I have a basic problem which has nothing whatsoever to do with Ron Paul. It is a problem of language. I am quite simply not used to speaking or writing contemporary American English. I only speak it on the radio show and with you. I only write it on FB or blogs. My American friends other than you, Torrance, Jay and Oren, with whom I text or speak with on a daily basis are all professional gamblers and that is an English which is very different from normal American English. The vocabulary is peculiar to the discipline and even the sentence structure and verb tenses are different. Someday, when there’s time, I´ll do shirt-pocket linguist thing and set forth with examples of what I mean.
I have come to discover that contemporary American English when you don’t speak it often is an extraordinarily complex language. It is always layered and twisted with this connotation and that tangential reference and invariably produces mis-communication among practiced native speakers! When politics is the subject, it´s a fucking mess. This is not your problem or anyone else’s. It’s my problem. Andino/Criollo Spanish is a very direct language with words having the normal series of meanings one would find in the rankings of usage in any good dictionary.
Public figures do have certain connotations to each speaker of this dialect, but the layering and knotting and twisting is nowhere near what it is in American English. There is also less reflexivity and fewer knee-jerk responses to a name, such as to take the two which seem to drive Americans crazy instantly: Ron Paul and Hugo Chávez.
My view of Ron Paul is actually quite similar to yours and I know you are an exception to what I´ve written in that you always mean what you say and say what you mean. Your opinions are always well-considered. I find Ron Paul to be a very intelligent, serious, honest, and gentlemanly guy, whose views on imperial corporatism inclusive of such violations of common decency as Zionism I share. Like you, I don’t agree with his free-market utopianism. He has never properly explained the end-game of it. I know he doesn´t approve of the wealth concentration in the USA, but his utopianism would merely freeze it place.
I might differ from you on the issue of his view of regulations of corporations but only in one sense. He would apply the concept of civil and criminal fraud more broadly than it is done in the USA now. That would include such things as bankster and Federal Reserve leverage-fraud and polluters, for example, would be guilty of defrauding their community in his concept of it.
I agree it doesn´t go far enough and I certainly disagree with him on such things as the National Health as you know. I am a National Health absolutist. Furthermore, I don’t believe any human being should have to go without food, water, clothing, shelter, education, and a chance at meaningful employment and certainly a stake in society. I don´t believe a human being should have to be a slave to either THE BOSS or THE PARTY or THE COLLECTIVE in order to qualify for these basic necessities OR ELSE!
In that sense, there really is no ideology which has a planned end-game that isn´t a pure fantasy, just like Ron Paul’s free-market utopianism.
Where you and I have a disagreement here is only on the definition of the term “neo-liberal”. My sense is that Ron Paul is most definitely NOT a neo-liberal because he’s not a statist, he’s a libertarian. Neo-liberalism involves the state, quasi-governmental structures, and NGOs forcing a NON-VOLUNTARY UNFREE-MARKET CAPITALISM UPON PEOPLE IN ORDER TO SERVE THE GREED OF ELITES.
That might or might not be an outcome of the practical implementation of Paul’s free-market utopianism. It certainly leaves no person protected in the ways I’d prefer as a baseline, but at the same time would not involve these governmental structures, etc., with an a priori task of robbing the people to feed the greed of the elites. Quite the contrary, those types of stooges to the elites would be BANNED in a republic of Ron Paul’s conception. Call him a mis-guided utopian for sure, but he is not a neo-liberal because, quite plainly, he is absolutely oppposed to imperial corporatism.
I also agree with you that no American politician who is part of the 1-party system can fully be trusted not to shift from whatever core values the politician had to a position of active or passive participant in the advancement of American imperial corporatism. Dennis Kucinich is the example par excellence of that. Given that Paul’s excellent work in getting an agreement on very good core principles among all the 2008 off-party candidates, and his dumping of Kucinich in favor of Ralph Nader in the right-left alliance he always seeks, I would be more comfortable with him if he were to become an OFFICIAL member of the Libertarian Party and leave the Republicrats.
I have no familiarity with this Lincoln character at all who showed up on the thread with a point that wasn´t terrible exactly but was not germane to that discussion and to me was yet another example of an American knee-jerk liberal rule which states that ONE MUST IMMEDIATELY REGISTER ONE’S DISAPPROVAL OF RON PAUL IN TOTO.
My life has absolutely nothing to do with the socio-political norms of the American debate. My only interest is that American military and contractors get the fuck out of every other nation and allow other people liberty and self-determination. It gains me no points to have an a priori view of any public figure, anywhere in the world. I have those I like less and those I like more, but they have to prove themselves to me for me to have an opinion. Rafael Correa, for example, has proven himself very very good for any number of actions, starting with re-nationalizing the water supply which had been forcibly sold to Vivendi during the dictatorial Noboa regime under IMF diktak, booting out the US military, refusing to honor the fraudulent IMF “debt,” and most recently thwarting an American coup attempt non-violently. Paul Kagame, President of Rwanda, and American stooge, has proven himself a monster — a master of genocide who will probably pass Stalin and Hitler combined in genocide before he meets his maker.
But I don´t say Correa´s “good” and Kagame’s “bad” as part of some point-scoring system of what ideology one has. I based those opinions on the two mens´deeds.
All posts are opinions meant to foster comment, reporting, teaching & study under the “fair use doctrine” in Sec. 107 of U.S. Code Title 17. No statement of fact is made or should be implied. Ads appearing on this blog are solely the product of the advertiser and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BuehlahMan’s Revolt or WordPress.com