You know it’s bad when Meteor Blades has to go to another blog and do damage control.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com…

The Contentious Debate on Ron Paul Among Progressives

By: Kevin Gosztola, Firedog Lake

Monday January 9, 2012 5:01 pm

There’s something deeply bothersome about the way which Raw Story executive editor Megan Carpentier misquoted Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald in a post published at The Guardian on January 8 that was titled, “Ron Paul’s useful idiots on the left.” What she did was no different than what someone with a news organization like Fox News might do to form the basis for a news story designed to further transform someone into a person that deserves to be hated and ignored.

Link added, but op.cite

Now, you might be saying, what does it matter? Why recount this argument? Why not let it remain another clash between two progressives worth forgetting? And, because it involves GOP candidate Ron Paul, this is a waste of time. Paul is anti-reproductive rights, a gay-demonizer, a candidate opposed to public education and Social Security, a favorite congressman of the John Birch Society and someone with links to the Constitution Party, which promotes Christian Reconstructionism. That is all fair. But, that lets progressives condemning whom they call “useful idiots” off the hook.



Why is it so difficult for progressives to concede the basic point that Ron Paul’s presence in the race, the fact that he is polling second in many states and has been a part of primetime debates, means many Americans are exposed to talk about war, civil liberties (excluding reproductive rights and marriage equality) and national security and this raises their awareness and understanding of these issues?

Why does this point immediately become construed as anything more than this basic point, one where there should be no argument? Here’s why.

Progressives refuse to concede that Obama is that poor on these issues or that Paul is in fact genuinely antiwar or for individual liberty. Somehow, as Ben Adler of The Nation argues, his views against reproductive rights make the views he expresses on all other civil liberties issues insignificant.



(T)he back-and-forth on Paul exposes how presidential elections are a complete sideshow for the 1% or the powerful lobbies in Washington. The election industrial-complex limits voices and choices. It renders candidates, like Buddy Roemer or Gary Johnson, “unpeople” the moment it looks like they no longer have momentum, the instant they look like they have no chance of winning. They do this immediately to people constantly spouting off views that seemingly threaten the establishment. They will even do it to someone like Paul who has actually gone up in the polls in New Hampshire (see this report from CBS’ “The Early Show”).

Did I mention Naked Capitalism is now a Bircher site?

What else would you expect from people who claim all criticism of Barack Obama’s policy failures are racism.

C’thulhu fhtagn.

17 comments

Skip to comment form

    • on 01/10/2012 at 13:04
      Author
    • on 01/10/2012 at 14:58

    Someone has brought it right to his doorstep.

    It’s fascinating that the mere mention of Ron Paul gets the person labeled a racist and Paul support. There was featured writer at one site that called for a “hunt” to cleanse the site of Paul supporters. And this an adult with an education and higher degree that teaches at reputable institution.

    No prominent politician or media personality on the so-called left is discussing the issues of American imperialism, war & peace, and civil liberties. Any attempt is met with strawman and ad hominum attacks to distract from the fact that President Obama is as bad, if not worse, than his predecessor. It is a sad statement when any intellectual conversation of these issues are shut down false accusations of support for the elections of an unacceptable septuagenarian racist.

    I thought that this comment by user Jill in Stoller’s piece was a particularly good analysis of why this is happening at this time:

    [..] I do not think Obama supporters have any coherent ethical base, liberal or otherwise, to their thinking. You can’t change from decrying an imperial president to supporting one in 3 years if you have an underlying ethical base. So I’ve been trying to think about what is going on here. I’ve come to two conclusions.

    Support for Obama is about power and support for Obama is about celebrity culture. These are interrelated. Our society defines power as power over others. Because only a limited number of people can have this type of power it leaves many of us feeling powerless.

    Power is attributed to celebrities and people in authority of one kind or another. Allying with a “powerful” celebrity or authority grants one vicarious “power”. This lust for “power” seems very strong in Obama supporters. It gives a sense of belonging and worth which I believe stands in the way of questioning either what he is doing or what they are doing in supporting him.

    This is one reason OWS scares the shit out of authorities. OWS shows an entirely different way of being powerful in the world. It isn’t based on allying with celebrities or designated “authorities”. This way of being powerful is the antidote to being an authoritarian person. It is also a way to resist propaganda.

    • on 01/10/2012 at 17:09

    …so I didn’t have to “go to another blog.” Moreover, this was not “damage control,” but rather correcting the implication that citizen k/rootless_e is representative of Daily Kos, or, based on the comments that he actually represents the site. As I am sure you know, citizen k/rootless_e first posted his piece at the People’s View, a site known for its attacks on Daily Kos for not being supportive enough of Obama. Anybody who reads me knows that I have been sharply critical of much of what citizen k/rootless_e has had to say over the years, so it should be no surprise that I would make the comment that I did correcting the implication.

    • on 01/11/2012 at 00:35

    to write a diary about witch hunting with HRs for people who “mention” Ron Paul, Kos has jumped the shark.  I’m referring to Denise, I can’t remember her last name.

    Kos is obviously entitled to make the rules for his own site, but in so doing is outrageously hypocritical when he demands that no third-party discussion is allowed.  Markos was the one championing that the status quo needed to be challenged.  And now the front page is all the republican clown show all the time.

    If Santorum says boo, I couldn’t care less, yet it’s a front page story.  Like there is no member there who knows Santorum is one of the biggest assholes.

    PIPA is coming up for a vote and it’s just crickets from the DK FPers.  As well as NDAA.  Even the open threads, with the exception of Scott, are ALL about republicans.

    And this recent subscription drive, which Kos made about 50K on, was embarrassing.   Meteor Blades, whom I admired, resorted to front paging diaries from assholes… only because the diary was about the subscription drive.

    I read a lot of comments at NC, and the DK site got slammed, and rightfully so.

    I think the site name should be changed to accurately reflect the content that the owner is seeking:  DailyKOS-OFA or DailyKos-DNC or DailyKos-ThirdWay.  

Comments have been disabled.