always for a third party or fourth party.We need someone else,Dr. Paul can’t lead us to the promised land. we need a younger Joshua to lead that fight.If Obama, as seems likely, is the nominee there is no chance for a third party.He has the antiwar and change vote tied up.If Hillary pulls is out,half the Democrat and 40% of the Republican vote will up for grabs.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
here’s a proposed media plan:
http://www.breakthematrix.com/
There’s going to be an IPO and you can sign up to be kept informed of it at the above web site.
There’s still a long way to go till the conventions.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Jack does not seem to believe that Islamic radicals
are really out there or that despite their statements
to the contrary, they intend to take over the
(formerly) Christian West. I take these folks at
their word and therefore don’t want them in this
country or in Europe. I think a certain amount
of security protection may also be necessary to deal
with this threat and I don’t really mind seeing Muslim
terrorists getting mysteriously blown by Israeli
agents. I also don’t believe that Europeans, who are
less aggressive about such matters, get along better
than we do with Islamic radicals. They get along by
allowing themselves to be occupied and in German
and English cities victimized by these loathsome
types. But my abhorrence of Islamic radicals and
my contempt for the braindead Europeans who invite
them into their countries do not make me wish to
see the US engage in global democratic crusades or
to launch wars of choice and occupation against
other countries on the basis of neocon misdirection.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dr. Gottfried I respect you a lot but I feel that you have blind spot on this issue.The radicals are a result of our policy. The muslims are pouring into Europe from former colonies like Algeria, Morroco,Pakistan,in other words from previous European imperialism.Our current policies of suporting arab dictators and zionist racists is making suicide bombers every day.The whole idea of the Iraq invasion comes from the neocon playbook.The small groups of Islamic radicals were and still could be, in most part, contained by police work.Dr.Paul got his support because of his debating skills.Its the only coverage he got. All that money came because of the debates.Obama is leading because he has taken Dr.Paul’s lines about getting out of Iraq.Your attacks on Obama being afrocentic are the same being used by Clinton and the neocons against him.I consider Obama the lesser of 3 evils.The worst is McCain.I will never vote for Obama and would love a third party I suppose the Constitution will get my vote.The Republicans will be devasted in the coming elections.It will be like 1964, only this time with the Rockefeller wing taking the hit.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
One of Dr. Paul’s biggest errors, in addition to what Dr. Gottfried has written, was to use the term “non-intervention” to describe traditional US foreign policy (from Washington to Wilson). This term was so vague that it was easy for McCain to tag Paul with the label “isolationist,” and then an appeaser. It is impossible to be literally non-interventionist (isolationist) in this interconnected world. Even Senator Taft was not a pure non-interventionist. While I suspect that Dr. Paul is no isolationist either (he believes in protecting US interests when necessary), his message was disturbingly unclear.
I would have preferred terms like “anti-imperialist” or “anti-empire” as alternatives. They would have resonated more effectively than his chosen term, and perhaps would have appealed to many leftists and rightists alike out there.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I was delighted when Ron launched his campaign but have been disappointed with the campaign. His ads were very poor. Sometimes he was too ideological and too detailed on policy in speeches and debates.
All that he needed was to expound a simple message advocating small government, a balanced budget, low taxes, civil liberties, opposition to torture and peace (including an end to the Iraq War).
Like other posters and commentators, I hope that Ron will reconsider, learn from his campaign and run as a third party or independent candidate. In addition to taking votes from McCain, Paul could take Democrat votes too, especially in the South.
The Libertarian Party is a busted flush. We need to build a unified paleo Libertarian-Conservative movement to replace the one that has been destoyed by the neo-cons and their collaborators. Ron Paul alone can rebuild the movement and he needs to put it before his own Congressional seat. There may never be another opportunity. 2008 must be the year of the Revolution!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Since Prof. Gottfried has claimed to be a “Zionist,” it shouldn’t surprise anyone that he endorses the “menace” of Islamic jihad as well as Israeli “targeted assassinations.”
As a matter of fact however, Ron Paul repeatedly spoke about “radical Islam” as a problem that we exacerbate through the foreign policy and in one instance noted by Justin Raimondo even attempted to demagogue the issue in association with border security in a TV ad. For the most part however Paul conducted himself in debates as in the campaign with impeccable rationality and courage.
Prof. Gottfried seems to imply that he lost out to Giuliani in their confrontation over “Why they hate us.” In fact that was Paul’s greatest teaching moment in the entire campaign. His insistence on rationality and cause and effect relationships penetrated for a moment the suffocating stew of paranoia, scape-goating, and fear-mongering that has been the daily diet meted out by the media and politicians.
Since some degree of apprehension about “Islamo-satanic” bogeymen seems to be the price of admission to public discourse, we may ask ourselves why this is so. It goes back beyond neocons and media agendas to two major defects de Toqueville saw in American democracy: inattention and impenetrable consensus marked by a lack of freedom of thought. America is like a church, as Chesterton observed and “an army on the march” as a Frenchman is cited in Albert Jay Nock’s, Our Enemy, the State. To some extent this is the same problem Aristotle observes when he makes a distinction between the roles of rhetoric and dialectic in public discourse but the American consensus seems especially impenetrable to rationality, especially with regard to American exceptionalism and theological politics.
That said, I think our good doctor provided those Americans with a sufficient attention span and ears to hear with the basis of a new politics based on truth, reason and ideas rather than lies, irrationality and fantasy. Time and pain will demonstrate the truth of the reason and reality he conveyed.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Grant Hayes wrote: One of Dr. Paul’s biggest errors….was to use the term “non-intervention” to describe traditional US foreign policy (from Washington to Wilson). This term was so vague that it was easy for McCain to tag Paul with the label “isolationist,” and then an appeaser. It is impossible to be literally non-interventionist (isolationist) in this interconnected world. Even Senator Taft was not a pure non-interventionist. While I suspect that Dr. Paul is no isolationist either (he believes in protecting US interests when necessary), his message was disturbingly unclear….I would have preferred terms like “anti-imperialist” or “anti-empire” as alternatives. They would have resonated more effectively than his chosen term, and perhaps would have appealed to many leftists and rightists alike out there.”
I would disagree…”anti-imperialist” is a term that is laden with all sorts of baggage, and seems to be associated with Marxist theories. It seems irrelevant to the argument that the Bush/Republicans/neo-cons put forth which is “building democracy”. It would imply that the neo-con/Bush/Lieberman-Libertarian “globalization” argument actually benefits most the American economy--which it does not.
While the war is obviously being fought to defend International Finance Capitalism (the system of global finance as represented by the FED/IMF/World Bank/Export-Import Bank), this system is undermining the economic security
I’m not sure why you are so afraid of being called an “isolationist”…as the term is completely correct..the history of the US economy is one of protecting domestic markets from foreign competition and closing down immigration, which has been the main reason that America became an economic powerhouse, why wages in the US are so high, and why American industry and technology led the world.
The founding fathers were completely correct in warning against “entangling Alliances” and getting embroiled in the mess that was European rivalries. It was technically “Isolationism”…
Click to flag this comment as abusive
While Israel and Zionism provide a ready and reliable enemy focus for the proponents of Radical Islam, Despotic and Hypocritical governments throughout the Middle East are as much to blame for the growth of Radical Islam. Both pampered islamic monarchies and ruthless secular dictators have used the Palestinian -Israeli Issue to divert the eye of dissent from their own retrenched and retrogressive authoritarian policies. As long as the disaffected youth can be kept occupied by fire-breathing clerics, the ruling elite can continue to maintain their lavish lifestyles and cozy economic relationships with the Western infidel.
States require a boogie man to counter their own self-destructive policies. Our boogie man is Islamic Terrorism or , when things are slow, a Latin American Strongman will suffice. If things continue to go as well as they have been, we’ll be able to reinstate the Russian Bear as part of the Boogie Man line-up and then the Military-Industrial Honeypot will be set on autopilot and we shall reach State Valhalla.
If anyone actually thought the Ron Paul Candidacy had a shot at really taking off more than it surprisingly and admirably did, you might want to review your sources quantifying what constitutes a Republic. It has been Bread and Circus Time for Decades in America. The people clamor to be led like children and told sweet bedtime stories or lusty battlefield parables. Independence and liberty are important only insofar as one can drive one’s car to a shopping center of one’s choice and charge a purchase on a separate but equal Credit or Debt Card. The charade is so complete that two terms of an illiterate rube at the head of the Executive are not enough to alarm the public beyond disaffected amusement. Congress remains useful only insomuch as providing an institutional outlet for expressing our well deserved antipathy to government on the one hand while greasing the wheels on the other.
Any of a dozen branches of the Executive’s Cockeyed Bureaucracy are larger than the entire Federal Government as envisioned by the Framers and someone actually thinks a person championing the Constitution can get elected President? Come now, the least we can do is refrain from acting giddy in the presence of the dead.
The usurpers stole the Republic by stealth and it will only be returned to us by stealth or fight and it is a fair bet that the will to achieve this is well beyond reach. The people cannot be motivated by telling them they lost something when they still insist they have it.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@ Jack
You said “Dr. Gottfried I respect you a lot but I feel that you have blind spot on this issue.The radicals are a result of our policy. The muslims are pouring into Europe from former colonies like Algeria, Morroco,Pakistan,in other words from previous European imperialism.”
History didn’t start 50 years ago. Muslims have been pouring into Europe since the 8th century AD. Was that also caused by European imperialism? Based on the historical record, a sensible person would conclude that pouring into other people’s countries is inherent to Islam. For confirmation, you can check history of Islamic expansion in Asia and Africa, all of which happened centuries before European “imperialism”.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Nevertheless, Paul could still play an indispensable role in the Right’s opposition to a McCain candidacy: a five percent vote for Paul running as a third-party candidate would make the point that we’re opposing McCain as Taft Republicans rather than antiwar Democrats.
WTF?? Yeah, WHAT A GREAT IDEA! Then the establishment can “Blame Ron Paul for the Republicans losing in 08”. Just like what happens to Nader.
Do you even read the Press Releases from the Campaign?
DO: Let the GOP take itself down, with nobody to blame.
DON’T: Run 3rd party, in which the GOP still loses, expect in this case you become the scape goat.
The “DON’T” Sounds like a really great legacy for Dr. Paul. Instead of being known as the most honest man in Washington, he can be known as “the guy who got Hillary Clinton elected.” Which is EXACTLY what will happen. Go outside and look around.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Choose a legacy for Dr. Paul:
A) The most honest and principled politician in the history of the congress.
B) The guy that cost the Republicans the nomination because his 3rd party run got Hillary elected.
Which one do you think the establishment wants to run with? Which one do you think would go over the best with TNR, O’Reilly, and the Glenn Beck types? Which one do you think the establishment is hoping for? A) For Dr. Paul to be remembered for his principles or B) for being the old guy that got Hillary Clinton elected?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Of course Vissarion, the muslims have been trying to invade Europe for a long time but they had been kicked out and were not coming coming back until we invaded their countries and stirred the hornets nest.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
To Joe Populist:
1) “anti-imperialist” need not be monopolized by Marxists; Senator Taft and Murray Rothbard also opposed imperialism, after all.
2) neocon democracy-building is perfectly compatible with imperialism; besides, Krauthammer and other neocons gladly employ the term “empire” to describe their ideology.
3) I doubt that the US can restore the 19th century by returning to pure protectionism (Buchanan’s dream); American producers could sell to American consumers alone back then; the US was her own best market--hardly the case today.
4) Even if one questions Wilson’s decision to enter WW1, the isolationist
success in reducing US forces in the interwar period emboldened Mussolini and Hitler--all the more reason to avoid the term.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Vissarion:
“History didn’t start 50 years ago. Muslims have been pouring into
Europe since the 8th century AD. Was that also caused by European imperialism? Based on the historical record, a sensible person would conclude that pouring into other people’s countries is inherent to Islam. For confirmation, you can check history of Islamic expansion in Asia and Africa, all of which happened centuries before European ‘imperialism’.”
This is not Europe, this is the US. Ron Paul is running for Presidency of the US, not ‘Europe’ or the EU. This is not the Ninth Century, it is the 21st. Frankly, it is up to the sovereign nations of Europe to defend their own borders from undesirables, not ours. If, as is the case, they don’t wish to- then there is no much we can do. European countries, with the exclusion of Schweize, seem to have no fear of letting them in- even inviting them.
Its time for Europe to pay for their own defense with their own people. Pax Americana has bankrupted the US and has earned us little gratitude from our client states.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
@ Jack
You wrote “...the muslims have been trying to invade Europe for a long time but they had been kicked out and were not coming coming back until we invaded their countries and stirred the hornets nest.”
No, you got your timeline wrong. European colonialism in India/Pakistan was late 18th century, in Africa mid-19th century, and in the Middle East post WW1. Moslems only started coming to Europe in significant numbers in 1950-60s because Europeans let them in--they wanted cheap labor. Nothing to do with invasion of their countries.
@ sepp
I agree with everything you said. I guess you didn’t read my post carefully--I was simply trying to explain to Jack that Moslems have been invading Europe because territorial expansion is mandated by their religion, not because of past European imperialism (which itself is indisputable).
And it is entirely European fault for letting the Moslems in and not having the cojones to protect their own societies. I don’t think US should spend one red cent to protect Europe from Moslems, even though I am sorry to see Europe go down.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Dear Prof Gottfried:
Strategic thinking for a new GOP majority based on the Ron Paul revolution/movement:
The Ronald Reagan revolution combined social conservatives
("Religious Right and others"), fiscal conservatives (libertarians) and security hawks (neoconservatives? big govenment, military complex) together in one. This has proven a success in terms of a ruling majority, but, especially with George H Bush, not a success for small governmemtn conservatives. The Neoconservatives (really a small group) have managed to take over with regard to foreign policy.
With the 08 campaign we see the GOP is split in different groups. Strategy for Ron Paul to achieve a majority with the GOP could (should?) now be to bring together fiscal conservatives (libertarians, according to the Cato Institute 13%), of which Paul has a major stake already, social conservatives (Evangelical, Southern Baptist/Religious Right but also Catholic Christians and others) , Independents and anti-war/anti-US aggression, but 2nd amendment Democrats and security specialists (important factor of the GOP).
The “neoconservative” and interventionist GOP (Kristol, Frum etc.) should then be “moved back” to where they started (Democrats) and combine with current interventionist faction within the Democratic Party, so that their coalition ranges from all the “neoconservatives”, all the way through to socialists etc..
This could be the recipe for a new majority with the GOP.
What do you think?
With regard to the GOP convention, if Huckabee and Paul can manage to keep McCain from getting the majority delegates , a brokered convention could be enforced. L;ately it seems like Huckabee will go through and continue. He has states himself that the VP position is not the position he is aspiring and know he would not be among the shortlist of McCain, so that is one incentive to continue, apart from the media bias.
Ron Paul campaign should achieve the maximum delegates and build momentum.
A lot can still happen with McCain, he has already made mistakes, that the Democratic contenders will ruthlessly expose for political purposes, despite his endorsements. He does not enjoy the support of Newt Ginrich, Dick Amery and others. Paul should combine with these conservatives.
McCain managed to get an anti-war vote within the GOP. Paul campaign should ensure that these delegates support Paul, as the only-anti-war candidate, and likewise Romney, Huckabee, Thompson delegates should vote for Paul, although their leaders endorsed McCain. There exist some dissatisfaction. One read about stealth Ron paul support/delegates with other campaigns (in winner takes all states)...this could be a possibility and be of help with the convention. The pro-Iraq war majority should be persuaded to vote for Paul, based on anti-McCain factor/elements, potential for Independent and Democratic support for Paul, fundraising ability for Paul etc. Also with regard to strategy, compromise, support from establishment GOP’s, Paul’s preparation for the RNC should be well coordinated. The future of the US is at stake.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I don’t see how Dr. Gottfried reconciles “America’s unavoidable position as a superpower” with his implied opposition to “an aggressively internationalist foreign policy”. Doesn’t the former more or less entail the latter? I thought one point of agreement between paleocons and Ron Paul is that America’s position as a superpower can be “avoided”, and in fact should be.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Vissarion I was thinking of the expulsion of the Moors from Spain and Italy and the battles like Lepanto,Tours, Vienna,etc.The modern immigation of muslims into Europe started with ex colonial people from India,Pakistan,Indonisia,Morrocco,Algeriaand the Turks moved into Germany because Germany’s low birthrates and the economy needed labor.So European imperialism led to all thes people coming to the mother country as well as residual muslims in the Balkens left over from the Turkish Empire.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Can Dr. Gottfried explain why the U.S. is in unavoidable position position as a super power? This is the same kind of rhetoric Madeline Albright uses, we are the “indispensiable nation”. No, we choose to be these things. We have chosen the path of empire, it was not thrusted upon us. We turned our back on empire after World War I but after World War II we went in the opposite direction, we chose to do this. We took upon the burden of protecting the free world. There’s always another path to choose, the problem is you wouldn’t know this if all the news you received came from the MSM which drills it into people’s head that there’s no alternative. It’s sad to see you feel the same way. Yes there are people who wish to do us arm, I prefer to stay out of their backyards and keep them out of mine thank you very much. If we did that, there would not have been 9-11.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I have become so sick of the msm running things that I find it almost intolerable to even watch television anymore. There are a lot of us who would welcome a Paul Gottfried Takimag broadcast on-line. If I can’t get something that makes sense on the television I can get it on my computer. The best thing to come out of Ron Paul’s campaign is that people are absolutely disgusted with the media. Time for the future of media to assert itself. C-Span, FOX, CNN, you’re all finished. To Gottfried and beyond!!!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“But a five percent vote for Paul running as a third-party candidate would make the point that we’re opposing McCain as Taft Republicans rather than as advocates of more set asides for minorities or friends of a European-style welfare state.”
So, we’re back to “making a point” with some miniscule percentage of the total vote. That sounds suspiciously like the dimwitted LP’s insistence that their pointless campaigns have somehow had an educational effect on the booboisie.
Let’s face it: the electoral process is a total sham, with TV program designed to explain to the electorate exactly who they want to vote for and exactly how the vote came out, even when the announcement is made before all the polls have closed.
Let’s also face the fact that candidate like Ron Paul could get 99% of the popular vote, and the media gatekeepers would brazenly announce that he got a tad over 1%.
IMHO, the main problem with our society is that a huge majority of the population is a herd of TV addicted imbeciles with no critical thinking skills whatsoever. Probably, the sooner we face the fact that the “American Experiment” has been over for at least 100 years, the better our chances of managing to jump ship to another country.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I did not watch all of the debates, as most of the nonsense spoken by poiticians is unwatchable, but I can find no fault with Ron Paul’s articulation of foreign policy, nor did I ever hear anything in his answers that could be considered an exaggeration. The “menace” of “Islamic fundamentalism” would not be a concern if we left them alone. If we are to blame for “armed crackpots,” then those running for office should be truthful about it, as Paul tried to be. What, I wonder, qualifies as an “outburst” from someone who tried to be so honest? If he was a “less than effective TV debater,” it is because the establishment, corporate, war-profiteering media, the same that could very well be rigging elections, did not give Paul as much time. (Can anyone provide any evidence of a Paulian “snarl” at a moderator?)
I think the real benefit of this rEVOLution has been to wake up more Americans to the idiocy of the electoral process, and perhaps more liberty-loving citizens like myself will simply walk away from it. I’m glad I did, and I’m glad I lived to see the movement begin.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
“The Congressman did not really articulate a foreign policy, as opposed to telling Americans that the war in Iraq [is] “unconstitutional.”
Mr. Gottfried employs a trivializing, ridiculing set of quotes around Dr. Paul’s concept of unconstitutional war. This would be a little like laughing at Martin Luther King for telling us lynching was “immoral.”
The unsconstitutionality of America’s wars is a supberbly brave and patriotic component of the Paul campaign. If this country were the Republic it was supposed to be, and not a globalist dictatorship, then the US Congress - speaking for the people - would decide when, and if, the country is to go to war. As it stands, Halliburton, AIPAC, and the Republican and Democratic party bosses make these decisions.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
With his usual lucidity, Dr Gottfried has hit the nail on the head.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I have always admired Professor Gottfried’s courage and brilliant writing style; however, I don’t agree with much of what he wrote in this particular article.
The two wings of the Establishment bird enjoyed dismissing Ron Paul’s theory of blowback, and smeared him as someone who is “unpatriotic” and “blames America” for 9/11. However, those that dismiss the notion of blowback, and attack Ron Paul, would be remiss if they didn’t first read all of the information related to the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. It is generally awknowledged that this atrocity—which resulted in the deaths of over 250 people—was conducted by a radical Islamic organization (with loose ties to Libya and/or Iran) in retaliation for the U.S. shootdown of an Iranian civilian airliner earlier that year. Iran Air Flight 655 was shot down by U.S. missiles fired from the U.S. Navy’s guided missile cruiser—the U.S.S. Vincennes—in July 1988 over the Strait of Hormuz. All 290 passengers and crew aboard this plane were killed. Both the civilian airliner and the U.S.S. Vincennes were inside Iranian territorial waters at the time of the attack. The captain and the crew of the U.S.S. Vincennes have been blamed for being reckless and exhibiting aggressive behaviour in a tense environment; however, the United States never apologized for this attack. Then, as now, the American government was obsessed with the mercantalist policy of protecting “their” supply of oil, as well as, provoking an attack by the Iranians; therefore, providing the impetus for “regime change” in Tehran.
Likewise, the 1983 bombing of the U.S. marines barracks in Beirut by Hezbollah was in retaliation for the presence of American (and other Western troops) on Lebanese soil, which many Lebanese (both Christian and Muslim) saw as legitimizing the Israel invasion and occupation of their country. Ron Paul was correct to point out that, after President Reagan withdrew American troops from Lebanon, attacks on Americans by Hezbollah virtually ended. In addition, he was correct to point out (as he did during the ABC/WMUR debate) that neoconservatives (like Rudy Giuliani and John McCain) are either ignorant or being disingenuous when they attempt to lump all of the Islamic organizations into one broad category as the “enemy” in the so-called “war on terror.” Shiites are viewed as heretics by Sunni fundamentalists (inspired by Wahabbists from Saudi Arabia), like Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. Thus, Hezbollah (despite their leaders’ close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine—i.e. Hamas) are viewed as apostates by the leaders of Al-Qaeda, and the relations between Iran and Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan are frosty at best—with open hostility between the two sides almost resulting in war in 1998.
I would also like to provide some further comments with regard to the Ron Paul presidential campaign, and the attacks upon him by his political opponents, as well as, by their minions within the so-called “mainstream media.” Giuliani, McCain et al. like to list a number of examples of “Islamic fundamentalist terrorism” around the world to support their counter-argument against Dr. Paul’s view that American foreign policy in the Arab-Islamic world has played a major role in heightening anger among the world’s Muslims against the United States. One of the examples that Giuliani often mentioned was the 1972 terrorist attack on the Munich Olympics. By bringing up this event, Giuliani illustrated that not only was (and is) he ignorant about the true nature of contemporary events and foreign cultures, but also that he is hopefully ignorant about recent world history; even with regard to a topic on which he is supposed to be an expert. Prior to the early 1990’s, the overwhelming majority of anti-American and anti-Israeli violence was directed, not by “Islamic extremist’ organizations and individuals, but by either Third-World “national liberation” movements or extreme-left revolutionary groups. In fact, it was Israel that helped create Hamas in 1987 in order to provide a more conservative/traditionalist alternative for Palestinians. To the Israelis at that time, Islamic fundamentalists were considered less of a threat than violent, largely left-wing Palestinians loosely grouped together under the umbrella of the PLO. The most violent Palestinian organizations—from the late 1960’s until the early 1990’s—were not Hamas and Islamic Jihad. They were the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and its splinter group, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP)—both avowedly Marxist-Leninist terrorist organizations dedicated not only to the “liberation” of Palestine, but also the overthrow of “conservative/reactionary” regimes (like that of Saudi Arabia and Jordan) within the Middle East. Both organizations were also led by nominal Christians --George Habash (with regard to the PFLP) and Nayef Hawatmeh (with regard to the DFLP)—and their ideological aims, along with their terrorist tactics (airline hijackings and mass murders), made them more Che Guevara and less Osama Bin Laden. The 1972 terrorist attack on the Munich Olympics—which was constantly brought up by Giuliani—was not an act of “Islamic fundamentalist terrorism” but an attack by a far-left Palestinian group called “Black September” with close ties to other far-left “revolutionary” groups, like the West German Red Army Faction and the Japanese Red Army. During the time of this attack, and right through the 1970’s and 1980’s, the Palestinians were generally despised by conservative/traditionalist Arabs and Muslims as being too infatuated with atheistic Marxism and too closely aligned with the Soviet Union, as most clearly exemplifed by the PLO’s open support for the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.
During the bulk of the Cold War years, the Islamic fundamentalists, who are currently deemed “enemies” in America’s “war on terror,” were allies of the United States; not only in Afghanistan, but also in Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, Syria and Indonesia. They were utilized by the CIA to commit massacres of actual and suspected communists in Indonesia after the 1965 overthrow of secular-socialist Third-World liberationist, Sukarno, by Suharto. In addition, the United States (along with Israel and Jordan) backed the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria during the early 1980’s, as it initiated violent acts against the Baathist regime, and in Egypt, as it waged war against the pro-Soviet, secular-Arab nationalist Nasser. The CIA had no problem cooperating with Islamic fundamentalists inspired by Sayyid Qutb (the same Sayyid Qutb whose name is now casually mentioned by, not only Giuliani, but also the empty corporate suit, Mitt Romney), as long as they were willing to subvert “progressive” secular-nationalists deemed too close to the Soviet enemy.
During the same ABC News/WMUR debate, Fred Thompson also scoffed at Ron Paul’s assertion that American interference in the Middle East has played a major role in triggering anti-American terrorism, and asked him to provide an example of where the United States had insulted the Arab-Islamic world. Dr. Paul provided the example of American troops and bases in Saudi Arabia, but a better example might have been the long support for the brutal and corrupt Shah of Iran, as well as, the post Gulf War I sanctions against the people of Iraq. These sanctions—designed to punish Saddam Hussein for his alleged pursuit of “weapons of mass destruction”—led to the deaths of over 500,000 Iraqi children and the widespread deterioration of Iraq’s infrastructure, including its water and sewage systems. In addition, from the end of the first Gulf War until the 2003 invasion of Iraq, U.S. and British airplanes regularly bombed Iraqi cities. Despite his inveterate hostility towards Western-style individualism and democracy, Osama Bin Laden actually offered to have his “Afghan-Arabs” come to the assistance of the pro-American Saudi monarchy after Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990, but was rebuffed in favour of troops from the United States and other Western countries. The presence of these “infidel” troops on Muslim holy land—and the willingness of the Saudi monarchy to allow this to happen—played a major role in turning Osama Bin Laden against the United States and its puppet kleptocracy in Saudi Arabia. This, along with the crippling sanctions against Iraq and the open alignment of American foreign policy with Israeli aims, helped fuel the rise and growth of what is now collectively known as “Al-Qaeda.” This group—and other radicalized Muslims—has the support of many Pakistani military and secret service officers (the ISI) who feel betrayed and abandoned by the United States, after many years of staunch Pakistani support for the United States (in a 1962 address to Congress, then Pakistani leader, General Ayub Khan, referred to Pakistan as America’s most “allied ally” in Asia). Ron Paul is one hundred percent correct when he states that the United States doesn’t really understand the Middle East, and the myriad of factions, conflicts and resentments that afflict the Arab-Islamic world; therefore, making it imperative that—if America truly wants to be safe and stop squandering so much blood and treasure—it should end its long history of political manipulation and interference in the internal affairs of other countries and revert to a Jeffersonian foreign policy based on peace, commerce and friendship with all; entangling alliances with none. What is especially ironic is that Fred Thompson ridiculed Dr. Paul considering that Thompson himself, through his character D.A. Arthur Branch (whose political views and mannerisms are supposed to emulate that of the actor) on “Law and Order,” endorsed the concept of blowback during the closing minutes of the episode “Enemy” (Original air date: December 1, 2004; Season 15, Episode 10).
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Gill you should be writing here. Your response is terrific.In fact it should be a full article for discussion.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
What a waste of my time reading all this. I should have skipped directly to Mr. Gill’s excellent reply.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
A few additional comments with regard to Professor Gottfried’s article:
In his article, Professor Gottfried stated the following: “The Congressman did not really articulate a foreign policy, as opposed to telling Americans that the war in Iraq and almost all other wars the U.S. has engaged in during my lifetime have been ‘unconstitutional.’” Actually, there was no other candidate—in either party—who more clearly articulated an American foreign policy than Congressman Paul. Whereas all of the other GOP candidates were content with mindlessly endorsing neoconservative talking points, and the militarist-imperialist policies of Bush-Cheney, Dr. Paul went beyond just talking about Iraq, Afghanistan and the “Islamo-Fascist” threat. He mentioned—over and over again—that it was time that America stopped subsidizing the defence of its wealthy allies and brought its troops home from Japan, Korea and Europe. He talked about how the economic embargo against Cuba unfairly punished the Cuban people for having a Communist dictatorship, and how it did not make sense—post-Cold War --for the United States to trade with Communist China, Laos and Vietnam, while at the same time, continuing to ban any travel and trade with Cuba—all in order to appease a loud ethnic lobby in southern Florida. His foreign policy vision for America was a clear articulation of the Jeffersonian maxim: peace, commerce and friendship with all; entangling alliances with none. In addition, it was a clear articulation of that famous address by John Quincy Adams. When the founding fathers formulated their non-interventionist, armed neutrality foreign policy vision for America, the new republic was far more threatened by foreign powers—all of whom were imperalistic monarchies opposed to the republican vision—than the United States is today. The “Islamo-fascists” are no threat to do anything more—in either America, Canada or Western Europe—than sporadic terrorist bombings, and even that is preventable if the Western countries finally move away from their lax immigration and multicultural policies. Finally, Ron Paul was right to state that all of the post-World War Two military interventions by the United States have been unconstitutional, as the Constitution clearly delegates war-making powers to Congress (as the direct representatives of the American people). Thus, according to the Constitution, only the American people can decide when and where their country will wage war; not powerful lobbyists in Washington beholden to foreign powers, nor an omniscient and omnipotent imperial president.
Republican voters may be “instinctive American nationalists,” but increasingly, they have taken this “nationalism” beyond natural pariotism and support for a strong national defence to unwavering, unthinking support for the Great Leader—“Red State Fascism,” as articulated in numerous articles on the excellent website, LewRockwell.com. Thus, as per Bush-Cheney, they continue to support an undeclared, unconstitutional war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with the Islamic fundamentalist terrorists (Saddam was a staunch secular-socialist hated by radical jihadists), and was a Third World basketcase with no “weapons of mass destruction.” Instead of looking at the hard facts as it relates to the situation in Iraq, the Red-State fascists, that now comprise the GOP base, are content with equating “patriotism” with mindless support for the Great Leader, and all of the propaganda coming from the White House and their minions in the so-called “mainstream media.” Thus, the responsibility rests, not with Dr. Paul in his failure to connect with such a close-minded audience, but with that audience’s own myopia and uneducated view of the real world. Ron Paul never “blamed America” for 9/11. He strongly supported using military force to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden and the other leaders of his criminal organization. He just didn’t think it made sense to squander thousands of American lives—along with hundreds of billions of dollars—in order to engage in “nation-building” and occupying countries that had nothing to do with the initial terrorist attack. Unfortuntely, since the Great Leader disagreed, so too did the GOP base, and thus, they visciously turned against Ron Paul; despite his conservative positions on so many other topics (abortion, immigration, taxes, federalism, the economy). To the GOP voters, all that mattered was killing as many Arabs and Muslims as possible. Therefore, Ron Paul lost and now John McCain is poised to lead the Republican Party to glorious defeat in November.
Speaking of John McCain, McCain likes to present himself as a hawk in the “war” against so-called “radical Islamic extremism.” However, he isn’t just one of those Republicans who suddenly went insane after 9/11. In fact, when Bill Clinton was president, McCain strongly supported all of Clinton’s wars; in both Bosnia and in Kosovo. During a time when Republicans actually sounded like members of the Old Right in their opposition to overseas interventionism and “nation-building,” supported an America First foreign policy and weren’t maniacally obsessed with bombing Middle Easterners, McCain was such a hawk—with regard to the former Yugoslavia—that he actually wanted the Clinton administration to go beyond aerial bombings and put “more boots on the ground” in favour of the Muslims against the Christian Serbs. Therefore, far from being a warrior against “radical Islamic extremism,” McCain has a long track record of supporting Islam against Christianity. Perhaps this might explain why he has said nothing about the plight of Iraq’s Christian community and the brutal manner in which they have been driven out from their ancient homeland; thanks to the U.S. invasion and occupation, and the subsequent American arming of various sectarian Islamic groups.
Far from being a steely-eyed realist—as he likes to portray himself to his supporters and fawning admirers in the “mainstream media”—McCain is actually among the worst of the neo-Wilsonian neoconservatives. He is a gleaming-eyed messianic democratist who supports war and massive American intervention, anywhere and everywhere.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I think it is very unfair to say that Europe is handing itself over to the muslim invasion. Europe is not independent, it is occupied by the US Army, there are US bases all over Europe, its politicians are hardly elected ones (Sarkozy, Merkel), or even if they are they are first selected by the US. There is not a single political decision that is made entirely by Europe or its people. Perhaps the circumstances of how Kosovo was created should make it clear once and for all, that the muslim takeover is definitely given a green light by Europe´s current colonial American warlords.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Reply to Mr. Hayes:
Grant Hayes sez: “anti-imperialist” need not be monopolized by Marxists; Senator Taft and Murray Rothbard also opposed imperialism, after all….Krauthammer and other neocons gladly employ the term “empire” to describe their ideology…I doubt that the US can restore the 19th century by returning to pure protectionism…the US was her own best market--hardly the case today…the isolationist success in reducing US forces in the interwar period emboldened Mussolini and Hitler--all the more reason to avoid the term.
What economic ignorance you espouse.
Taft never used the term extensively in his criticism of US foreign policy. Murray Rothbard is a freak of the 60’s, who sought out an “alliance” with the New Left during the Vietnam era, echoing the “imperialism” nonsense spouted by the likes of Chompsky and his ilk. You’d have to be some kind of a nut case to think that the Global War of Containment with Soviet Communism that resulted in Vietnam was “imperialism” in the classic sense, as Rothbard/Chompsky claimed.
Nor have I ever heard Krauthammer defend the “War on Terrorism” as building an empire, that’s the accusation made by critics of neo-conservative ideology.
And what exactly is the USA selling to other countries? Duh. You talk like the trade deficit doesn’t’ exist, and you’ve got to be pretty much an idiot to ignore the fact that the main export of the USA to other countries is scrap iron and waste paper, along with agricultural commodities--which are subsidized btw.
You compound your economic ignorance with historical ineptitude by dragging Hitler into this…the prevailing view of WWII is that it was a continuation of the unresolved issues of WWI, Hitler the creation of Wilson’s internationalism as much as Bin Ladin the creation of US support of dictatorial regimes in Saudi Arabia and Israel.
What really is a joke is that you “libertarians” share so many premises with the neo-cons you claim to oppose…the historical background of WWII, the myth that globalization is the natural outcome of some fantasy of a “free” market…next you’ll be defending “Israel’s right to exist”…and the World Bank/IMF/Export-Import Bank as the highest stage of “freedom”….
Click to flag this comment as abusive
It is so obvious that McCain is going to lose to the dem nominee, whether or not Ron Paul runs 3rd party, that I don’t think any blame would stick.
And how wonderful it would be if Ron Paul ran 3rd party and beat McCain! That would effectively kill the GOP and make me very happy indeed!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
To Joe Populist:
1) yes, you are right: of course the US has never been imperialist. How naive of me! Interventions in the Philippines, Cuba, Central America, Vietnam, and Iraq were all guided by the purest of motives. And yes, of course Ron Paul is not confusing intervention with imperialism. Intervention is far worse, isn’t it?
2) yes, you are right: there is a trade deficit which was forced on the American people, despite the fact that millions still shop at Wal-Mart for those cheap goods from China, courtesy of free trade. Perhaps they have been duped into shopping there.
3) yes, you are right: when neocons use terms like “unipolar moment,” “new world order,” or “hegemony,” this has nothing to do with empire!
4) For the record, I do defend Israel’s right to exist (as does Dr. Paul).
I also defend the right of paranoid and moronic conspiracy-mongers with a victim’s complex (usually the calling card of “populists") to contribute to takimag.
Well, now I must get back to my seat at the star chambers of the IMF/World Bank etc. They don’t like tardiness.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
b304t53so http://www.654504.com/742242.html 7mbnlgf8phyvr2j
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.