dagblog - Comments for "The Liberal Conundrum and Ron Paul"

Well, way back in the New

Peter Schwartz — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 18:51:03 +0000

In reply to I think you're right about

Well, way back in the New Left of the Sixties, we were more libertarian-ish, anti-government than conservatives. Free speech. Do your own thing. Anti-draft. Tax protesting. Conservatives were more law and order-ish. (Not the show.)

Libertarians can't address corporations. In their terms, there's NO difference between GE and the corner store. They're both private enterprises and should be given maximum freedom to pursue happiness and gold.

Liberals are now pro-government and in some ways always were because it is the only entity big and powerful enough to provide a counterbalance to corporate power.

It's really only in foreign policy that libertarians and some liberals coalesce. Thanks to Bush's wars and some of Obama's moves, foreign policy has become extremely deadly so it looms large. Were it not for foreign policy, we would not be discussing Ron Paul on dagblog. Full stop.

Remember, Ron Paul ran in 2008 and was saying the SAME THINGS he's saying now. When he ran on the Libertarian ticket, he was saying the same things. This is not a secret; he will tell you that he's been working on this his entire adult life.

I read your blog and then

Anonymous LULU — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 17:10:56 +0000

In reply to The Liberal Conundrum and Ron Paul

I read your blog and then went to google because I did not know the definition of ‘conundrum’ though I thought I understood its meaning as you used it. I had a vague idea that “conundrum” was not quite the correct word unless the *Ron Paul* question was defined in a narrow way and objective way. I was surprised to find that most definitions say that the answer to a conundrum commonly involves a pun. That was evidence for me that the RP question does not qualify as a conundrum because there is absolutely nothing puny about it.

One definition was, “A question or problem having only a conjectural answer”. Using that definition does make most any question about RP a conundrum.

Another definition is, “A paradoxical, insoluble, or difficult problem; a dilemma”. This definition seems to me to best fit the way you framed your blog.

Since I am usually about as hard headed and defensive of my positions as anyone I want to say that your blog has taught me something. I now have a more nuanced understanding of the word ‘conundrum’ and I will concede that it was a fair word to use. [That isn't really all I got from it] What prompts me to make this comment though is my fascination with ironic coincidence. The link below goes to the seventh hit in my google search. It is to a collection of conundrums. The advertising banner at the top is for donations to Ron Paul’s campaign and has a picture fit for Mt. Everest of his ugly mug. So it actually is the case that next to the word conundrum is a picture of Ron Paul.

http://www.angelfire.com/oh/abnorm/

Happy New Year to you and all.

Count me as number 2, then. I

Verified Atheist — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 15:16:43 +0000

In reply to Okay, Jolly makes 1. Maybe.

Count me as number 2, then. I wouldn't vote for the guy, and there are a lot of things about him that trouble me, but I'm glad he's in Congress raising the stink that he tends to raise. I think Ron Paul is valuable, I just don't want him as President.

That's okay, it doesn't

Elusive Trope — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 06:59:19 +0000

In reply to I don't believe in "the

That's okay, it doesn't believe in "Dan Kervick" either.

I don't believe in "the

Dan Kervick — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 06:08:51 +0000

In reply to The Liberal Conundrum and Ron Paul

I don't believe in "the state." It doesn't exist.

Nothing huh? In a few seconds

Elusive Trope — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 05:17:46 +0000

In reply to Okay, Jolly makes 1. Maybe.

Nothing huh?

In a few seconds I had this piece

But it's not just [John] Stewart or high-profile self-professed liberals who like Paul. In a New York office this week, a man who sits near me is a life-long Democrat, who I don't think has ever cast a single national vote for a conservative. Typically, he's carrying on with displeasure about Rick Perry's comments and antics, professing loud disdain for the Texas Governor's politics.

Yet when discussion turned to Paul this week, the gentleman rose from his chair, waving his arms, while saying how much he liked Ron Paul. He wasn't planning to vote for Paul, of course, but the affection was obvious. "He's a bit crazy," the man said, referring to Paul, "but he's quite interesting. I really like him."

As this blurb brings up ("He wasn't planning to vote for Paul, of course,...") I am not talking about people throwing their lot in with Paul. I am talking about liberals who in essence find themselves talking positive about Paul, in the blogosphere.

Here is the opening paragraph from a piece by Kyle Victor on Huffington Post.

Many liberals, myself included, have long harbored some sympathy for Ron Paul. I suspect that this is not only because of his refusal to follow the neo-conservatives on issues like civil liberties, but also because the man, like a squirrel, has always seemed so very harmless. As long as his chances of actually running the country remained about nil, it was easy to concentrate on the refreshing and the brave of his positions and to ignore the paranoid and the bizarre.

I don't have time to go find some threads over the years and find the comments by this or that liberal (which by the way are not going to come up on some search engine).

There was a similar issue with McCain, for different reasons, when many liberals who found him acceptable in the 2000 election ('he's the only Republican I could see myself voting for' kind of sentiment), but in 2008 election had to reassess their affection for the maverick.

Beyond this I'm not that interested in convincing you of this phenomenon.

Okay, Jolly makes 1. Maybe.

kyle flynn — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 03:39:40 +0000

In reply to There plenty of conundrums

Okay, Jolly makes 1. Maybe. Give me some more numbers. Show me all these liberals torn over whether or not to throw in their lot with Ron Paul. I did a cursory search that turned up nothin'.

Actually I love that which is

Elusive Trope — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 03:27:44 +0000

In reply to So Lew is a

Actually I love that which is beyond the fringe

Sounds like the words of

Elusive Trope — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 03:25:01 +0000

In reply to Yes. How about we just say

Sounds like the words of someone doesn't want to delve into the messiness of one's own paradigm, to shift through the psyche and see what pops up for fear of what one might find, to ponder the potential inconsistencies and gaps.

But seriously, one could say that the point of the blog is to highlight the fact that Ron Paul is not a conundrum. He merely is a phenomenon which acts as a catalyst and facilitator of the internal conundrum existing within the modern liberal in America.

This is actually related to when Camus said neither man nor the universe are absurd. Absurdity arise in the relationship between the two as man seeking clarity confronts a silent universe which refuses that clarity.

There plenty of conundrums

Elusive Trope — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 03:17:16 +0000

In reply to I follow it, Trope, I just

There plenty of conundrums out there. I chose just one to talk about. As destor points out below, the conservatives have a conundrum with Ron Paul. And there are liberal who face a conundrum with Obama. But although you and some other liberals don't feel the Paul conundrum, liberals like jolly do. So you can't really make the blanket statement "Ron Paul is no conundrum for liberals."

I would add that the reason this particular conundrum has arisen is because some liberals see themselves faced with the possibility of voting for him, or at least rooting for him during this primary season - in the past he never stood a chance, and the media completely ignored, and he made little dent on the blogosphere. Now he is a "rising star" - and some liberals are finding themselves torn about their feelings toward Paul. They may be more torn in the feeling about Obama, but that doesn't negate the torn-ness they feel regarding Paul.

In short, this blog is not about what is the greatest conundrum faced by liberals or what conundrum is experienced by the most number of liberals. To those questions I have not given my pondering mind.