Do you actually want to make the United States of America a freer place through the electoral and legislative processes, or do you just want to overthrow the government tomorrow and not let anybody who disagrees with you have any role in government? If you actually want to work within the framework of the Constitution, you have to put up with a lot of sausagemaking, unfortunately, and sometimes the sausage is really really nasty. If you don’t want politicians to work within the constitution, fine — but then you have to admit that you don’t think they deserve to be in office because they disagree with you and your friends, rather than because they support policy that is unconstitutional.
As far as Ron Paul, I don’t know for an absolute fact that he himself is racist in his own mind, only that he published a newsletter which used his name and purported to be from him and about his views which called for race war and gave advice for killing black people. And I sort of presume that the content of that newsletter which he published came up from time to time, even if he didn’t actually write its contents himself, given that he was a fairly high-profile gadfly and the newsletter was published for him and under his name. OK, yes, despite what a former aide said about him, come to think of it, sure sounds like he is racist, or at the very least willing to culitivate explicitly racist support for political advantage. And I do feel confident that he’s homophobic. (See that previous link. And of course, since that link is from a former Paul staffer, I hope it goes without saying that I don’t agree with all or most of the points of view in it.)
So, Ron Paul is evil. Now, I support the right of people to hate whom they please in their private lives. [Edit: The legal right. I don’t think they should be immune to criticism. Ron Paul thinks if your boss threatens to fire because you won’t agree to have sex with him you should quit your job and not rely on the government to intervene. I think if your boss threatens to fire you because you’re a racist scumball you should quit your job and not rely on the government to intervene.] But if somebody is so morally messed up as to be racist (or at least happy having vile, violent racist stuff printed under his own name and presented as representing his views) and homophobic, doesn’t that make you wonder the slightest little bit about his moral compass? So, yes, I’d pick Barack Obama over Ron Paul. I’d also pick Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney over Ron Paul. And I think despite Nixon’s private racism and public “Southern strategy” and power-hungriness and paranoia, I’d probably take Richard Nixon over Ron Paul.
* It’s slightly more complicated than this; I believe the consensus of Constitutional scholars is that the US could still constitutionally feed and house soldiers, and maybe even pay to bring them back from the battlefield, even without authorized funding, but my sense is that the constitutional issues are not clear. And I believe that the consensus of Constitutional scholars is that the US could not actually fight, or make payments on its procurement contracts. Many people, of course, think that would be a good thing, but in any case it’s a Very Big Deal with unpredictable constitutional consequences. Would you like to see it go to the Supreme Court and end up with a precedent that the President can tell the military to do anything even if it’s not funded by Congress?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Do you actually want to make the United States of America a freer place through the electoral and legislative processes, or do you just want to overthrow the government tomorrow and not let anybody who disagrees with you have any role in government? If you actually want to work within the framework of the Constitution, you have to put up with a lot of sausagemaking, unfortunately, and sometimes the sausage is really really nasty. If you don’t want politicians to work within the constitution, fine — but then you have to admit that you don’t think they deserve to be in office because they disagree with you and your friends, rather than because they support policy that is unconstitutional.
As far as Ron Paul, I don’t know for an absolute fact that he himself is racist in his own mind, only that he published a newsletter which used his name and purported to be from him and about his views which called for race war and gave advice for killing black people. And I sort of presume that the content of that newsletter which he published came up from time to time, even if he didn’t actually write its contents himself, given that he was a fairly high-profile gadfly and the newsletter was published for him and under his name. OK, yes, despite what a former aide said about him, come to think of it, sure sounds like he is racist, or at the very least willing to culitivate explicitly racist support for political advantage. And I do feel confident that he’s homophobic. (See that previous link. And of course, since that link is from a former Paul staffer, I hope it goes without saying that I don’t agree with all or most of the points of view in it.)
So, Ron Paul is evil. Now, I support the right of people to hate whom they please in their private lives. [Edit: The legal right. I don’t think they should be immune to criticism. Ron Paul thinks if your boss threatens to fire because you won’t agree to have sex with him you should quit your job and not rely on the government to intervene. I think if your boss threatens to fire you because you’re a racist scumball you should quit your job and not rely on the government to intervene.] But if somebody is so morally messed up as to be racist (or at least happy having vile, violent racist stuff printed under his own name and presented as representing his views) and homophobic, doesn’t that make you wonder the slightest little bit about his moral compass? So, yes, I’d pick Barack Obama over Ron Paul. I’d also pick Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney over Ron Paul. And I think despite Nixon’s private racism and public “Southern strategy” and power-hungriness and paranoia, I’d probably take Richard Nixon over Ron Paul.
* It’s slightly more complicated than this; I believe the consensus of Constitutional scholars is that the US could still constitutionally feed and house soldiers, and maybe even pay to bring them back from the battlefield, even without authorized funding, but my sense is that the constitutional issues are not clear. And I believe that the consensus of Constitutional scholars is that the US could not actually fight, or make payments on its procurement contracts. Many people, of course, think that would be a good thing, but in any case it’s a Very Big Deal with unpredictable constitutional consequences. Would you like to see it go to the Supreme Court and end up with a precedent that the President can tell the military to do anything even if it’s not funded by Congress?