It's from February, but still funny.
I don't just think that the Ron Paul movement is silly. I find it
troubling. The fact that a far-right movement can exist on a college
campus, complete with demonstrations and graffiti, is what worries me.
It means that the people who are most motivated to have their ideas
heard are anti-egalitarians who flaunt their message beneath a banner
of freedom. Although they're a minority, this group meets no resistance
in promoting an ideology that, when executed around the globe, has been
the greatest rival of democracy and resulted in the most tyrannical
regimes in the past half century.
These ideas are mostly native to our country, but have had to be
exported to nations in a state of shock, such as Pinochet's Chile,
where the nuisance of democracy was a minimal inconvenience as opposed
to the tyrannically stable liberty of the United States.
The odd thing is that the Ron Paul movement, on its surface, resembles
a sort of left-wing activism. Poster-makers and graffitists seem to be
working spontaneously, recalling such non-ideological causes as the
Civil Rights movement or early trade unionism.
In fact, the opposite couldn't be truer. The ideology is rock-hard and
ruthlessly self-contained (and self-perpetuating). The Friedmanite
insistence that poor people are too ignorant of the economy to
effectively decide what ought to be done brings Paul's supporters more
in line with the stubborn anti-democracy of Lenin than the florid
idealism of Martin Luther King Jr. or Emma Goldman.
The facts of history must be ignored in order to back such a cause.
Working people fought for the progressive income tax; Paul's supporters
insist that it is a tyranny. Americans adore their public services,
from the city bus to the post office to libraries. My argument only
falls short on one point: I can't think of a single moment in history
when a "states' rights" argument was used by the benefactors of
oppression. Oh, except for that one. And that one. And that one.
(Goodness, remember that one?)
I think it would be appropriate here to mention a few reasons why I
personally hate Ron Paul so much. It's because I hate freedom. I really
do. I hate the Constitution as well. But Ron Paul sure loves them. Boy,
does he ever love freedom and the Constitution. Just ask one of his
supporters. Did you know he delivered 4,000 babies? Dennis Kucinich
doesn't come close.
So where do I get off, calling Ron Paul's backers a far-right movement?
Don't they seem to be off the conventional political spectrum,
something un-categorical? After all, Paul is against many things the
Republicans are for, from the Iraq War to NAFTA.
There should be no doubt: A fascinating (particularly for college
students, my God!) disdain for the scientific method, together with a
fanatical cynicism toward democratically-earned public institutions,
means that Ron Paul is, at the very least, a conservative. Match this
up with conspiracy theories (always characteristic of far-right
ideologies) like the North American Union or the absurd anti-patriotism
of income tax denial, and Ron Paul is squarely at the far right of the
spectrum, practically infrared.
I want to emphasize what it is about Ron Paul that troubles me. I'm not
worried that he'll win (naturally). What I find disconcerting is that
the tactics of the left have been fully appropriated to the opposite
end of the political spectrum, without anyone really taking notice. The
egalitarian, participatory character of these tactics gives a movement
that rejects basic democratic principles a misleadingly democratic
character. And if the Paul movement is integrated into mainstream
conservatism, without a reaction from the left, we could be dealing
with more graffiti, larger marches, and less democracy.