Wednesday, May 16, 2007

The Right Kind of Confusion: Conservative Divisions and the Collapse of the Right

The Conservative Party of Canada seems to be a strange mixture of competing and conflicting ideologies, as Devin Johnston pointed out in Countdown Until the Conservative Party Disbands Again. His post sparked reflections on the state of conservative parties and alliances in Canada and the U.S. Here are a few thoughts. To begin with, I think it’s helpful to distinguish some of the ideological or philosophical currents that are lumped together under the label of “the right” or “conservative”. The first that comes to mind for many is crass servility to corporate power, however, there is of course, much more complexity to the right than that.

One element within that loose category called “conservative” or “the right” is the current which comprises social conservatism. As Devin again, nicely summarized: “Social conservatism is the premise that there is one “right” way of living in a community and one “right” set of values, beliefs and ideals. Social conservatives advocate the suppression of the rights and freedoms of minorities through the state imposition of white male Christian heteronormative values. [In Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, it would be Arab male Islamic heteronormative values; and in both cases, class prejudice and class warfare are more than a little present – they are in fact central.] Classical liberals precisely reject any attempt by the state to dictate beliefs and values to citizens.” Well put. You could say it is Thomas Hobbes versus Thomas Paine.

Another current is populist, with strong values of grassroots democracy. Closely related but more emphatic in its wariness of centralized power is the libertarian current. Populists may be social conservatives, although there is an uneasy tension in this inherent contradiction; but any genuine libertarian will disavow state interference in the lives of citizens, including same sex marriage, de-criminalization of marijuana and other hot-button issues for social conservatives.

Classical liberalism places a high value on freedom, and distrusts what libertarians call the “nanny state.” Libertarians therefore have an uneasy alliance with the right, as the right is uncomfortably full of social conservatives who want to regulate everything from who you sleep with to how you brush your teeth. Libertarians can for these reasons be found forming alliances with the left when conditions are right. (No pun intended.) It is not necessarily that they are fickle, but more that they are looking for political representation within a system and political climate that is far more statist, centralist, elitist and authoritarian than they would like to see. Depending upon the policies - or promises - of the right or left, they may go either way, and this can at times be an informed and intelligent choice.

Thus, libertarians have more in common with classical liberals - or even left libertarians, who are in truth their estranged cousins - than with social conservatives. It is the espoused values of limited government, freedom, populism, and fiscal conservatism of the right that has attracted the support of libertarians, but if we look to the actual record of the right in Canada and the U.S. we can see that these values were only for public consumption, not for actual practice. Libertarians, populists, fiscal conservatives and advocates of freedom have been sold a bill of goods. More directly, they have been lied to.

The U.S. became the world’s biggest debtor under Reagan, who ballooned the debt to record levels with his tax cuts for the rich and corporations, combined with massive military spending, which is piped through the Pentagon system to form what amounts to corporate welfare for the military-industrial complex - all the while praising the free market, fiscal prudence and shrinking big government. Orwell would nod to Reagan’s handlers. Bush I carried on the tradition, and Bush II has pushed the debt up to $8 trillion - to the point where the dollar, the U.S. economy, and likely the U.S. government will soon collapse, as leading economists have noted with urgency.

All the while, throughout this spending spree by the right in the U.S., government got bigger and bigger, encroachment on personal lives and liberty grew, and erosion of civil rights and freedom is now at crisis point: the constitution itself is at question. It is not clear that democracy will survive in America. The merger of the state and corporate world has been taken to near complete lengths. Eisenhower’s warning has become stark reality.

Both of these trends - wildly indulgent corporate welfare, bringing the nation to the brink of bankruptcy, and grossly inflated powers of government encroaching on civil liberties and freedom - disgust and revolt the libertarians who have in the past supported the Republican and Conservative Parties.

In Canada, Mulroney took the conservatives into the realm of Thatcher, Reagan and neoconservatism - a flat betrayal of the history and traditions of the party. It was under Mulroney that the deficit and debt ballooned, while Trudeau is wrongly blamed. Trudeau and the Liberals faced recession and the OPEC crisis, Mulroney simply sold out the country to the corporate barons. I am no fan of the Liberal Party, but the truth must be told. It was not spending on social programs that drove up the debt, as the right wing media and “think tanks” (read corporate propaganda tools) convinced many to believe.

It was a combination of deliberate slashing of government revenues under Mulroney and successors (including Martin) by way of lavish corporate tax cuts, combined with the strong arm tactics of the international financial community which held our national debt and demanded increasing returns on “investment” by way of interest payments, which created the inflated deficits and growing debt. In the U.S. and Canada, as well as Britain and other Western nations, Keynesian economics and New Deal policies was blamed for fiscal imbalance, cynically and dishonestly, while the real culprit was welfare-state capitalism: hand-outs and tax breaks for the rich and the business elite - with a roll-back for ordinary people of all the gains made over decades and generations, with wages falling and social programs slashed.

This is the true story of the `80’s and `90’s in Canada: cut social spending by claiming a debt crisis - a debt crisis that was created consciously by slashing corporate taxes. It is a win-win situation for the corporate sector: greatly reduced taxes, and a disintegrating social safety net which means people are increasingly desperate and will work for less and less pay. Wonderful for corporate Canada. A tragic betrayal for the people of the country. And this scheme was authored and orchestrated by both Liberals and Conservatives from Mulroney on, all the while speaking of fiscal responsibility and loyalty to the people of Canada. Sickening deceit is what it is.

What we have in the Liberal and Democratic Parties, is a divide between traditional liberals and neoliberalism. Traditional liberals value freedom, democracy, and at least some measure of equality. Neoliberalism surrenders all values to one: compliance with the corporate masters. In the Republican and Conservative Parties, we have a similar division: between traditional conservatives and neoconservatives. Neoconservatives, like neoliberals - being two sides of the same boot-licking serve-the-man philosophy - have surrendered all values to the one over-riding principle: don’t bite, but fervently serve the hand that feeds you - that is, corporate America, or in Canada, Bay Street.

The conflict between social conservatives and libertarians within the broad realm of the right makes political alliances on the right tenuous at best. When you add in the split between genuine fiscal conservatives on the one hand, and on the other hand, neoliberals/neoconservatives (two sides of the same coin) who dominate the party leadership of the right in both the U.S. and Canada (along with all of the major parties), and who speak of fiscal responsibility while engaging in patronage, pork-barreling and corporate welfare to obscene degrees and in grossly hypocritical if not Machiavellian fashion, you have a potential rift that can quickly turn explosive. Witness the present meltdown of the American Republican Party. These divisions are tearing the party to pieces, and not even the most shrill and Orwellian fear-mongering or GWOT rhetoric can keep this machine from flying apart.

Social conservatives are fleeing the Republican Party, as are fiscal conservatives. Libertarians are simply appalled, and feel they have been lied to and betrayed. Republicans under the neocons have alienated the Christian right, the traditional conservatives and the libertarians. All that is left is a few scared suburbanites and the handful of super-rich who are the real constituency of the neconservatives. The party is disintegrating. The game is now open. The political landscape in the U.S. is shifting rapidly.

A maverick like Ron Paul could potentially seize on this disruption in the Republican Party, and capture support that would normally go to someone like Bush or Giuliani. With the Democrats making themselves the party of spineless non-opposition to the horrors and corruption of the neocons (Hilary and Obama being two cases in point), the dark horses like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich actually stand a chance.

Not that I place much hope or even interest in electoral politics in the present or immediate future, believing that they are largely irrelevant by virtue of a general vacuity of both vision and courage, and viewing grassroots movements as the real source of social change, both historically and in the foreseeable future; but some basic sanity and human decency in the realm of parliamentary politics would be a refreshing change.

Getting back to Canadian politics, if the rhetoric versus reality chasm is exposed more thoroughly in the case of the Conservative Party, and the already existing internal divisions made clear, so that a healthy debate among conservatives can occur, the results will likely be the splintering of “the party” but also the resurrection of democracy among the right. That would not be a bad thing.

Basically, the Conservative Party in Canada, as well as the Republican Party of the United States, are parties of, by and for big business and the corporate lobby, but they have to get elected by voters, and not simply gather “donations” from the business elite to get elected; thus they have to lure social and fiscal conservatives, populists and libertarians into thinking that these parties actually have some substantial allegiance to something other than the pursuit of money and power through service to the corporate elite. This is the primary flaw and fatal internal division within the parties of the right: they are built upon a lie.

Of these five elements that we have identified within the right - social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, populism, libertarianism, and service to corporate power - it is almost without exception the one single principle of service to the corporate elite which consistently wins out; all other values are for rhetorical purposes only - they can, will be and have been dispensed with whenever they conflict with the over-riding principle: serve the masters.

Show the people the lie, and the façade falls apart. Then you have a party exposed for what it is: neoconservative, not genuinely conservative – which is a party of class warfare: serve the moneyed aristocracy, as Jefferson decried, and fool the people into serving themselves up on the altar of mammon.

Devin Johnston hits the nail on the head when he says, “At any rate, it is clear to me that the Conservative Party is a pathetic attempt to unite people who are in fact completely at odds with one another in order to destroy a common enemy: godless socialism.” (At least that was the case up until the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the official enemy.) It can be added however that polls in Canada as well as the U.S. show consistent and overwhelming popular support for socialist-leaning policies and views. There is in Canada and the U.S. overwhelming popular support for universal public health care. Overwhelming support for universally accessible education. Overwhelming support for a guaranteed social safety net to protect the poor, ill, injured, disabled and elderly from the ravages of an unfettered monopoly capitalism. An overwhelming majority – generally approaching 80% - believe that the economic system is inherently unfair, the gap between rich and poor is widening, and that the rich get richer while the poor get…..something other. (This latter point by the way is not socialist, but simply a matter of the intelligent or merely common sense observation of the undeniable facts.)

In a nation-wide poll of American citizens the core socialist dictum of “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need” was felt to be such a matter of common sense and common human decency, that over 70% of Americans believed it must have come from the U.S. Constitution. It was, of course, a statement made by none other than Karl Marx. This is why the New Deal policies of FDR in the U.S. Democratic Party and Trudeau in Canada, were so immensely popular: they approximated the ideals of fairness, justice, equality and compassion, even though they were watered down by virtue of existing within an fundamentally unchallenged economic framework of monopoly capitalism. The populace leans left, as it has for generations, while the economic system maintains power in the hands of the few, with the results that political parties have done more to serve the interests of the powerful than those of the people.

If the rhetoric is cut through, the popular support vanishes; and all that is left of the parties of the right in Canada and the U.S. is a servile allegiance to corporate America and Bay Street. Poke the balloon. The time is right to burst this bubble of delusion.

The only other prop holding up this rape and pillage party apparatus of the right is the scare tactics of the Global War on Terror; and that too, is failing. A whole other discussion would be necessary to dissect this campaign of state terrorism which is in effect, and by design, a war, not on terror, but on democracy. For the time being, let it suffice to say that this is not a war that the power elite – being the corporate elite and their political servlings – can win.

When it comes to dismantling the basic structures of democracy, disemboweling the safeguards of basic human rights and freedom, and nullifying a two-hundred year old tradition of constitutional democracy, they will fail. The values of democracy, freedom and human rights have been too deeply imbued in the people of the Western world for these to be given up without a fight – in fact, without a powerful resistance movement.

600,000 or more dead in Iraq to “fight terrorism” and “sow democracy” – in truth, as most now admit, to fight imperial wars for control of world energy supplies - this is terrorism at its finest; or most brutal. The anti-terrorist legislation of post-9/11 paranoia and propaganda, most notoriously the U.S. Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act: this is not the safeguarding of “our way of life” – this is not the “defense of liberty and freedom.” This is the destruction of constitutional democracy and civil rights. This is the criminalization of dissent. This is a Machiavellian lie of the greatest proportions. And this is becoming evident even to the staunchest defenders of the “war on terror.”

The propaganda war that upholds corporate power now, after the red scare days have passed - the tactics no longer effective with the absence of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Eastern Bloc - the only rhetoric that upholds this fragile and crumbling edifice of corporate power, short of brute force itself, is the lie of the war on terror. Frighten the people, and they will support “strong leaders” and repressive measures at home, as well as imperial warfare abroad, disguised as self-defense. But the propaganda war is failing. Either there will be another terrorist incident, which will bolster the effectiveness of the propaganda, and again rally the people into supporting their own slavery, the surrender of their rights and freedoms, and the wars of empire around the globe, or the propaganda campaign will collapse, and with it, the power elite that serves, and is in power to serve, the power of the rich and the corporate world. The latter is not likely to be allowed to happen, so watch out for the former.

In the short term, a renewed campaign of what the political elite and agencies like the CIA call “political warfare” and “psychological warfare” – what used to be called propaganda when there existed a bit more honesty in the political arena – is likely to be invoked; and in the short term, there may yet be temporary, Pyrrhic victories for the corporate elite and their servants who present themselves as popular leaders of the right (or the center or left, a la Clinton, Martin, Blair). This is, or should be, a cause for concern. In the not too distant future however, and in fact, in the very near future, such Machiavellian machinations as are won by acts of great deception are unsustainable, and will collapse. They are indeed collapsing as we speak. We need to hasten the demise of these dangerous delusions - at least, that is, if we are at all alive to our human hearts and minds, and care not to see unnecessary suffering, madness or destruction on this small and beautiful, fragile planet. We need to break open these bonds of confusion, examine them, and tear them asunder. They will collapse upon examination. All that is required is the light of day.

J. Todd Ring

May 16, 2007

Posted by: jtoddring, in New Deal, Trudeau, Keynesian economics, debt, FDR, Democratic Party, social conservative, fiscal conservative, Liberal, deficit, Reagan, Mulroney, Martin, Harper, Hilary, Obama, Thatcher, Bush, Clinton, libertarian, Global War on Terrorism, conservatives, Canada, Canadian politics, capitalism, corporate rule, Hobbes, war on democracy, corporatism, election, Conservative Party, Republican Party, neoconservatism, war on terror, American politics, U.S., neoliberalism, right, conservative, politics

Labels: Bush, conservative, Democratic Party, FDR, Harper, libertarian, Mulroney, New Deal, Reagan, right, Trudeau

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Ron Paul: Honest Abe Lives

“Congress' premier defender of the Constitution”

Why on earth would a left libertarian who admires democratic socialist Hugo Chavez favour a conservative Republican candidate? The answer is simple: I see no other contender who is willing to seriously challenge the drift toward fascism. The preservation of constitutional democracy is the first and most urgent task at hand. All other issues can be debated once the basics are secured: preserve democracy.

“Ron Paul stands for populist ideals that the country is screaming out for after seven years of hell under Bush.

Paul unites opposition to the war and the police state at home across the entire political spectrum…from libertarians through anti-war Democrats.

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist who votes based on principles that support our rights as individuals.

But it is how he does is that makes him a HERO. He consistently stands undaunted in the face of opposition. He is dedicated to protecting “the good.” He is uncompromising in his standards, valiant in his efforts, and he does it all with a quiet nobility that is inspiring. He does what is right. He tells us the Truth. It is this that defines him as a HERO for our times.”

I would urge all who oppose the slide into corporatocracy and a police state to stand up now, speak up now, across the spectrum, from liberal and progressive to conservative or libertarian, social democrat or libertarian socialist – all who oppose tyranny and who would prefer democracy to fascism – and support Ron Paul. The stakes are high, and the time is short.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul has announced he is running for U.S. President in 2008: I think he would be far superior as a president than either Bush was, or Hilary Clinton would be.

Bush goes without saying. Hilary Clinton has expressed her support for expanding the Middle East war into Iran. She has consistently voted in favour of massive funding for unconstitutional imperial war in the Middle East, thereby helping to get thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, while bankrupting the country. She also voted in favour of the draconian and dangerous Patriot Act. She boldly voted to limit the Military Commissions Act to 2011. What’s four years of abuse of power among friends?

Barrack Obama is admired by many, but I could not possibly support such a man who would speak against war, and simultaneously continue to fund it, voting in favour of over $580 billion for military appropriations in 2006 alone – much of this specifically targeted to increased funding for the war in Iraq.

On December 21, 2005, Senator Obama voted in favour of the $450 billion Defense Department FY 2006 Appropriations Bill – including $50 billion specifically tagged for continued war in Iraq and Afghanistan. On May 4, 2006 Senator Obama voted in favour of $67 billion in “emergency supplemental appropriations” for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. On June 15, 2006, Senator Obama voted in favour of $70 billion in “emergency supplemental appropriations” for the “Global War on Terrorism.” On June 22, 2006, Obama voted in favour of over $500 billion in military spending for the fiscal year of 2007.

Now that I know the voting record of Hilary and Obama, whenever I think of either of these two “doves” I think of the line by The Who: “Meet the new boss – same as the old boss” (Won’t Get Fooled Again).

If we are to judge by action – by his voting record – and not just by words, Obama is full of shit; to be blunt. His words speak of peace, but his actions speak clearly of deferential and timid support for continued wars of empire. This man either has no spine, or else no integrity. I wouldn’t elect Obama to watch my dog for the weekend. He says one thing, and votes another. I would love to be shown wrong on Obama, but presently these seem to be the indications.

Even more fundamentally, Obama voted on March 2, 2006 - along with Hilary Rodham Clinton - to make 14 provisions of the Patriot Act permanent. This man is no patriot. Nor is he a democrat. This man, along with Hilary Clinton, voted in favour of legislation that can only be described as thoroughly anti-democratic, unconstitutional, draconian and, frankly, fascist. We cannot afford to see such wolves successfully masked as sheep. Democrats should be the first to reveal the true nature of such false-hope candidates and corporate lap-dog technocrats in drag as champions of freedom.

If I am wrong somehow on Obama, I would be glad to be enlightened. However, it seems he, like Hilary, is a lackey for the military-industrial complex, war-profiteers, oil barons and Washington chicken-hawks. Unless there is reason to believe otherwise, from what I can see now, I would hate to see this man elected or re-elected to any high office, let alone President of the United States.

As far as I am aware, there is no-one running for the next U.S. presidential election that merits support, other than Ron Paul, with the possible exception of Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) – a New Deal Democrat, reminiscent of FDR.

A former mayor of Cleveland, Ohio, Dennis Kucinich has voted against the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act, and the exorbitant funding for adventurous neo-colonial wars. Perhaps a two-party ticket is in order. “The Democracy Ticket.” Paul and Kucinich: uniting the sane from the Republicans and Democrats in 2008. This might be a possibility worth pursuing. I’m not sure if they would be willing to run together, but if so, it could be a winning combination. The campaign focus: end the wars of empire, and restore the Constitution. Unfortunately, differences over immigration and gun control, among other issues, would likely prevent such a liberal-conservative alliance between Paul and Kocinich. I say unfortunately, and this must be emphasized, because these are the only two candidates I know of that seem willing to stand up to the assault on civil rights and constitutional democracy.

Ron Paul voted against the Orwellian Military Commissions Act of September 2006. He voted against the Patriot Act in 2001, and again in 2005 – on three separate occasions – as well as in 2006. If there is any measure of a federal U.S. political candidate’s integrity in defending constitutional democracy, it is this: unwavering opposition to these two terrible anti-democratic, unconstitutional pieces of authoritarian legislation. Obama and Hilary both fail this test.

Ron Paul also voted to close the infamous School of Americas – the largest terrorist training center in the hemisphere, operating out of Fort Benning Georgia, whose graduates have gone on to join and lead death squads throughout Latin America, and who were among those responsible for the assassination of 9 Jesuit priests as well as Archbishop Romero in El Salvador. This man will help fight terrorism – by ceasing to fund it. If you want a true defender of democracy and freedom, here is the real McCoy.

While most of Congress is unaware of, or silent about the Security and Prosperity Partnership, Ron Paul is speaking out and standing up for sovereignty and democracy.

“NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system.” - Ron Paul

The Democratic Party hates Ron Paul because he’s Republican; the Republican Party hates Ron Paul because he does not tow the party line in prostrating before the military-industrial complex, serving the interests of the corporate elite, paying homage to wars of empire, or backing the rush to implement fascist legislation in the form of the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act. The grassroots, however, love him – across the political spectrum, from conservatives and libertarians, to anti-war democrats, to all those who oppose the slide into a police state.

All those who prefer genuine democracy and the rule of constitutional law to fascist corporate oligarchy, would be wise to support this humble Congressman. He may well be this era’s Honest Abe: a liberator of the country. If he succeeds in exercising the popular will and ending the imperial wars abroad, as well as the slide into a police state at home, he will have been, truly, a liberator of America.

Ron Paul is a true grassroots hero, in that he is willing to back the people with authentic and substantial support for the constitution, the struggle to preserve democracy, and the opposition to imperial wars – all of which, the majority of Americans clearly want. It will take more than one person to change the course of American society, as it always has. Even if that person holds the highest office in the republic, there will need to be a mass movement, not just to get a better president elected, but to get the job done: to halt the drift toward fascism and to restore democracy, freedom and human rights in America.

Paul is a Republican conservative reminiscent of Eisenhower. Like Eisenhower, he recognizes the grave danger of the military-industrial complex. Taking up where Ike left off, it is no longer sufficient to warn against the possible abuse of power and encroachment on democratic powers, of the military-industrial complex. It is now clearly time to rein it in. Ron Paul stands in this tradition, and is prepared to take the efforts to rein in this beast, to the next step. The plug must be pulled on the corporate military complex. Ron Paul is the only candidate I am confident will do just that.

Paul has 37 years of political experience, and currently sits on the House Financial Services Committee, the House International Relations Committee, and the House-Senate Joint Economic Committee. He knows the political arena.

Paul will have to run a broad-based grassroots campaign to win, as the corporate media are sure to try and shoot him down, or shut him out, while the Republican Party machine is unlikely to support a maverick who repudiates the corporate subservience of the party, and fiercely opposes their agenda of “war without end” overseas and an authoritarian surveillance state at home.

There may be issues where I disagree with Ron Paul, but he is right on the two biggest ones, in my mind: end the wars of empire abroad, and stop the destruction of civil rights and democracy at home. If there is any other candidate who shows spine enough to deal with these two most pressing issues, they should be supported. Presently, only Ron Paul evokes confidence with regards to these most critical issues.

Ron Paul is a conservative libertarian. If I were to put a phrase or a label on my political views, I would have to say they are libertarian socialist. The differences between a conservative libertarian perspective and that of a libertarian socialist are significant, but there is common ground as well. Libertarians have a deep skepticism about excessive concentrations of political power, as did Thomas Jefferson – they are not great fans of bureaucracy, authoritarianism or elitism, to say the least. Libertarians on the right have traditionally questioned state or governmental power – that is, concentrations of political power – while libertarians on the left have questioned not only concentrations of political power, but also excessive concentrations of economic power. Thus, while there may be natural common ground, libertarians of the right and the left have been historically estranged, barely communicating, if at all. However, recent trends have narrowed the divide.

What the right still fails to recognize – although this is changing – is that since the fall of the Soviet bloc, the left has abandoned what little remaining allegiance it had to bureaucratic big government, and now leans very strongly to a left libertarian perspective, advocating freedom, diversity, and limited government that is in close contact with the grassroots. Thus, there is more common ground between the right and left now than the right has recognized.

Likewise, the right is coming to realize that excessive concentrations of economic power are also threats to freedom, just as are excessive concentrations of political power. Jefferson and Lincoln – one a Democrat, one a Republican – both realized this very clearly. Now the grassroots right is beginning to realize it as well. This new tendency within the right offers the possibility for a greater basis of understanding between right and left. The left also does not yet recognize the narrowing gap between the two polarities.

While the left has largely rejected the big government bureaucratic paradigm, the right, at least at the grassroots, is coming to view the current threat to democracy and freedom as a threat waged by a combination of elitist, authoritarian government, aligned with a growing concentration of corporate power. The grassroots right now speaks of the present emergence of corporate fascism – a terminology that should be familiar to the left. The gap is indeed narrowing. It is now a struggle not so much between left and right, as it is between all those who prefer democracy to fascism – and this is the vast majority - and the few who are willing to side with an emerging corporatocracy.

It is important that the left and the right both understand this. We need a coalition that spans the political spectrum – from right to left – of all who would stand now to preserve constitutional democracy. If we fail to recognize the urgency of such a union, we will fail, and we will see fascism take hold. It may be unthinkable, but the unthinkable is taking place. We had better form a union of diverse groups and individuals to preserve democracy, freedom and human rights, or we will lose them all.

I’m not a conservative, nor a Republican party fan, but if there is going to be a conservative wing to U.S. politics - which of course there will be for a long time - there should be a representative who’s at least sane, who’s not on a corporate payroll, and who is not a military-industrial complex lackey. Ron Paul for President - now!

And for a running mate? If not Dennis Kocinich, then Robert Bowman. Fair trade, non-interventionist, anti-corporatist conservative. I didn’t know there was such a creature, but there is. He’s the real deal. Ron Paul and Robert Bowman would make a stellar team. I hope the Ron Paul campaign team will give this idea some serious thought. It could be a powerful alliance. It could be an alliance to successfully defeat the threat to democracy. The threat at home, that is.

We must now end the left-right alienation. It is in some senses a false polarization. Yes, there are very real and important issues on which there is serious divergence, but there is common ground between traditional conservatives, traditional liberals, right libertarians, left libertarians and democratic socialists. The common ground is that we all prefer democracy to fascism - whether it is the corporate fascism that is arising, or any other kind of totalitarian regime. It is neoconservatism and neoliberalism, which are two sides of the same corporate boot-licking coin, that has to be defeated now. It is the preservation of constitutional democracy that must come first. Afterwards, we can debate the rest of the issues. Democracy and human rights are fundamental.

The real division, the one that matters most, is between the neoconservatives and neoliberals on the one hand, who promote and support a corporatist regime both domestically and world-wide, and all those who prefer and support constitutional democracy. Traditional liberals and conservatives, progressives, libertarians of the right and left, as well as social democrats, must get together now to stop this slide into fascism and corporate rule.

Let’s get it together on the major issues; the rest we can debate later. First things first: we must preserve democracy and stop the slide into corporate fascism. We must first rein in the military-industrial complex, and the corporate powers more generally. Once that is accomplished, we can debate the rest of the issues `till we’re blue in the face. Until that is done, debate is largely irrelevant, because corporate fascism rules.

So long as the neoconservatives are in power in Washington, or their neoliberal “opponents” in the Democratic Party - Kerry, Edwards, Hillary, Obama et al. - the nightmare will continue to unfold.

With Ron Paul or Robert Bowman in the White House - and ideally both - I could envision a safe and prosperous, sane and just - albeit conservative - America. This would be a tremendous relief, not only to the great majority of Americans, but to the world.

Left/right debates can resume once we’ve secured the basics: the safeguarding of constitutional democracy. Until then, we need to get together, across ideological and party lines.

Support Ron Paul! Stop corporate fascism now! Yes, we are heading in that direction, and no, there seems to be no-one else in the U.S. Presidential race that will halt this slide into a very dark time.

If you like the corporate lobby, the military-industrial complex, unending bloody, costly and dangerous imperial wars, the destruction of civil rights and freedom and the slide into a police state, vote for Hilary or Obama, or any of the other Republicans or Republican look-alikes. If you prefer peace, freedom and constitutional democracy, there seems to be only one choice: Ron Paul.

Ideological rigidity won't help us now - not that it ever has. There is a war on democracy, in case anyone has missed this fact. What we need now is a coalition of all who oppose the drift into oligarchy and the destruction of constitutional rights and freedom. Come on people now, let's get together.

“I have a dream. I want to re-instate the Constitution.” – Dr. Ron Paul

J. Todd Ring,

March 2007

Vote Ron Paul For President 2008 – video short

Can it get any more clear? Ron Paul stands up to speak against war in Iraq, while Democrats – who now control Congress, and have the ability to pull the plug on this ongoing tragedy - continue to fund the war. Ron Paul clearly stands out. And what an overtly Orwellian speech by a Democrat to follow him!

Defund the War by Rep. Ron Paul – video short

Even Conservatives Hate Republicans Now

YouTube - Texas Republican slams Bush "demented philosophy of conquest”

Congressman Ron Paul on Iran Situation (3-15-06) – video short

Gulf of Tonkin 2: Iran – video short

YouTube - Ron Paul on Interventionism

YouTube - Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) on House Iraq Resolution

YouTube - Ron Paul vs. Congress: Don't regulate the Internet

Presidental candidate Ron Paul to 'reinstate Constitution' - video

YouTube - Ron Paul on the North American Union

YouTube - Ron Paul Confronts the Federal Reserve

Ron Paul Supporters at Anti War Rally – video

Ron Paul Officially Runs For President - C-SPAN Part 1 of 4

The Original American Foreign Policy - by Ron Paul

Rep.Ron Paul on Iran: The Next Neocon Target « Dissident

Ron Paul 2008

*YouTube - Ron Paul Revolution - Phoenix

“Ron Paul stands for populist ideals that the country is screaming out for after seven years of hell under Bush.

Paul unites opposition to the war and the police state at home across the entire political spectrum…from libertarians through anti-war Democrats.

Ron Paul voted against the Patriot Act, opposes the draft, advocates the abolition of the income tax, urges the re-introduction of the gold standard, and stands against initiatives to strip the U.S. of its sovereignty such as CAFTA and the FTAA [as well as the secretive SPP].

Ron Paul has consistently upheld his commitment to civil liberties and slammed the militarized police state that Bush has created.

Paul has been in and out of Congress since the 70's and is universally hated by the Republican elite, who routinely back Democrats against him just to try and get him out of office. The former Vietnam flight surgeon is the perfect candidate for President and activists from every corner of every political persuasion should mobilize now in an attempt to help Paul shatter the power monopoly of the Republican and Democrat establishment who have worked together for decades to slit America's throat in the interests of power, greed, and ego.

Paul was one of only a handful of Republicans to vote against the illegal invasion of Iraq...In bucking a trend, Paul was anti-war long before the majority of the country came around to a similar way of thinking following the catastrophe of the occupation.

While Democrats soft-peddle and cozy up to Bush, creating phony arguments about the level of troop presence in Iraq and ignoring the majority will of the country to bring the troops home immediately, Ron Paul's opposition to unnecessary wars of intervention has remained steadfast throughout his entire political career.

If a gargantuan effort is made from now until the end of 2008 to heighten Paul's media profile and forward him as America's last hope, he truly has a significant chance of giving Jeb Bush, Rudy Giuliani or whichever elitist puppet the Republicans choose to put forward a real run for their money.

With the favor of the political landscape continually swinging away from the scam repeatedly run by the Republicrats and Democans, we should really start off on a positive footing and consider the fact that Ron Paul, though still an underdog, has a real chance of becoming the next President.”

- Ron Paul – America’s Braveheart

Labels: Barack Obama, conservative, constitution, corporate rule, Democrat, Dennis Kucinich, election, fascism, freedom, Giuliani, Hilary, police state, politics, Republican, Ron Paul, U.S.

Saturday, November 18, 2006

The Paranoid Right Is Partly Right

When I think of the paranoid right I think of wild-eyed militia men, bible-thumping, extremist Christian fundamentalists, black helicopters, the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg group, shadowy banking and financial elites, detention centres, U.N. troops abusing their power and the U.S. becoming a fascist police state. Well, I’m not a fundamentalist, nor am I a supporter of the political or religious right; the U.S. militia movement seems pretty scary to me, and anti-semitic conspiracy theories make me think of racist lunatics. That being said, however, the “paranoid right” is partly right.

Many people still do not realize it, but the U.S. is now undeniably becoming a fascist state. Just as the U.S. went from being the world’s leading creditor to the world’s biggest debtor nation, and (what is closely related) from world’s leading oil exporter to world’s leading oil importer, it is now moving from “land of freedom” to land of the police state. The unthinkable is happening. The Patriot Acts and Military Commissions Act create the “legal” framework for martial law and the destruction of the constitution. Torture has been made legal. Contracts have been granted for a network of detention centres. And U.N. troops have shown in Haiti that they can be used as willing tools of oppression. As to the shadowy banking and financial elites, anyone who underestimates the arm-bending power of big money is not living in the real world. (And of course, the elite have their clubs.)

The left tends to place a large part of its focus on class analysis, and rightly so – the area to which the right is often (though not universally) oblivious. But the left may do well to look more deeply into the machinations of power-seekers - which many among the grassroots of the right legitimately fear.

In fact, as more and more people come to view the corporate and business elite as dominating the economy, political process, media and life in general, the polarization between right and left – at the grass roots at least – may be narrowing. There is more common ground than we may imagine. At the level of the grassroots, neither conservatives nor liberals, neither right nor left, nor the centre (whatever that means nowadays) wants fascism; at the grassroots, neither conservatives nor liberals want “Fortress North America”, the “Security and Prosperity Partnership”, a “North American Union”, or the destruction of national democracy or sovereignty. There is more in common between conservatives and liberals, right and left, than most would imagine.

In Canada the Conservative Party came to power on a platform promising to “Stand up for Canada”. Grassroots conservatives clearly supported such a proposal. Yet the Harper government immediately carried forward with deep integration with the U.S., effectively selling out the country, and carrying further the policy of North American “Homeland” integration that Martin and the Liberals had already endorsed. At the level of political elites, virtually all are aboard for the new “Fortress North America” and the “New Security Environment.” At the grassroots, across the political spectrum, the great majority shudder at the thought. Which explains why the Conservative representatives met their American and Mexican counterparts behind closed doors on September 12-14, 2006 at the Banff Springs Hotel to further plan and implement “military, intelligence, economic and judicial integration” in “Fortress North America” – a.k.a., the new continental police state.

If some greater common ground can be found between the grassroots right, left, liberal, conservative and radical – at least on certain issues – perhaps a greater common democratic front can be built for the protection of democracy and freedom. The common foe is the tiny minority of financial and corporate elite, along with their political and media lap dogs, who would make of this world a single grand labour camp, with themselves as the beneficiaries and masters of the universe. Most citizens, be they in Canada, the U.S., Mexico or anywhere else on earth - on the right and left - would agree that this is a hideous vision for humanity.

In any case, the long-standing fears of “the paranoid right” seem to be coming true – sans global Jewish conspiracy. Those nutty militia men – half blinkered, half clear-eyed; part red-neck racist fool, part down-to-earth common sense.

If we value democracy, this is a time not just for vigilance, but for determined action. Freedom and democracy in the United States and across the Western world are now under a great and imminent threat: and that threat is from within; the U.S. government itself has become the agent of destruction of American freedom and democracy. This may not be news for some, but the extent of present developments takes this trend to an entirely new level.

And, since Canadian and Mexican political and business elites have already signed on to continental integration in the North American “Homeland”, we are witnessing the destruction of freedom, democracy and human rights, as well as constitutions, in three nations, across the continent. Is this 1933, Germany? Sometimes I have to wonder.

Speak up Canada. Speak up people of Mexico. It may be harder than you think to reverse such a precipitous fall into fascism. Speak now.

Speak now America. This is your hour to shine, or to self-destruct. Speak now people. Speak and act against this creeping fascist coup.

JTR

***

Endnote:

“If the Nuremburg trials were held today, ever U.S. president since WWII would be hung.” – Noam Chomsky

Perhaps we cannot easily come to terms with the actions of our “leaders.” But we must. Failure to do so will cost us more than we care to imagine.

The former U.S. attorney general under L.B.J., Ramsey Clark, along with many others, is calling for the impeachment of the president of the U.S. for lying to the American people about Iraq, and for war crimes, as defined by international law and the Geneva Convention. However, it is not appropriate to speak of impeachment for George W. Bush. It is appropriate, given his actions, for him to be arrested by a U.S. military officer, police officer, or a bounty hunter, and taken to The Hague to stand trial for war crimes.

This may not be as unlikely an event as one might think. In fact, in the not too distant future, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, George Tenet, Porter Goss, and other U.S. political elites will wish they had resigned, rather than serve life sentences for war crimes in a maximum security prison. Robben Island, in South Africa, might be an appropriate place for these criminals, seeing as they and their corporate masters have been engaged in what can only be honestly described as a ruthless and brutal global economic apartheid, backed by extreme violence, aggression and bloodshed. All empires fall. This will be the last.

“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

- President of the United States (and former General of the Army) Dwight D. Eisenhower in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961

Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex. - video

''… don’t you think they aren’t among us today in a concentration of power that is just unparalleled''

- October 2005, Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as Powell’s chief of staff from 2001 to 2005 and when Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the U.S. Armed Forces during the administration of former president George H.W. Bush

“We have to understand that the war on terrorism is fabricated – it is a complete fabrication – but at the same time it is the doctrine which justifies all these actions both internally and internationally: the police state inside, the militarization of the Middle East, and Central Asia. On the other hand, it is part of the national security doctrine - it is a big lie. It’s perhaps the biggest lie in U.S. history, and it is absolutely essential that a consistent anti-war movement reveal the lie.”

- Michael Chossudovsky

“The tragedy of modern war is that the young men die fighting each other--instead of their real enemies back home in the capitals.”

– Edward Abbey

Links & References: