There's Movement On The Fringes  

One down, one to go. Peak Energy's list of token anti-war Presidential candidates has been reduced by one, with Dennis Kucinich pulling out of the race (not all that surprisingly - with little media coverage, exclusion from the Democratic debates and ejection from at least the Texas primaries, he wasn't exactly gaining much traction).

Gilles d"Aymery at Swans has a jaundiced but well written look from the left at both Kucinich and Ron Paul and their supporters (as a foreign observer I won't take any of these criticisms personally - its not like the slate of candidates gives armchair hecklers like me much to choose from, so I'll take the ones who at least have the decency to oppose the Iraq war, even if they may have some unusual ideas and followers). I find the reasoning in this one reminds me a lot of Jeff Wells' thoughts on Paul and Kucinich last year - minus the conspiracy theory of course.

Click on the link - the article has a lot of links within it - from "The Zoology Of Pwogs And Pwogrevs".

A week or so ago, a tiger got loose in the San Francisco Zoo. It mauled two humans and killed another before being killed by the "authorities." The zoo was closed for a week or so and finally reopened with the moated enclosure where the tiger once resided now in search of new residents. With this empty space in mind, here's an opportunity to revisit the zoology of the "progressive" and "radical" Left. Truth be told, this is an exercise in futility since nothing much has changed in these political boutiques. The softies stick to their long-held strategy to support any Democratic candidate in the name of lesser-evilism, and parts of the slightly more radical crowd revel in tactical moves that include the number of reactionary angels on the head of the proverbial pin. From Kucinich's coitus interruptus to the embrace of Ron Paul, the entertainment is worthy of the Writer's strike and deserves a quick flyover of the circus where it plays.

Dennis and the credulous progressives

At the very least the progressive crowd (aka pwogs) won't have to wait until August 25-28, 2008, in Denver, Colorado, to find out that once again they have been taken for a ride. In 2004, Dennis Kucinich waited until the last minute, all the way to the Democratic Convention, to deliver his delegates to John Kerry, a pro-war, corporate Democrat who could not give a hoot about these progressives (so long as they voted for him in the name of lesser-evilism -- which they did). This time around, Kucinich showed his true colors as early as January 1, 2008, in the Iowa caucus. He called upon his supporters to caucus for corporate-controlled Barack Obama on the grounds that both of them had "one thing in common: Change." Obama, a trendy and upcoming operator, was quick to respond that he was "honored that [Kucinich] has done this because we both believe deeply in the need for fundamental change." Kucinich, an avatar of history, is crawling back to his UFO-sighted, vegan-loaded spiritual cave, where his red-haired, tongue-pierced wife will soothe the pain until she moves on to a better climate, leaving the cultural creative, egocentric pygmy to struggle for his lonely self. It goes without saying that the progressive community got rattled by his appeal and felt a sense of deep betrayal, proving once again, election cycle after election cycle, that this crowd is irredeemably and incurably irrelevant -- or at least utterly laughable.

As early as July 2006 (see my Blips #54), I opined that Kucinich could only be supported, religiosity and pomposity aside, if he pledged to release his delegates from voting for the nominee, let his supporters vote according to their conscience, and to not campaign for the pro-war candidate should he lose the nomination. He did not make the pledge. I walked away.

Norman Solomon, a strong advocate of Kucinich in 2004, did not walk away though. He supported Kucinich wholeheartedly, and following the call to caucus for Obama as a second choice he woke up with a really bad migraine. He had planned to vote for Kucinich but unable to swallow the latest perfidy he decided through a few intellectual contortions to throw his support to John Edwards instead ("Edwards Reconsidered," Counterpunch, January 3, 2008).

Another leftist who got had and threw his lot to Edwards once Kucinich made the loony suggestion that Ron Paul would be a fitting running mate is one of the Revolutionaries for Democrats that I covered in "The Democratic Salvation And The Idiotic Left" (November 2006). The mushy-brained pseudo-Marxist revels in doing revolutionary work in between elections (though I suspect that due to the lengthy campaign he has not had much time for such activity). Expect him to vote for whoever the Democratic ticket turns out to be. Perhaps a new entry should be added to the nomenclature of the left, "Entertaining Revolutionaries," or "Revolutionary Clowns."

Even Paul Street, the hard-hitting commentator and author who had given somewhat of an uneasy nod to Kucinich, was taken aback by the fraudulent treachery of the silly man (which should have been expected) and, although his opinion of John Edwards had not been particularly warm, he reversed his stand, using Ralph Nader as a shield against possible critics.

The remaining crowd that did a hatchet job on Nader in 2004 (Doug Ireland, Ted Glick, Ronnie Dugger, the folks at Znet, the Cruise-Line Left at The Nation, etc., etc., etc.) and voted for the Democrats in the 2006 mid-term elections has been singularly quiet, or whispering its support for a Democratic nominee, whoever he or she may be. The reasons, I suspect, are three-fold. 1) They are much too busy with their own ventures: Ted Glick has moved to a new field of consciousness -- climate change. Doug Ireland is very occupied with writing his newly commissioned weekly column for the French magazine Bakchich (gosh, his American French is as horrendous as my French American!) and focusing on gay issues. The brain trust at Znet is content to leave Paul Street to rant on the issue at hand as those folks are working hard on their new impressive Web site and focusing on raising $120,000 with the help of their iconic supporters (Chomsky, Zinn, Pilger, et al.). 2) Many, if not all, follow the money, which comes from Democratic supporters. 3) There is no third-party candidate as of yet and therefore no need to denounce a potential "spoiler." Or they may feel a bit ashamed of themselves for time and again succumbing to the rationale of lesser-evilism -- though I doubt that they even comprehend the notion of shame.

It matters little though. They will all vote for the Corporate Democrat chosen by America Inc. -- all, without exception. They'll lament the choice, of course, but will emphasize the symbolism and barrier-breaking of it -- an African American or a woman or a populist. It's so predictable. To add fun to the already pathetic picture, some of these luminaries have jumped on the bandwagon of one very reactionary candidate.

Pwogrevs: Good old red and brown shirts

Pwogrevs are progressive revolutionaries who for a mix of tactical, antiwar, and ideological reasons, decide to support what and whom they are supposed to vehemently oppose.

Who's not used to Alexander Cockburn's antics? The Israeli government and the Jewish (Israel) lobby control America through their bankers and media moguls; global warming is sheer hogwash, driven by profiteers (Alex cannot fathom that profiteers have not created global warming; they simply take advantage of the reality); peak oil is an invention of the oil companies to better increase their profits; and all the muckraking hokum that apparently sells well on Counterpunch (CP). Having a fixation with Jews, in the lineage of his father Claud, he's been flirting with his alter ego at antiwar.com for years. Left-Right "unity" is his motto -- same as it was in Mussolini's times, and in our post-partisan era. Some leftists, even of the libertarian mold, have always had a fascination with the sirens of muscular order. Cockburn's evolving ideological drift toward reactionary politics was in full display when he wrote favorably in support of Ron Paul and took a few sharp arrows out of his quiver to shoot at Ralph Nader. (And no, Alex, Nader did not "endorse" Edwards. It should be evident enough that this is a ploy from the Establishment's guard dogs to discredit John Edwards -- "See, the guy is being endorsed by a radical, spoiling, lunatic; it's proof positive that he is not a viable candidate..."

Who knows, next he may well endorse Mike Huckabee, the Christ's soldier, Republican with a soul and welcome Chuck Norris on CP!

However, the position taken by Joshua Frank, the co-editor of dissidentvoice.org and regular contributor to CP, is more troubling. He recommends paying attention to and embracing the candidature of Ron Paul because of Paul's strict antiwar position. In doing so, Frank, like many antiwar activists, confuses an antiwar coalition with an ideological alliance. An antiwar coalition should encompass all activists independent of their ideology but should remain focused on that single issue. When you jump into an ideological alliance you're entering some very muddy waters. For instance, should one support David Duke because of his antiwar positions? I'm not suggesting or even insinuating that Paul is a white supremacist. I have no idea, but I sure know that he is anti-immigrant, against freedom of choice, anti-gay, anti-affirmative action, against civil rights, against universal health care, against public education, against all antipoverty programs at home and abroad, against any kind of governmental regulations in the name of the famed "free market" so dear to the paleoconservatives, and, and, and...the list is too long to enumerate here. Suffice it to say, Paul would be happy to return to a social construct that existed in the 19th century and erase all the rights that our forebears fought and died for so that the working class, the small people, the minorities, would be less exploited and share the fruits of their work in a more egalitarian fashion.

The partisans of such an ideological alliance will retort that there is no way, no chance that Paul's principles could turn into the policies of the United States, proving that they are in dire need to revisit their history books, and one could rhetorically ask: If a Paul administration could not deliver his program what makes you believe that he would be able to end the war? They also argue that we have to reach out to conservative, even reactionary voices and forces if we want to achieve results (end the war, etc.), all the same ignoring that in doing so they end up co-opted by these reactionary forces and continually move in one direction, and one direction only: that of the reactionary they otherwise seemingly abhor and combat. Haven't they learned yet from the centrist Democrats?

Out of rationales, which to be honest they have in profusion, they'll wink and allude to the fact that the odds of Ron Paul getting the nomination of the Republican Party are so slim it's worthy and not that risky to monkey-wrench the game. It'd be more useful that instead of wasting their time on baloney they spent it on building a credible alternative to the duopoly, one that reflects their actual social and political principles. What a quaint idea, less gaming and more work back at the drawing board.

But this short review would not be complete without having a look, or taking an ironic shot, at my favorite "monkey-wrencher," the endearing Stan Goff, the self-defined unorthodox Marxist and feral scholar of fame within the withering blogoleftsphere. You'll recall that Stan is the master tactician (also covered in my November 2006 article) who advocated voting for the Democrats in the midterm elections. Having found out that the Democrats did not make one inch of a difference regarding Iraq (wow, what a find!), he announced a few months ago that he would campaign for Ralph Nader, were he to run in the coming presidential election. He also blathered a few positive words about Cynthia McKinney and her attempt to become the Green Party flag bearer.

A renown strategist, Stan sat in front of his chess board, pondered what lateral move he could make to defeat his opponents (the "war party" as Justin Raimondo calls them), and, Eureka!, came up with another genial tactical move. Forget about the king (Nader) and the queen (McKinney): let's muddle up the opposition by registering as Republicans in the primaries and vote for Ron Paul, he wrote in a little rant published on -- where else but -- CP. That will throw the proverbial monkey wrench into the game. Then he went on to refine and further clarify his tactical move on his blog.

A lively discussion ensued. The gallery applauded. To paraphrase: "What a gutsy move, Stan; I'm all for it. Let's become Republicans for a day or more and vote for Ron Paul. We'll show 'em the power of our discontent" -- Even good old John Steppling embraced the tactic, taking the occasion to plug one of his latest typo-laden admonitions against the Imperialists. It was all bon enfant as usual and, in the big scheme of the presidential charade, rather insignificant.

Still, it was a reminder of the age-old commonality between the red and brown shirts, and made me wonder whether these people will ever, ever bring a coherent message that could be supported by the masses of confused voters -- those millions who long for real change but cannot find a bearer for their hopes...and are instinctually rejecting the perpetual contortions and tactical moves of activists that are incapable of offering a realistic alternative to the duopoly.

Thus, here we are: The pwogs for Democrats remain as entrenched as ever in their ineptitude and the pwogrevs call for an alliance with a reactionary nut ball. It's déjà vu all over again. I am sorry the tiger had to be killed, but the emptied, moated enclosure is available. I hear that there is no access to the Internet and computers are forbidden in that space. It could be used for more creative purposes!

The Ron Paul campaign has been going a lot better than Kucinich's did, with a couple of second place finishes in the Republican primaries so far.

On the downside, Paul has been dogged by accusations of racism in recent weeks (which he denies), with a piece in The National Review raking over the story of his newsletter ("The Ron Paul Survival Report" - does anyone know if this is related to the "Urban Survival Report" that some peak oil fringes are aligned with ?) and whether or not he knew about/was responsible for/wrote various unsavoury things it contained during the 80s and 90s. The RP blogosphere has been in state of ferment ever since - check out this post (and the comments) as an example, featuring a range of Paul supporters going at it with the infamous Eric Dondero and his trolls. One thing seems certain - the right wing fringes are far crazier than the left wing fringes (at least the ones I check up on).

Personally I'm inclined to give Paul the benefit of the doubt (otherwise I'd just give up on commenting on the election entirely), but I will note that some of the social conservatives following him are people I don't entirely agree with on many subjects, while staying focused on the bigger Republican picture - the others are far worse.

Whether or not you could class the right wing fringes that have largely coalesced behind Paul as brownshirts is an interesting question. I've always thought of Paul's fairly utopian Libertarian statements as a long way from fascism (although admittedly some of them aren't exactly practical). I guess both of them are forms of right wing populism, but it still seems unfair for Gilles (and Jeff Wells) to effectively label him a fascist of sorts, especially given his consistent record on civil liberties and armed foreign intervention. As a contrast, Mr Dondero, who seems to be waging a one man crusade against Paul, is a self-described Libertarian who does apparently favour the "War on Terror" (cough), demonisation of some minorities and the wipeout of civil liberties - which seems to me to be rather more in line with the brownshirt tag.

Its also worth noting that left-libertarian people like Tom Engelhardt and Glenn Greenwald seem content to trade ideas with the Lew Rockwell crowd, and I doubt they would be willing to be associated with any form of racism or aggressive populist nationalism.

On the other hand, Paul isn't exactly a complete anti-authoritarian (ie. someone from the individualist-anarchist end of the libertarian spectrum) - he seems more of a isolationist who believes that most laws should be decided at a state level rather than a federal level, and a cultural conservative as well, so I guess worrying about cross-over potential isn't completely unjustified.

Some of the more interesting commentary on this was in The Atlantic last week - "Ron Paul's Friends" and "Ron Paul and the Fringe".

You know, I half-believe Ron Paul when he says that he is not a bigot or a racist or an anti-Semite. I half-believe him in when he says the inflammatory material that James Kirchick has uncovered in years and years of newsletters and pamphlets with his name on them was written by others without his supervision or direct permission. But what I'm nearly sure of is that he doesn't really care that much if some of the people around him are racists - not because he shares their opinions, but because he thinks those opinions aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things.

This doesn't make Ron Paul a terrible person; it just makes him human. He believes in a constellation of ideas - some of them nutty, but some of them not - that have been shunted to the fringe of American political life. And people who find themselves in that position tend to be far, far more forgiving of their allies' various tics and idiosyncracies and yes, bigotries than would otherwise be the case. It's unfortunate, but it's also human nature: If someone agrees with you and supports you when the whole world seems to be against you, of course you'll be more likely to look past their tendency to suggest that Mossad was behind the 1993 WTC bombing, or their fondness for pre-apartheid South Africa. When you're way out there on the fringe, without any obvious way to reach the mainstream, it's very easy to tell yourself that your dubious friends aren't really all that bad - and that besides, if you ever start finding your way back to the mainstream, it won't be all that hard to jettison them along the way. It's easy, as well, to start making excuses for them: If the mainstream accuses you of anti-Semitism, unfairly, because you're a principled non-interventionist who wants the U.S. to pull out of the Middle East, it's easy to find yourself making excuses for other people who get tarred (more justly) with the label. And then time goes by, the mainstream never gets any closer, you're spending all your time in a cramped and crankish and resentful world, and you hear yourself thinking hey, if these neo-Confederate guys are right about states' rights and the Constitution, then maybe they're right about race too ...

It's the most natural thing in the world. Just ask Sam Francis.

Thus it's to Ron Paul's credit, in a certain way, that he never went as far down this road as Francis and Joe Sobran and others like them did. But it's a shame that some of Paul's ideas have only Paul - with all his baggage, all his own weird and baseless notions, and all his unfortunate friends - as their champion. Even if you believe, as I do, that the American empire and the administrative state aren't going anywhere and ought to be taken as the givens of our politics, there's still a constructive role for non-interventionists and constitutionalists to play in our politics (and especially in conservative politics!), whether we're debating the invasion of Iraq or the latest appropriations bill. But because those ideas are currently way out on the fringe - and associated with the sort of people who wrote for the Ron Paul Political Report back in the day - there are enormous incentives for most politicians and writers to give them a wide berth, precisely because anyone who does embrace them will find himself, like Paul, sharing a very small boat with a lot of very dubious friends.

With apologies to Jim Antle's fine piece, this is the real "paleocon dilemma": That once a set of ideas reaches the fringes of political discussion, it tends to stay there.

Some of the comments on these were pretty good, with this being one example, noting that the left fringes can get pretty weird as well - and that it seems a little odd that neoconservatism is apparently an acceptable mainstream right wing ideology - yet it is far more toxic in many ways than the paleo-libertarian and paleo-conservative fringes, who at least haven't been responsible for the destruction of any countries in recent years.

The same dynamic exists on the Left, of course. Those of us who opposed the Iraq War and wanted to raise concerns about the downside of corporate globalization inevitably found ourselves at a rally sponsored by ANSWER, listening to some speaker compare Zionism to Nazism. Once ideas are pushed to the fringe, they tend to be cannibalized by the fringe.

To me, this really just highlights the harms created by the clubby dynamic and groupthink in our political press. If you want to understand where our politics went off the rails, I'd point to the fact that Bill Kristol continues to be a respected member of the establishment whose views are taken seriously, whereas the similarly extreme ideological spaces occupied by Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are considered fringe elements.

This guy also made some worthwhile points.

Why not write about how the non-racist Ron Paul has drawn racists and anti-Semites into his way of thinking rather than the other way around? Why not mention how white supremacists and neo-Nazis have gone to meetups and found that they had something in common with blacks and Jews and maybe changed their minds a tad about their bigoted ways?

Bigots are bigots for a reason, however unjustified, but instead of trying to reason with them and educate them like Ron Paul does with his message of individual rights and freedom and justice for all, we always try to push them farther away. Why not engage them? Why not talk to them to tell them why they are wrong, and without personal attacks that further alienate them, but with civil discussion. When fringe elements get pushed away they join with other folks like them and they breed and they perpetuate their ilk. Bring them in, discuss, educate, reason, and then maybe they will get what we have all come to understand.

Think about how a lot of our grandparents were racist (or at least told off color jokes that aren't really funny or still use the word "colored"). What changed society? Integration, because enough people tried to get along, made subsequent generations meet others that are different and find out we're not really that different.

Why does Ron Paul have the most diverse following? It isn't just Iraq and the Federal Reserve.