5 votes

Progressive blogosphere is ABUZZ with talk of Paul/Obama; David Sirota at Salon is latest (show your leftist friends)

In this one, Sirota highlights that a lot of the things they dislike about Paul are the things he'd have less unilateral sway on, while the progressive hot button- and arguably most vital issues- are ones which he can affect unilaterally, and on day one. Good one to show your friends on the left...

But in terms of realpolitik, there’s a strong case to be made that Paul’s progressive-minded supporters understand something that Obama’s supporters either can’t or don’t want to: namely, that a presidential election is a vote for president, not a vote to elect the entire federal government. As such, when faced with candidates whom you agree with on some issues and totally disagree with on other issues, it’s perfectly rational — and wholly pragmatic — to consider one’s own multifaceted policy preferences in the context of what a prospective president will have the most unilateral power to actually enact.

With Paul, it just so happens that most of the ultra-progressive parts of his platform (and legislative career) correspond to the presidential powers that are most unilateral in nature. As President Obama so aptly proved when he ignored the War Powers Act during the Libya conflict and started drone wars in various other countries, a president can start and end military conflicts with the stroke of a pen — and without any congressional check on power. Likewise, as President Obama showed when he assassinated American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki and then his family without so much as a single criminal charge, a president can now trample or expand civil liberties with the stroke of the same pen. The president also appoints the chairman of the Federal Reserve bank, which now unilaterally grants trillions of dollars in bailouts without intervention from Congress. And, as President Obama proved with his administration’s crackdown on California’s marijuana laws, a president has far more operational control over the drug war than the congressional committees charged with oversight.

By contrast, the policy areas where Paul is most at odds with progressives are the areas Congress has far more control over — specifically, budgets and regulatory statutes...

Read the whole thing here: http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/what_makes_a_progressive_pre...

Comment viewing options

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

It is an ok article, written

It is an ok article, written well, but he is a bit polarizing when he mentions positions that would not resonate with progressives. YES Ron is pro-life, but is about the ONLY republican that does not want an amendment to the Constitution outlawing abortion. He WANTS the federal government OUT of it, and let the states make laws that their citizens want. There are several other things the writer has construed through the ears of half-listening.
The MAIN point is what Ron says: EVERYONE wants more liberty. They come at it with different ideas that do not always mesh from the left to the right. BUT we CAN come together on the liberty issue, period. Ron will never force ANYONE to his beliefs. He is for individual FREEDOM. This may mean ending some regulations (federally) that the states will decide upon, and also strengthening property rights in ways not completely understood, but very liberating, and strong.

ive been pushing this point for a while

that a lot of things people "fear" ron would do are purview of the congress and ultimately it's up to the "people" to decide on those policies, and as mentioned, paul doesn't have unilateral say on those.. for the time being, getting someone incorruptible into the office is all that matters. not sure why it's taken so long for that concept to catch fire.. seemed readily obvious since day one

"Getting Rid Of"

There's been a concerted effort in the Libertarian Party to stop using the word "abolish" because it scares people. "Get rid of the IRS? How will the taxes be collected?"

"Abolish" is not so scary to libertarians, but the other voters have a problem with it.

I think it's appropriate to point out how many of a candidate's plans and promises will simply never happen, and why it is that you want someone who won't try to make things happen in violation of the Constitution.

It's very appropriate to remind people how important it is to elect the right people to Congress.

What do you think? http://consequeries.com/

It's important

that the conversation in articles on sites like this continue in this direction. Such a good thing.

Bump +1