Kay and ABL have been making similar points, but Alex Knapp’s piece on Ron Paul’s view of the Incorporation Doctrine of the 14th Amendment makes it even clearer that Paul puts states’ rights above civil liberties:
Historically speaking, and especially in the last 70 years, the biggest battles for civil liberties have been against infringements by state governments. And the Incorporation Doctrine has been key to that battle in stopping those infringements. But a Ron Paul Presidency would lead to a weakening, if not eventual outright reversal, of Incorporation. Leaving state governments once again able to attack civil liberties more vigorously.
Kevin Drum believes that Paul’s extreme crackpot positions on some issues poison what Paul says that is reasonable, and he ends with this point:
And remember: Ron Paul has never once done any of his causes any good. There’s a good reason for that.
Even if you think that it’s possible to set aside all the crazy shit that Paul has said over the years, Paul is at best a tarnished messenger, and it’s worth asking whether he can be an effective spokesman for those who are sympathetic to a less interventionist foreign policy and an end to the war on drugs.
wilfred
“it’s worth asking whether he can be an effective spokesman for those who are sympathetic to a less interventionist foreign policy and an end to the war on drugs.”
Who else is asking the questions? It’s not as if the Left has had any impact on Administration policies. So if the messenger gets shot, who carries the message?
Schlemizel
@wilfred:
Not entirely true. If the left actually supports a position the administration takes some pains to make sure they punch it so that they will not wear the dreaded label of ‘liberal’ or ‘so-shall-ist’. This has worked perfectly over the last 2 Dem administrations as they have never been accused of being either of those two things because they are so good at hippy punching.
amk
The fucker has been suckling at the teats of congress for ages right up to his senility. And what exactly he has got to show for it ? Any bills sponsored let alone passed ? Time to put him into pasture.
OzoneR
@wilfred:
A lot of progressive Democrats in Congress are.
What burns me is, Ron Paul isn’t asking those questions. Ron Paul isn’t asking why we are killing innocent Muslims or jailing black people for decades over drug crimes. He’s perfectly fine with both happening, as long as it’s not the federal government doing it and has openly admitted such.
What can’t people like Greenwald get that into his thick fucking skull? I don’t get it.
JPL
States can continue their war on drugs according to the Paul doctrine. Let’s party like it’s 1861.
wilfred
@Ozone R:
Well, if they are they’re getting zero traction with the Administration.
Paul publicly accused Bachman of hating Muslims – I doubt that means he’d be ok with states killing them.
JPL
@wilfred: I don’t know if that’s true.
Napoleon
No he can not be. Drum is 100% correct.
wilfred
All this Paultalk reminds me of JFK, where the Jim Garrison character wonders why prostitutes always have bad eyesight.
I support 4 positions that Paul advocates, none of which are compatible with current party politics. At least they’re being discussed. Maybe people will start asking candidates what they think about the policy, not the man.
Nah.
kay
@wilfred:
The Incorporation Doctrine of the 14th Amendment is a policy position.
Opposing the Civl Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, is a policy position.
Maybe “people” will start defending the man’s policies, and not the man.
4tehlulz
You keep telling yourself that.
JPL
@wilfred: Paul is a libertarian and promotes libertarian ideals but he also believes strongly in states rights. If a state is anti-civil rights, that’s okay with him. I have trouble with that. I think as a society we have to regulate greed. Monopolies endanger free enterprise and he doesn’t address that.
Rand Paul was on CBS morning show and he pointed out that his father hasn’t given an opinion on heroin or “hard drugs”. I’m not sure what he meant. Personally I’d rather see federal and state money that’s spent on prosecuting drug violations be spent on medical care. Paul doesn’t address the cost of addiction to society though.
kay
@JPL:
Shhhh. Don’t tell anyone. The official line is “he’s opposed to the war on drugs”.
There aren’t any drug laws at the state level. Only federal law matters.
4tehlulz
He means drugs that the undesirables use.
Triassic Sands
I wouldn’t put it quite like that.
Rather, I’d say Paul’s crackpot and racist beliefs disqualify him for president. If he says sensible things about some topics those things are not automatically invalidated because he, a crackpot and racist, says them, but neither do they re-qualify him for president.
kay
@4tehlulz:
We’re learning a lot. I think we’re down to “he opposes federal pot laws” from “he opposes the war on drugs”.
Details! Don’t bother us with details!
MattF
I’m in favor of judging Paul by the political company he keeps. And, too, I think that racism-as-policy is worse than racism-as-prejudice. American politics emphasizes personal qualities over politics per se, Paul is a case where that emphasis goes seriously wrong.
Zagloba
@Triassic Sands: This.
Mino
Why the hell does Paul get all the love from supposedly liberal writers while actual Democrats who espouse some of those same positions get no attention at all.
If they think these ideas should be discussed, what is keeping them from doing so? It’s not like the MSM is publicizing Paul’s positions very much. Maybe the drug angle, but not with any seriousness. They are laughing at him, basically.
Jay in Oregon
@Triassic Sands:
The best rationale I’ve heard for the fascination with Paul that some on the left display was that some people don’t realize that it’s possible to come to the right conclusions for the wrong reasons.
Napoleon
By the way, the Incorporation Doctrine really is what gives most American’s civil rights.
Napoleon
@Jay in Oregon:
A stopped clock is right twice a day, blind squrruel finds a nut, chimps at a typewriter, etc. But somehow a nut like Paul is to be listened to on certain subjects.
keestadoll
Just curious, but what would it really be like in a Paul-run/STATES RIGHTS–FUCK YEAH country? Would we have states that were all skittles and unicorns and others that would be bourbon and barbed wire? All for mandated equal opportunity here, all for fuck you and your victim mentality there? What?
Tom W
My post on Ron Paul’s hatred of liberalism:
http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/2011/12/ron-paul.html
lol
Glenn Greenwald would rather a million black kids die in poverty than go another day without being able to legally light up a joint.
wilfred
Always the selective hearing.
Opposing another preemptive war is also a policy position, no? Opposing mindless administration support of Israel is also a policy position.
You’d have more credibility if you talked about those things once in a while.
Jinchi
I realize that all these posts are pushback against the sense that Ron Paul is getting support from liberal voters, but aren’t we talking about the Republican nomination here?
Ron Paul is getting support from anti-war, anti-torture, civil libertarians, because he’s the only messenger in the campaign at the moment. Republicans consider him crazy because he won’t commit to bombing Iran, not because he believes in black helicopters or the NAFTA superhighway.
None of his Republican rivals have attacked him for the racism in his newsletters, and certainly not for his ideas about states rights or taxes, or his desire to abolish the EPA, and the Department of Energy. I don’t remember him being questioned about those ideas during the debates, either.
All those ideas are mainstream Republican ideas. Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, and Cain have deliberately and repeatedly made explicitly bigoted comments during the campaign. And they all want to drown the government in a bathtub.
Ron Paul may have a weak excuse claiming he wasn’t the author of his decades old newsletters, but the other candidates have no excuse at all.
MattF
@keestadoll: You need to ask what it would be like in-real-life, and not in a libertarian utopia. In-real-life, politics abhors a vacuum– when national authority moves out, the local thugs and creeps move in. This is why the thugs and creeps are rooting for Paul, they know their chance when they see it.
Kane
Ron Paul wont even acknowledge and accept responsibility for his own newsletters. Newsletters with his name on them. Newsletters filled with conspiracy theories and rasist and sexist rants. Newsletters that he profited from. Newsletters that reveal that he is not the thoughtful anti-war activist that his supporters believe him to be.
Paul is only an effective spokesman for himself. He has found a shtick that appeals to certain segment of voters, and his has been working it for his own profit for years.
What has he done while serving 12 years in Congress? What single contribution has he made while in Congress that Americans wake up every morning and give great thanks for?
Like his fellow GOP presidential rivals, Paul rails against the very government that has provided him and his family with such a comfortable lifestyle, and he condemns the very notion of shared sacrifice even though he has gained so much from the shared sacrifice of others.
Mino
@MattF: I very clearly remember hearing the down-to-earth federalist argument for the first time: The more power to local pols, the more corruption.
What a lot of us never envisioned was the wholesale creep of corruption into national politics, too. Oh, I know Teapot Dome, etc, but that was localized, if you will. Seeing just about every regulatory agency go bad, seeing the civil service reforms of the 19th century just swept aside by lawlessness that was never punished–well, it was eye-opening. I guess, given human ingenuity, our fore-fathers designed pretty well, but never thought sociopathy would overtake us.
wilfred
“All those ideas are mainstream Republican ideas.”
Not just republican, apparently.
benjoya
@Triassic Sands: exactly. thank you.
benjoya
@wilfred: Opposing another preemptive war is also a policy position, no? Opposing mindless administration support of Israel is also a policy position.
this is a cogent point, but leaves out the personalities which make this blog run. greenwald’s a pothead!
kay
“Ron Paul opposes the drug war” is substantively and hugely different than “Ron Paul opposes certain federal laws on marijuana”
But keep repeating the inaccurate assertion, and keep insisting that anyone who points to facts on Ron Paul is concerned with “personalities”.
benjoya
i’ll repeat wilfred’s point for the slow, k?
Opposing another preemptive war is also a policy position, no? Opposing mindless administration support of Israel is also a policy position.
kay
I’m not getting a lot of specifics out of my Ron Paul reading.
I got this, which is supposedly about the drug war, but is instead mostly about Mexicans, guns, scary Mexicans, Second Amendment.
I thought we were going to debate policy at this Ron Paul roundtable?
I’m seeing a lot of “personality” in Paul’s writing. Not a lot of “policy”.
kay
@benjoya:
You mentioned a piece of Paul’s (proposed) legislation. Would you mind linking that on Thomas, so I can read the law?
I’ve read Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act, which grants legal personhood from conception, and bars entry to the Supreme Court for anyone who opposes state law on abortion (so, someone like me, say) by pulling jurisdiction, but I haven’t read his work on drug laws.
If I can’t enter an appellate court (on Ron Paul’s directive) to challenge state law on abortion, I’d like to know what I’m getting in return.
kay
Sanctity of Life Act of 2009 – Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term “person” include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state . Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. Makes this Act and the amendments made by this Act applicable to any case pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of enactment.
That’s where Ron Paul bars entry to a federal court.
Liberty!
It’s an interesting concept, this states’ rights thing. I wonder what other state law he plans to protect from federal court review? Who knows!
benjoya
kay, did you watch the debates? everyone except paul was huffing and puffing about iran (bachmann said “they’ve pledged to nuke us!” — no follow up on that one, for some reason)
i know that the bipartisan consensus is that the USA PATRIOT act is necessary, and that supporting the war in iraq was maybe unfortunate but understandable. unlike you, apparently, i disagree with this consensus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAIqtwwUcBk&feature=player_embedded#!
again, i don’t defend all of paul’s positions. i’ve never voted for anyone who’s opposed to abortion rights or SS or medicare. but of all the horrible things bush did, iraq was among the worst; it was literally the difference between life and death for thousands of people (and i know how to use the word ‘literally’). biden and hillary (and sullivan and john cole, for that matter) supported it. paul didn’t. credit where due; that’s all vanden heuvel and greenwald and i are saying.
kay
@benjoya:
No, I’m not interested in Ron Paul versus Michelle Bachmann “smackdowns”.
It’s nice that you don’t “defend” Ron Paul barring my entry to a federal court to challenge state law. Thanks! I’m very grateful for your support. I can’t tell you how pleased I am that we’re now going to discuss whether women can enter a federal court to challenge state law.
That was missing from our national debate.
I’ll find the (alleged) Ron Paul drug bill myself. You mentioned it, so I thought I knew it.
You know, it’s nice in a way. I read parts of the congressional record on the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, and I wouldn’t have done that had Ron Paul not started this debate. Barry Goldwater’s paranoid ranting in that debate is interesting, and Goldwater’s argument on the Civil Right’s Act is identical to Ron Paul’s argument. The argument Paul made yesterday, I mean. In 2006, he made a different argument.
wilfred
@ Kay:
Well I’m certainly not interested in anything you have to say so stop addressing comments to me. Thanks.
“Kevin Drum believes that Paul’s extreme crackpot positions on some issues poison what Paul says that is reasonable”
He says a lot of reasonable things that nobody else can deal with
El Cid
I’ve never understood how so many people I’ve known so easily assume that power at the state level is so much better than the federal level because it’s smaller, more local, and by many real and fantasy measures more accessible to electoral democratic representation.
Cellular authoritarianism is bad, domineering and oppression and even government-backed oppressive and murderous violence is bad, whether it’s the fedrul gubmit’s jack-booted thugs or the mayor’s.
It’s like I want to ask — have you actually lived in any states? Heard anything about what they do, and have done? Are you the same people who bitch about the petty and in-group political dominance and corruption and general close-mindedness of your town or county or state government?
Sure, there are things which can be done at the federal level which are a larger scale of oppression than states would be likely to muster — then again, slavery was officially state-by-state but the Southern plantation aristocracies sure did manage to coordinate their actions as a regional sub-government and politically force pro-slavery legislation upon the national government.
I just don’t get the fascination by so many with “states”. They’re there, they’re historically interesting, part of the Constitution, etc., and at a certain point in history many of them had quite noble leadership and movements and works, including leading the fight for formal independence from Britain and the institution of a partially representative electoral democratic Republic.
But this ain’t the 1770s and 1780s.
I don’t get the spiritual identification with these petty jurisdictions as not just sometimes in effect but moral centers of Liberty and Justice.
sherparick
There is no contest in the Democratic Party this year and no vehicle other than Ron Paul to express dissent about 1) the continuing war in Afghanistan, Somalia, Yeman, Pakistan, etc. 2) the 10-year long (one could argue really the 100 year long) infringement on Civil Liberties for national security reasons 3) the war on drugs and 4) the crackdown on undocumented immigrants. Under those circumstances, especially in open primary states, casting a vote for Paul is understandable. People, often innocent people who are present as by-standers or as the result of mistakes, are being killed in our name. The decisions and policies that lead to this result should be challenged, and right now only Ron Paul, imperfect as he is, creates this debate. And he is not going to get the nomination of the Christianist, authoritarian, downright mean group of people who dominate the Republican Party.
(Regarding the particular issue, I think some of the killing, including the killing of American citzens hiding in a Foreign country in active service against us, is necessary. But I better be damn sure I can defend it in my own mind because this is terrible stuff we are doing and asking others to do in our name.)
benjoya
@kay: i’m not interested in “smackdowns” either. i’m interested in not going to war again. it would be good to have 2 candidates who felt that way. silly me, back on my thousands of dead hobbyhorse.
toujoursdan
Michael Lind’s article on Ron Paul puts his philosophy into a nutshell:
Race, liberty and Ron Paul: The moral idiocy of the libertarian standard bearer
The money quote:
kay
@benjoya:
You don’t have to add them, you know. They add no credibility for me.
I read your position. It’s yours.
catclub
@Schlemizel: It is of course, not possible for the liberal hippies to learn from said punching and adopt a brer rabbit approach to policy.
Organized satire is much more difficult than organized outrage. Somebody always blows the cover.
benjoya
@kay: here’s the drug bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1983:
benjoya
@kay: @kay: shove it.bye.
kay
@benjoya:
You should be specific, though, because you’re dismissing these things rather blithely.
Just like it’s inaccurate to say “Ron Paul opposes the drug war” without more, the accurate statement on Ron Paul and contraception/abortion is as follows:
“I’ve never supported anyone who proposes to bar entry to a federal court to challenge state law on contraception/abortion”.
Because that’s his bill. I was told he wanted to “leave it up to the states”. Somehow, the whole “personhood, pull jurisdiction” part got left out. That would be important to an actual woman, if she wanted to challenge Ron Paul’s directive on contraception/abortion.
Linda Featheringill
@kay:
That is scary. Part of the rule of law is the right to go to court and argue about it, hopefully instead of getting into physical fights about it [what “it” might be].
I really do believe that Paul’s paradise would open the way to rule by thugs and petty tyrants and maybe by roving bands of bad and violent people. Feudalism was developed to protect farmers and butchers and bakers and candlestick makers for rogues like this. I guess that Paul wants to go straight back to early feudalism.
Yuck.
ETA: I’m quite sure that if “they” separated reproductive issues from the federal courts they would also separate a lot of other issues from federal oversight.
kay
@benjoya:
“ending the drug war” now means “modifying federal law on marijuania”.
Got it. I need a Ron Paul dictionary, I think.
El Cid
@benjoya: Typically there are a number of HUGE viewpoints or arguments which lack any significant presence in our national political establishment, and not only should many of them be made, but tons of people often want them to be.
Therefore, it’s going to typically be the case that if any such arguments are made on a national scale with enough visibility to be detected, it will be from a politician or group of politicians outside — to some degree, perhaps only in very specific ways — that national establishment consensus.
Which makes it likely that such a person or set of persons could be unsavory in whole or in part.
Yet those viewpoints and arguments existed without that savory or unsavory representative, before he or she or they acted, and after.
A lot of people — myself included — wanted someone to respond to the Republican debate stage as they got into the typical — and dominant on our national scene — view that Iran’s about to kill us and we need to attack them in order to protect ourselves, and to give an opposing argument.
I’m sorry that it was Ron Paul who was the only one to do so; even sorrier that the so-called journalists hosting and commenting hadn’t done so on their own, immediately, but then, you’re not worthy of being a “journalist” or pundit if you’re not a loyalist to the ideological assumptions and goals of, maybe not every particular action, but of the projection of US force abroad.
In a sane political establishment, this wouldn’t happen. In our national political scene, at every level, there would be responsible figures dissenting from the crazy dominant view of Iran as a nation on the edge of killing us all.
A lot of people want something said, and it’s a damn shame that it often ends up only being someone like Ron Paul making that point, because then it makes the point itself seem tainted and allows a bunch of simply partisan reactionaries to reduce the entire argument down to electoral politics.
benjoya
@El Cid: well said.
kay
@Linda Featheringill:
Yeah, well, Linda, don’t bring your yucky girl problems into our dignified and learned COURTS OF LAW, okay?
Courts are for contract disputes. Beat it, peon.
cmorenc
@amk:
I believe Ron Paul IS retiring from his congressional seat after the current term. Though not because he sees his tenure in congress as wasted years of unaccomplished futility.
sherparick
@kay: I believe he would like to withdraw from Federal review state laws that touch on the establishment clause rules and freedom of religion and regulation of sexual conduct. If Iowa or Tennesse want to set themselves as Theocratic Republics and require the teaching of recent creationism and forbid the teaching of evolution, that would be fine with Congressman Paul.
That being said, in the context of the current Republican Primary, as a vehicle for protest votes, he appears to be the only game in town.
kay
@sherparick:
1st Amendment. Any other parts of that he doesn’t like?
Liberty!
dmbeaster
@sherparick:
Not to pick on this specifically, but its the recurrent Paulbot theme.
Using Paul as an alleged platform to discuss these matters is just simply stupid beyond belief. He is poison and an idiot about policy in general. And he provides no meaningful support for positions you hold dear.
Frankly, you undercut whatever alleged seriousness you have about these issues, for which you assert so much concern, by using Paul as your vehicle to advocate these ideas.
You dont get to parse policy disputes when you do so by advocating Paul as someone meriting support, or someone worth listening to. You instead get the whole racist nutball package. Thinking that championing Paul as to only certain ideas serves those ideas makes no sense – he comes with his 40 pieces of baggage.
This post was about Paul as a tarnished messenger, at best. It seems you agree, but dont think that matters. That demonstrates extreme naivete concerning policy, and how it is effectively promoted.
kay
@sherparick:
It’s funny, because I would have given him that he “agreed” with the bill of rights, and apparently I shouldn’t have.
Anyhoo, I do believe my Paul Studies are concluded now. I wish him luck in overturning the CRA or the VRA.
Over my dead body.
El Cid
@dmbeaster: The problem is that now it’s overwhelmingly likely that anyone trying to make what is a dissenting case regarding some policy or argument which has to some degree been voiced by Paul (or it wrongly sounds like he has, which happens) are going to be labeled as cheering or backing or identifying with Ron Paul, and not just by anti-Paul conservatives, but by the mainstream of Democratic liberals.
Because no matter what you say or do, Ron Paul is now “your vehicle” because he made points that were or were roughly similar to what you’re trying to say, end of story.
wilfred
Or the dead bodies of another couple of hundred thousand dead Muslims. But who’s counting?
On the drug war:
“In 1986 the federal prison population was 36,000. Today it’s 216,000. And in the 25 years since, more than half of federal prisoners are brought in on drug charges. The prison population is disproportionately black and Hispanic. The federal government does about 25,000 cases a year and only one out of four of those defendants is white. Also, it’s widely believed that crack cases are mostly minorities, while the powder cocaine cases are mostly white, but that’s a myth. It’s true that only one in 10 crack cases are white, but the overwhelming majority of powder cocaine defendants are still black or Hispanic.”
Don’t mess with a winning strategy. All those locked up people of color will feel relieved that the War on Drugs goes on.
burnspbesq
@wilfred:
No, they’re not being discussed in any meaningful way, because the sum total of Paul’s policy positions make him unfit to be taken seriously.
Ron Paul is a clown. Period, full stop. He’s not any less of a clown because his positions on a handful of issues are not indefensible.
burnspbesq
@benjoya:
And I’m saying you don’t get to cherry-pick. If you support Ron Paul, you are supporting the entire despicable package.
Villago Delenda Est
@wilfred:
OK, that’s it.
Go DIAF.
You’re obviously a Paultard moron.
Mino
@wilfred: If there is a profit motive, do we wonder that more people are incarcerated? And if they are minorities, there is less outrage.
And we are of the fringe of profitizing drone strikes. Does anyone think that might not be a good idea?
Kay
@benjoya:
Hey benjoya? Two can play at the sanctimonious moral superiority game, and it’s laughably easy with Ron Paul:
“Unlike you, I care about civil rights”.
That’s all you’re saying. You don’t give a rat’s ass about what Paul says or promotes other than on one issue.
It’s fine, but call it what it is, and don’t feign moral superiority.
gene108
I think Rep. Paul has a valid point, the 14th amendment effectively destroyed states rights.
Back in the good old days, states could keep godless Catholics, Jews and other undesirables from holding elected office.
I just don’t get why more states rights advocates don’t realize what stumbling block the 14th amendment is to their cause.
Lojasmo
@wilfred:
Three reasonable (though misguided in their glibertarian basis) things is not “a lot” of reasonable things.
And I say this as a libertarian.