In my previous post, "Glenn Greenwald's Ron Paul Problem--And Ours", I argued that Glenn-following some very important lines of critical inquiry over the past few years-was predisposed not to reocgnize the troubling aspects of Ron Paul's candidacy that Dave Neiwart and Sara Robinson of Orcinus were particularly attuned to and familiar with. Glenn is focused on the rhetorical directness and simplicity of Paul's anti-Iraq War and anti-Imperialist/Imperial Presidency self-presentation. Neiwart and Robinson are focused on Paul's whole package, and the role he plays in the larger world of rightwing extremist influence on American politics.
In 2003, Neiwart-a professional journalist prior to taking up blogging-wrote a Koufax-winning series, Rush, Newspeak and Fascism. Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An exegesis [PDF] [Illustrated HTML], which dealt at length with the role of Limbaugh as a righwing demogagic propagandist, and in particular with his role as a transmitter of extremist views into the conservative mainstream. It is Neiwart's familiarity with this entire world-which he had previously covered from the ground up-that informs his views of Ron Paul as well.
Neiwert notes that Limbaugh's closest parallel is probably Father Coughlin, a virulently anti-Semetic radio personality of the 1920s and 30s, however:
Limbaugh, in contrast, has always carefully eschewed conspiracy theories and anti-Semitism. Through most of the first decade of his radio career, his primary shtick has been to rail against the government and its supposed takeover of our daily lives. This anti-government propaganda has served one main purpose: To drive a wedge between middle- and lower-class workers and the one entity that has the capability to protect them from the ravages of wealthy class warriors and swarms of corporate wolves.
Although quite different in many ways, there is a clear parallel between Limbaugh and Paul-both serve to repackage and mainstream extremist views that are highly damaging to the fate of workers whom they appeal to on cultural grounds. If anything, Paul has more openly embraced classic conspiricism than Limbaugh has.
So far, none of this has impressed (or even visibly registered on) Glenn. My purpose here is not to dig deeper into the material Dave has already uncovered. Rather, it is to sketch out a framework for how we ought to understand Paul's politics, and why the issues Dave and Sara raise are not secondary concerns which can simply be ignored because of the primacy of the Iraq War and Bush Administration lawlessness. The framework for doing this was also introduced in the previous diay-it is Benjamin Barber's analysis of ethno-relgious tribalism and corporate globalization in his book, Jihad vs. McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism Are Reshaping the World. Barber argues that both forces, although ostensibly oppossed to one another, actually work synergistically to undermine democratic republicanism, the only truly viable way for people to democratically and collectively control the larger outlines of our collective destiny. Barber's analysis helps clarify why Paul's opposition to Bushism is, in the long run, more injurious to the progressive cause than it is helpful. That is the argument developed on the flip.
Regardless of how much attention the media pays, the explosion of support for the Paul campaign yesterday is much more than a one-time event. The Paul campaign is now a bona fide phenomenon of real significance, and it is difficult to see this as anything other than a very positive development.
It is, in fact, quite easy to see the Paul campaign as quite negative in several respects. For example: (1) It promotes rightwing conspiracy theories. (2) It provides organizing opportunities for racist and nativist hate groups. (3) It promotes emotionally satisfying, but simplistic political analyses that short-circuit development of more mature critical analyses. (4) It's a form of tribalism that, per Jihad vs. McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism Are Reshaping the World, works synergistically with the globalization it ostensibly opposses to undermine democratic republicanism, which is the one thing that can actually save us. Taking just those four aspects into account, the end result is that Paul's candidacy must be judged a mixed bag, at best. So far, however, Glenn has dug in his heels, refusing to address more than the surface of the objections raised about Paul. Although mistaken, in my view, Glenn's approach to Paul deserves serious reflection. It has a consistency with his overall work, which is grounded in his earlier career as a constitutional lawyer. He is thinking in terms of procedural fairness, and the attacks on Paul seem both unjust and fallacious-primarily in the way of guilt-by association. This individidualist/case-oriented approach differs significantly from the group/social historical approach that informs David Neiwart and Sara Robinson's work at Orcinus, which I referenced.
Not only is Ron Paul a rightwing nut, as others have noted (the most conservative member of the House, by the DW-Nominate scale, compared to Tancredo who fell short by 7, 13 and 16 slots in the 108th, 109th and 110th Congresses, respectively), he's a longtime magnet for the white supremacist fringe, and the rest of the hard right.
Glenn responded:
Paul Rosenberg:
I'm really uncomfortable with judging someone by the support they attract. When The NY Sun wanted to discredit Walt/Measheimer, they did it by asking David Duke if he agreed with their book, and when he said that he did, they published a big article about it, implying that Duke's agreement must mean the argument is racist.
And, of course, a lot of the money that has been donated to Clinton and Obama -- A LOT -- is from the largest corporations that many of their supporters blame for most of the nation's ills. Should Clinton or Obama be responsible for the actions of their corporate donors?
Paul is out there arguing against worldwide organizations as well as clearly oppposing our unbending support for Israel. That is going to attract some anti-semites and other assorted crazies and haters, but that is most assuredly not the same as saying that Paul himself is anti-semitic or hateful.
Connecting a candidate to the views of some of his supporters without more smacks a little of guilt by association (not say you're doing that), and I doubt any candidate is really immune to that sort of thing.
The only problem is that I wrote a good deal more than that single paragraph. I referenced some of the long-running commentary on Paul at Orcinus, among other things, and although Glenn has responded ("Ron Paul distortions and smears") to a more recent post by David at Orrinus ("Ron Paul's record in Congress"), he did so in an uncharacteristically superficial way, while ignoring another post altogether ("Ron Paul and his followers"), which went much more directly into the material that Greenwald was not examining, which details Paul's history of intentionally courting "anti-semites and other assorted crazies and haters."
There are, as I see it, at least two major factors at work here. One is a difference in fundamental operating orientation, the other is political orientation. On the flip, I begin the process of critiquing Glenn's analysis of Paujl, and what it leaves out, by explaining what I mean about these two factors.
STATE BLOGS
