Ron Paul and the Anti-War Left
Ron Paul is not your friend. He is not your ally. He is not fighting for you. While many so-called Progressives are busy hopping on the Ron Paul bandwagon, it is all too obvious that they have either forgotten or are oblivious to the nature of Libertarianism, so-called Anarcho-Capitalism.
Libertarianism: The freedom of slavery
Ron Paul is not your friend. He is not your ally. He is not fighting for you. While many so-called Progressives are busy hopping on the Ron Paul bandwagon, it is all too obvious that they have either forgotten or are oblivious to the nature of Libertarianism, so-called Anarcho-Capitalism.
Much like the various strains of anarchism, Ron Paul’s libertarianism seeks to abolish the oppressive and coercive force which is government (strangely enough Paul aims to accomplish this abolition of government by assuming the throne and taking control of the state). Where Libertarianism and Anarchism split is in addressing the issues of hierarchy and force. While anarchists abhor all oppression as well as the oppressor’s use of violence, libertarians are only concerned with the tyranny and violence of the state. Wherein anarchists would move to assure that no one in any society exerts dominance over a weak majority (as the case would likely be) or minority, libertarians believe that those with access to money, means to production, weapons, and mercenaries, should be allowed to freely exploit the vast masses of humanity.
Today in the United States, Ron Paul seeks to abolish what little services the state still provides for its poor, hungry, and dispossessed. These services were paid for in blood by reformist activists who aimed to alleviate the stress and misery of poverty for the American working class. While as anarchists we must work towards more than simple reforms, we cannot deny the reality that gains such as an eight-hour workday, minimum wage or welfare help those who cannot endure the nature of our survival-of-the-fittest capitalist state. Social and welfare services which have been forced upon the elite and conceded to the working class during the New Deal and the Great Society, amongst other epochs cannot be written off as unimportant.
After nearly thirty years of the tag team of Reagan Conservatism and Clinton Neo-Liberalism, where we have seen many services which should be considered essential eliminated by the administrations of Reagan, Clinton, and Bush I and II. While we cannot realistically think that an administration run by Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would do anything to change this tide, it should be clear to all that Ron Paul is, with regards to domestic policies, our most dangerous opponent. This brings us to the sole reason that so many self-proclaimed progressives support Ron Paul, his foreign policy.
Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate with a solid opposition to the War in Iraq. Democratic candidate Dennis Kucinich has similarly taken a strong stance against Iraq, and it is likely that many who would normally have supported Kucinich has crossed over to Paul in hopes that his position as a Republican offers a real chance for a viable and broad-anti war coalition candidate. Let me make this as clear as possible, your enemy’s enemy is not your friend. Simply because Ron Paul pays lip service to the opposition to the Iraq War, he does not represent the vast majority of the anti-war movement (it should be noted that Kucinich has had a presence at many anti-war protests throughout the course of the Iraq War).
Perhaps Ron Paul does not fully appreciate the connections between the Iraq War and the corporations and industries which would come to dominate life in a Libertarian America. If only he were so naïve. Paul must realize that the same people who would take control of our nation, were the Libertarians to realize their dream, are those who placed Iraq squarely in their sights and who today are planning a raid for riches in Iran.
Or perhaps Paul is thinking ahead to better days, when transnational companies can stop their work in the third world and the global south, and spend more time at home exploiting workers in U.S. Once Ron Paul could abolish silly little laws such as those protecting workers rights to unionize, guaranteeing safe workplaces, and establishing a minimum wage and the forty hour workweek, then Paul’s cohorts in big business would be free to unleash a reign of tyrannical rule on the (formerly) United States of America, that is to say, without the existence of a federal government offering minimal protection to its citizens.
I don’t know about you, but this author is not swayed by the Ron Paul noise machine.
December 13, 2007