Glenn Greenwald's Ron Paul Problem--And Ours

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 11:43

In his second paragraph, Glenn wrote:

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.

Thus, when I commented:
:

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.

The Congressional MoveOn Madness: Shaking Off The Demons

by: Paul Rosenberg

Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 11:10

Otherwise, quite frankly, the French Revolution option starts to look mighty good.  And we all know how badly that turned out. Just because we are ruled by an imbecilic, out-of-touch, gang of narcissistic twits does not mean we should kill them all.  Actions have consequences.  They may not know it, but damn sure better.  And so it behooves us to find a place of sanity from which to observe, analyze, and start to correct this sea of madness that threatens to engulf us.

And make no mistake, it is a sea of madness.  One that we have all been swimming in from at least 1995, when the GOP took over Congress.  If we think it started with 9/11, we are deluding ourselves, and one consequence of that delusion is that we expect Beltway Democrats to recover their sanity mush faster than they are actually capable of.  Of course, it's eminently reasonable to expect to be governed by people who are sane.  But we have not been a reasonable nation for a very long time now.