NOTE: YOUR ARE BROWSING THE ARCHIVES OF NEURAL GOURMET.
You will only find content here prior to May 1, 2008. For newer content, please see our main site.

Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul: An Axis of Woo?

Comment viewing options

Flat list - collapsedFlat list - expandedThreaded list - collapsedThreaded list - expanded

Date - newest firstDate - oldest first

10 comments per page30 comments per page50 comments per page70 comments per page90 comments per page150 comments per page200 comments per page250 comments per page300 comments per page

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

---

Montag (not verified) | 2007-11-29 02:11 |  Chemtrails

I supported Kucinich last time around for the nomination, and have been leaning that way this time as well. However the new-age stuff puts me off somewhat. What has he said about chemtrails? I haven't read/heard about this.

---

tng | 2007-11-29 08:10 |  I've been trying to reserve judgement on Kucinich

I want to like him, I really do. I even tried to set aside my uncomfortableness with his new age woo but this takes the cake. It suggests to me that Kucinich is an utter moron. Which would be fine because there's no way he's going to make it through the primaries. However I can't help noticing the number of supporters of a Kucinich/Paul ticket I've been seeing the past few days and that so many of my fellow lefties could so ardently support a Stormfront Lite candidacy is truly breathtaking.

---

Psychobabbler | 2007-12-08 14:53 |  Interesting; I fully agree with you

The support for Paul by some 'progressives' is quite worrying. Here are some excerpts from posts I made about him on another board: 'There's not much one can say on that subject [betrayal by so-called left/liberal politicians] to someone who lived under Tony Blair for ten fucking years. I've voted third-party in our last three elections. 'Left' vs 'Right' for me doesn't mean 'parties'. I could prefer a liberal Tory/Republican to a RW Labourite/ Dem. That's not the point. The point is that for me trampling on the poor and ill is an absolute deal-breaker. So are xenophobia and racism. So is extreme social conservativism.... Paul is not a liberal Republican; he is an evil monster of right-wing philosophy who happens to be right on one issue, for the wrong reasons. I'm not denying that he IS right on that issue, or that it's an important one. However, if we start getting involved with people like him, we are likely to end up having to make compromises with extremely ugly policies. There have to be limits on whom we pick as allies. Would you make deals with Pat Buchanan or LePen or the British Nationalist Party just because they oppose the war? .... I think one can be right vs left on a number of different issues. Four important ones are: war/defence; economic/welfare; civil liberties; and social/ civil rights. So here are where I'd rate Bush, Blair and Paul: Bush: War/defence: Extreme right Economic/welfare: Right Civil liberties: Right Social/civil rights: Right Blair: War/defence: Extreme right Economic/welfare: Centre-right by British standards (i.e. to the left of Thatcher, but to the right of moderate Tories of the past like Macmillan) Civil liberties: Right Social/civil rights: Centre-left. Paul: War/defence: Left on Iraq war, but right on other aspects of world policies Economic/welfare: Extreme right (could go no further right) Civil liberties: Left(?) Social/civil rights: Extreme right. So Blair overall is to the left of either Paul or Bush, but to the right of what I'd find acceptable. Paul and Bush are both thoroughly right-wing. Bush is right-wing on more issues; Paul is more extreme on the issues where he is right-wing. I wouldn't give the time of day to either; they're both disgusting. If Bush is more dangerous than Paul, it's simply because he has more power. I am concerned about 'left/right' here not in a party sense, but in the sense that Paul and other of his ilk may appeal to disaffected progressives in a way that could get them to join a far-right movement without initially realizing that it *is* far-right. Some of the original fascist organizations/ parties appealed to some left-wingers and lots of apolitical disaffected people at first, and this contributed to their success. And communism was and is of course 'left-wing' in its original impetus, but most Communist states ended up, according to the above classification: "War/defense: Right; Economic/welfare: Left; Civil liberties: Extreme right; Social/civil rights: Right". I don't think that the particular form of right-wing movement that Paul represents is likely to lead to old-style fascism or other totalitarianism, but it could readily lead to a xenophobic scapegoating of outsiders and to a far-RW economic libertarianism that murders the poor or sick just as surely, if a bit more slowly, as an act of direct violence. It's important that progressives avoid getting involved, directly or indirectly, in such a movement. That's my real concern.'

---

Psychobabbler | 2007-12-08 15:00 |  But let Paul describe himself!

Some quotations from his own website: 'A Republic, If You Can Keep It Dr. Ron PaulU.S. Representative from Texas Address to the U.S. House of Representativesdelivered on the Floor of the House January 31 - February 2, 2000 ....The modern-day welfare state has steadily grown since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The federal government is now involved in providing health care, houses, unemployment benefits, education, food stamps to millions, plus all kinds of subsidies to every conceivable special-interest group. Welfare is now part of our culture, costing hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It is now thought to be a "right," something one is "entitled" to. Calling it an "entitlement" makes it sound proper and respectable and not based on theft. Anyone who has a need, desire, or demand and can get the politicians' attention will get what he wants, even though it may be at the expense of someone else. Today it is considered morally right and politically correct to promote the welfare state. Any suggestion otherwise is considered political suicide. . ....Controlled curricula have downplayed the importance of our constitutional heritage while indoctrinating our children, even in kindergarten, with environmental mythology, internationalism, and sexual liberation. Neighborhood schools in the early part of the 20th Century did not experience this kind of propaganda. ....It is now accepted that people who need (medical) care are entitled to it as a right. This is a serious error in judgment. [N.B. Note at this point that Ron Paul is a *doctor*, which makes this remark particularly disgusting.] ...Probably the most significant change in attitude that occurred in the 20th Century was that with respect to life itself. Although abortion has been performed for hundreds if not thousands of years, it was rarely considered an acceptable and routine medical procedure without moral consequence. Since 1973 abortion in America has become routine and justified by a contorted understanding of the right to privacy. The difference between American's rejection of abortions at the beginning of the century, compared to today's casual acceptance, is like night and day. Although a vocal number of Americans express their disgust with abortion on demand, our legislative bodies and the courts claim that the procedure is a constitutionally protected right, disregarding all scientific evidence and legal precedents that recognize the unborn as a legal living entity deserving protection of the law. Ironically the greatest proponents of abortion are the same ones who advocate imprisonment for anyone who disturbs the natural habitat of a toad. ....The welfare system has mocked the concept of marriage in the name of political correctness, economic egalitarianism, and hetero-phobia. ....Any academic discussion questioning the wisdom of our policies surrounding World War II is met with shrill accusations of anti-Semitism and Nazi lover. No one is even permitted without derision by the media, the university intellectuals, and the politicians to ask why the United States allied itself with the murdering Soviets and then turned over Eastern Europe to them...' So let's see. Paul is totally against any form of welfare state, even in its current American sense (very limited compared with most other developed countries); considers benefits for poor people to be 'theft'; does not think that people are entitled to medical care; and despite all his libertarian justifications for all the above, thinks that the government is entitled to ban abortions and 'defend marriage'. He is opposed to gay rights ('heterophobia') and considers concern about the environment to be based on 'mythology'. Moreover, he is so isolationist or anti-Soviet or both, that he would apparently rather have had Hitler take over Europe than have an alliance between America and the Soviet Union during the war. He's a scary person, all right. I am glad he has no chance of winning the nomination; but I think that what is scary to some of us is not just him as an individual, but that some supposedly liberal anti-war people seem to be prepared to ally themselves with RW extremists, if they happen to be against the war. If this leads to liberals' acceptance of a combination of far-RW economic 'libertarianism', social conservativism, and xenophobia, this could have serious impact for future politics. Some of the danger is, I think, not so much from Paul himself, as from the groups and websites that support him.