Ron Paul and the Other F-Word
I was reminded yesterday why it is that I never fell in for the popular Ron Paul, younger generation hype by watching his CPAC address. Overall it was a good speech, full of thought provoking suggestions and interesting analysis. I suppose the other reason that I didn’t fall in for Paul is that I often times don’t agree with his take on things. It seems to me that Paul provides an interesting flavour on foreign affairs, both military and economic, but that at core he is one of those folks who wants to run away into the past and I just don’t find that option to be very compelling.
There are, of course, other elements of Ron Paul’s analysis that don’t mesh well with me, but by and large I can respect where he’s coming from. Which is why it always makes me roll my eyes when Paul gets to this part of his speech,
“We now have moved a major step in the direction of socialism,” Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) said Friday, adding: “We are close to a fascist system where the government has control of our lives and our economy.”
Boom, just like that you’ve lost me. And frankly, you’ve probably lost a goodly portion of any audience who aren’t automatically primed to hoot, cheer, and applaud at any and every portion of your speech. Call this the reverse Godwin’s Law of political speech writing, but the more consistently a politician refers to either side of the political spectrum advancing their agenda as the steady march of American society towards a fascist state, the closer that politician’s likelihood of building a broad base of support that could conceivably govern as diverse polity as America approaches zero.
In other words, saying that this development or that development in American politics means that America is on the brink of becoming a fascist society is an excellent way of ensuring you don’t ever get taken as seriously as you need to in order to have a major impact on said society.
Granted, Ron Paul has his supporters, so I’m not trying to argue that he’s a nothing when it comes to American politics. For goodness sake, he’s a US Congressman and was one of the most talked about Republican candidates for president in 2008. But the Ron Paul movement never seemed to materialize in anything truly significant and some of the people who should have at least been inclined to support, if not vote for, a libertarian leaning Republican like Paul whose analysis I trust, people like Will Wilkinson and Daniel Larison couldn’t bring themselves to do it. Why is that?
Well, there were lots of reasons, but one of them, which I think speaks to the problems inherent with serving up “fascism” throw-ins when addressing an audience is that doing so ultimately undermines the larger point that you’re making by giving in to incendiary, if not perhaps sometimes well-intentioned, rhetorical devices. I mean listen, Ron Paul’s comments and warnings about the slow creep of government intrusion are in fact important points to raise. The tendency for Canadians to, by many accounts, tacitly accept that part of government’s role is to define the terms of what is and is not acceptable through regulation and stunt the moral development of individuals as a result is something I’ve written about vociferously in other venues.
But to then point your quivering finger and label that fascism is just a step too far for me and for most people.
A lot of the reasoning for that is, I think, that we have a sense of what a truly fascist society looks like from past examples, we have a good sense about the kind of cruelty and suffering that go on in those societies, we have an understanding of the moral toll that the existence of such societies have on us as a whole. So when you have anyone from either the left or the right, and both sides do cry wolf in this way, sounding off about the impending fascistic overthrow of a country like America, well it’s more than just hard to take that person seriously, it’s somewhat offensive that said person would choose to utilize a word that carries so many historical connotations in such a cavalier manner.
What’s more, from a strategic angle, you actually tend to hurt the ideas you’re promoting more than help them. When the majority of people hear someone making arguments that throw back to the fascist argument in what the average individual would take to be an inappropriate context, the logical conclusion is to assume that that person is not altogether with it in their analysis, that the person occupies a space on the fringe of political and social discourse and is not to be taken seriously.
That same person might tell you that it doesn’t really matter what certain people think of her or him because what they’re saying needs to be said.
Fair enough, but the problem there is that their message is simultaneously getting degraded along with them by the very fact they are the one delivering it. Over enough time, people like Ron Paul actually do harm to the very message they seek to spread by letting their grandiose rhetoric actually undermine them with audiences that aren’t already dyed in the wool. And sometimes, on rare occasions like with some of Ron Paul’s content, those message are actually pretty important and doing anything to degrade them by way of association with unnecessarily flagrant rhetorical abuses is something that needs to get called out.
(Reposted in part from The League of Ordinary Gentlemen)
opinions powered by SendLove.to
9 Responses to “Ron Paul and the Other F-Word”
My view remains. Within the next 50 years, our republic form of govt will be gone. Oh, the shell will remain, but only the shell. I predict that we will become an authoritarian theocratic fascism type of govt with the rulers owned by the corporations. The mob, the “low intelligence voter” or the sheeple are already easily swayed in their opinions so it will not take much to ensure their votes at “elections”.
Face it, the way things are coming out about the bush years, it is now pretty obivious that we missed being taken over by a theocratic authoritarian fascistic govt only thru their incompetence rather than any other reason. They coopted the MSM early on, the corporations were given anything they wanted, the military industrial complex was allowed to rape the treasury, and overall we came within a wisker of roves dream of a permanent republician-read here theocratic authoritarian fascist-govt majority. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, this time we were lucky, the attempt to subvert the govt failed only due to the incompetence of the players. This time.
Dr. Paul was making similar dire statements about the economy during the presidential campaign, and there was a segment of onlookers who rolled their eyes. And as it turned out, Dr. Paul was correct all along.
It's a matter of learning the lessons of history so we aren't doomed to repeat them.
One of the bigger amusements last year was seeing all these libertarian-oriented Republicans talking about how they could really get behind Ron Paul if he would just drop this one kooky shtick–the Gold Standard, or abolishing the Federal Reserve or something like that. And I kept telling them that the Gold Standard and abolishing the Federal Reserve was not a shtick, it was central to who Ron Paul is.
Ron Paul really does believe we're on the road to fascism. The idea that wow, he could really build a movement if he'd just drop some of the nutty stuff is silly; the nutty stuff is what got him all those online supporters. Yes, it capped his upside, but let's face it, a congressman who is two years older than John McCain was not going to get the nomination anyway.
A very thoughtful article, Scott. I think your point that using language your audience is not ready to hear is valid because it is jarring even if true. I think the Libertarian Party makes the same error which keeps them marginalized. That said, I totally agree with Dr. Paul's statement. Facism, as I understand it, is an economic system whereby the economy is controlled, though not wholly owned, by the government. Large companies accept, even welcome this arrangement, because it provides economic advantage over less politically connected competitors. It is a system entirely different from free enterprise.
The term facism is out of favor because it evokes images of Italy and Spain during the WWII era and is not politically correct to use when referring to the USA. But I think the comparisons are only a matter of degree. I see the same expanding facism as Ron Paul – however, unless I'm surrounded by like minded individuals I keep it to myself. Facist is probably a term that will be used by future historians when reflecting on the state of the US now and in coming years.
We aren't heading for (or even currently under) fascism? The following is from Wikipedia / [comments] are my own. You decide if Ron Paul was over stating his warning about the migration toward fascism.
Fascism: a radical, authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline. Fascists aim to create a single-party state [RepubliCrats] in which the government is led by a dictator [misuse of executive orders] who seeks unity by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of the nation. Fascist movements promote violence between nations [our foreign policy]
Fascist governments permanently forbid and suppress all criticism and opposition to the government [Fairness Doctrine, Patriot Act, etc] and the fascist movement. Fascist movements oppose any ideology or political system that gives direct political power to people as individuals rather than as a collective nation or race (democracy, individualism, liberalism); that is deemed detrimental to national identity and unity (internationalism, communism, class conflict, laissez-faire capitalism); that oppose major changes to institutions and cultural values that it proposes (conservatism) and that undermine the military strength and military ambitions of the nation.
fas·cism (fshzm)
n.
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Ron was not talking hitler 2, he was merely using a word in it's correct context… basically about moving toward total central control. Control being in the form of control of the money and control of our liberty or restriction I should say.
I guess the making of complex subjects toned down to simple explanation doesn't work on you well. Perhaps cross checking the most simple of details might help before writing an entire article on your “informed” opinion.
Hey, but your on the “moderate” voice… so we'll give you that one, keep staying moderate on things while everything falls around you, I'll consider you one of the sheep that helped to go along with all of this mess.
Sometimes, I don't like to hear the truth either.
To the author:
Notice that all comments to date disagree with you to some extent? I've noticed that you have not attempted to offer defensive counter points. Is that an indication that you've changed your mind???
Did you really listen to his speech, or are you reacting to the out of context quote that the Washington Post used?
Paul said, “But every single day we have prior restraint on everything we do in the marketplace. Every market transaction, every labor transaction, every dollar transaction, every property transaction is done only with the permission of the government.
So we now have moved a major step in the direction of socialism, and they talk about nationalism and nationalizing the banks, well the name isn’t as important as the control. We’re closer to a fascist system where the government has total control of our lives and our economy, and that is what has to be stopped.”
He didn't say that we are fascist or socialist, he said that we are moving in that direction and we need to stop it.