Michael Neil
University of Denver Graduate School of International Studies
Sorry for not being more evident, all, but I’ve got a few things on the brain…like my dissertation…that have prevented me from writing much. Nonetheless, this one just will not let me go. Okay, so some months back, I attended a Hillary Clinton campaign event on the Auraria campus in Denver with the University of Denver College Dems. It was a good speech, and I had a good view, but that’s not why I’m here. Why I’m here is to try to understand I phenomenon I don’t get in the slightest. I expected antiwar protesters…in fact, I was pretty sure I was going to know quite a few of them from my campaigning with Dennis Kucinich, and I found antiwar protestors alright. Every last one was convinced that Ron Paul was the “answer”! That the man is interesting is doubtless. That he has harnessed new voters…also very interesting. But, will someone please tell me why someone around my age (26) with a progressive antiwar pedigree would ever consider a man who wants to abolish the IRS, NEA, NEH, EPA, and a whole host of other cabinet departments. Why would my generation, more tolerant and pro-choice than ever a generation has been, hook themselves to a vehement social conservative like Paul. He doesn’t always play the note, but do a little research, please! I understand we’re frustrated, but can’t we realize there are real progressives out there, even in this election. Paul is no more electable than Kucinich or <deep breath> even Gravel, but no real change-agent on the Democratic slate has the same money. Why? Why? Why?
January 26, 2008 at 10:47 pm |
I Agree, Ron Paul is no good and progressive infatuation with him is myopic. Not only on domestic issues but in foreign policy, Ron Paul is not the answer liberals should be looking for. He was the only member of Congress to vote against condemning the Sudanese government for supporting genocide. He doesn’t believe in basic principles of of supporting human rights around the globe because this may hurt the feelings of dictatorships and crony governments. Additionally, with few overarching principles guiding the progressive movement right now, one most definitely is having an active, responsive government improving the lives of citizens, but Mr. Paul believes there shouldn’t be a government to do this.
February 2, 2008 at 7:01 pm |
Ron Paul and the Progressives
There is a distinct possibility that state and local progressive initiatives would have a better chance of success under a libertarian national policy.
February 10, 2008 at 2:37 pm |
Libertarianism is very appealing on its surface. Its not so hard to think “I wish that I could do x” or “I wish the government would stop doing y to me.” Paul isn’t 100% libertarian, but its pretty close. Social conservatism isn’t something that I believe in, but I don’t think its necessarily stupid, and can see why people would buy into it. But maybe they don’t like the war…enter Paul.
June 4, 2008 at 12:26 am |
P Burbine,
I don’t mean to deny the possibilities for social conservatism’s popularity. But it’s simply not a libertarian tenet (see Bob Barr’s gay marriage two-step), and I simply cannot believe that the significantly left-wing student population I know really wants this.
June 4, 2008 at 12:29 am |
Underground Politics,
I don’t disagree…entirely But think of it this way. As a progressive, I truly believe in the power and importance of the commons. There is much I CANNOT do that I need for full human flourishing. I need a group to help with this. What would happen, then, is a patchwork of local progressive laws interspersed with draconian ones created by high-influence numerically small groups with extremist (often reactionary and racist) agendas.