Rogueish

thenoobyorker:

Two very similar essays on two leftish websites,

• 12/29: Why Ron Paul Challenges Liberals by Matt Stoller [Naked Capitalism]
• 12/31: Progressives and the Ron Paul Fallacies by Glenn Greenwald [Salon]

The problem with both of these articles is that they take libertarianism’s fantasy politics at face value. Ron Paul says he is against US military intervention, but doesn’t show any understanding of how the global role of the US is tied up with the country’s economic status. Because of this, it’s not at all obvious what the foreign policy of a Paul presidency would actually look like, and to figure that out you need to look at his ideology as a whole, rather than just cherry-picking a couple of policies which you happen to agree with. Stoller and Greenwald’s arguments are similar to taking Obama’s campaign rhetoric about leaving Iraq in 2008 to mean that he was an “anti-war” candidate, without taking into account the fact that Obama’s liberalism means that the “anti-war” position on Iraq had tbo be balanced with a much more belicose position on Afghanistan and the war on terror more generally. Greenwald was rightly dismissive of “anti-war” Obama voters, and he should apply the same skepticism to Ron Paul.