Glenn Greenwald's take on Ron Paul

the few outlets that deigned to cover ron paul's extraordinary feat of fund-raising yesterday were quick to damn with faint praise, as does this article in the chicago tribune's blog, the swamp, taken from the baltimore sun...

Ron Paul, the libertarian/Republican/anti-Iraq-war candidate for president, has declared “a day for the record books.’’

His claim – that the congressman from Texas has raised over $3 million in one day of online fundraising, a record – might be outdone in the record books only by Paul’s election as president.

That so many people have invested so much in someone who stands such little apparent chance of winning his party’s presidential nomination, let alone the White House, speaks volumes about alienation in modern American politics.

there's a lot about ron paul's positions i don't agree with, but, as greenwald points out, paul's stand on issues is thoughtful, coherent, well-articulated, and totally in keeping with the united states constitution, that much-abused document that no longer seems to be the governing basis of our country...

There is never a doubt that Paul actually believes what he is saying, nor is there any doubt that what he believes is the by-product of critical and rational thought grounded in genuine political passion.

Perhaps most importantly, Paul is the only serious candidate aggressively challenging America's addiction to ruling the world through superior military force and acting as an empire -- not by contesting specific policies (such as the Iraq War) but by calling into question the unexamined root premises of these policies, the ideology that is defining our role in the world. By itself, the ability of Paul's campaign to compel a desperately needed debate over the devastation which America's imperial rule wreaks on every level -- economic, moral, security, liberty -- makes his success worth applauding.

[...]

Paul's opposition to having the Federal Government involved in things such as education and health care is constitutional in nature. His argument is that the Constitution only permits the Federal Government to exercise explicitly enumerated powers in Articles I and II and, pursuant to the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Thus, his argument, at least on this level, has nothing to do with whether there would be good or bad results from having the Federal Government exercise powers in these areas. His argument is that the Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to do so, regardless of whether it's desirable. If one wants the Federal Government to exercise specific powers which the Constitution prohibits, then the solution is to amend the Constitution, not to violate it because of the good results it produces.

glenn also posts this youtube video, albeit with a bit of a critic's review...

This is a very engaging and revealing video. Personally, I could definitely do without the sappy and cliched Simon & Garfunkel background music and all the prophet talk at the end, but other than that, this expresses rather vividly the real passion that Ron Paul's campaign is understandably igniting.

and, as to be expected, glenn got taken to the cleaners in the comments by readers who interpreted his outstandingly objective view of paul's candidacy as an endorsement...

I honestly don't understand why it's even necessary to point this out, but as I saw when I lauded Chris Dodd's recent actions, it absolutely is. Saying something positive about a specific candidate does not mean that one: (a) is voting for that candidate; (b) is encouraging others to support that candidate; (c) believes the candidate espouses every correct view on every issue, or (d) sees the candidate as flawless and god-like and the embodiment of political salvation.

< sigh >

Submit To Propeller
Tweet