FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Left, Right and Paul

by KEITH HOUSER

A wise old sage once revealed to me a profound truth.  He had fought and won many battles throughout his illustrious career, lancing the dragon of nuclear energy in his early years before moving on to further victories over the corporate titans of ecocide.  Now closer to the end than to the beginning, he devoted what remained of his time on our dimming Eden to the transfer of knowledge to the young, that they might salvage something of a future.  When the aging champion spoke, I listened.

“Do you know the fundamental difference between left- and right-wing?” he asked one evening, with a certain slyness to his tone.

I thought for a second or two, knowing his riddle would demand an unconventional answer.  We had broken bread a few days earlier in a now-defunct café east of downtown, just past the shuttered den of a motorcycle gang the feds had recently raided, near the sidewalk on which the sickly woman with track marks flaunted her high heals.  The sage and I had thoroughly gone over the basics that afternoon, drinking coffee while discussing science, culture, history, and the imperfect world outside.  Having gone that far already, such a simple political question now seemed behind us.

“The left believes established power should be challenged while the right thinks established power should be reinforced,” I said.  The two painfully amorphous terms were coined during the French Revolution, when the radicals and reformers sat physically to the left of the General Assembly president, while the monarchists sat to the right.  So, I thought, the original ideological divide should be as sufficient an explanation as any.

“Deeper than that,” he said.

“Patriarchical symbolism,” I responded, trying yet again.  “Faith in the supposedly ‘feminine’ value of nurturing as opposed to the supposedly ‘masculine’ value of force.”

“Getting closer,” he said.  “But not exactly.”  He leaned in to whisper his mystic insight.

“‘Left’ and ‘right’ really boil down to one basic question: whether you suspect people are inherently good or evil.  The rightist froths at the idea of a political system helping the less fortunate because natural-born sinners can only be tamed by punishment.  Meanwhile the powerful are virtuous for pushing around the majority who deserve to be controlled.  But to the leftist, the opposite is true: evil is artificial, good natural.  Coercive institutions suppress the purity of the human spirit and should therefore be dismantled.  Remember this axiom: all political debate flows from these two conflicting perceptions of reality.”

I’m constantly reminded of the sage’s heavy words while watching the 2012 Republican presidential primaries.  For over a year would-be nominees have been climbing over each other to make their case for Order and Discipline, albeit usually phrased in the more palatable language of Freedom and Opportunity.  On the surface it often seems staggeringly bizarre and illogical, as when candidates bemoan the moral decline of the general population while accusing others of “hating America.”  But the emotional emphasis of the growling rhetoric is perfectly consistent.  As warned the great sage, at its core is a fierce defense of the authoritarian impulse.  Hence the frequent macho posturing and the growing resemblance of the primary season to a demented pro-wrestling competition.

It all began in earnest when latter-day carnival barker Donald Trump climbed atop a soapbox and pointed to his own muscles.  He worked the Grand Old Party faithful into a frenzy challenging the President to release his long-form birth certificate, if only he had the guts.  When the President did just that, the muscles fell off of poor Mr. Trump, who was promptly booed, pelted with scorn, and abandoned.

The frustrated crowd, still hungering for a strong leader to guide them, next gravitated toward a reputable governor with a decent approval rating named Tim Pawlenty.  But nice guys tend not to fare well with the Party of Blood and Fire, which in a fit of boredom then lurched to one Michele Bachmann.  She thrilled many with dark visions of writing bigotry into the Constitution and her magical health clinic that cured homosexuality.

Tempting, mused observers, until Rick Perry of Texas unveiled his awe-inspiring record of human sacrifice.  “Over two hundred, and it even includes the mentally disabled,” he boasted, much to the delight of the Christian rank-and-file.  When he soon proved to be a bit slow himself, pizza mogul Herman Cain seized the spotlight, promising to brutalize the poor with a new federal sales tax and deep cuts to social programs, but he was, alas, quickly undone by a sex scandal.

Today four contenders remain on the stormy field, none quite able to finish off the rest.  Mitt Romney just can’t find his inner demon but wins the occasional grunt of respect for his status as unrepentant tycoon.  The Flat Earth contingent salutes Rick Santorum’s outspoken defense of dogma over country, but his prissy man-boy schtick has failed to catch fire.  And of course, Newt Gingrich won wild, guttural applause calling Obama the “food stamp president,” but now he’s strapped for cash, and worse still, has no friends, since his former colleagues have total contempt for his character.

Ron Paul, however, is of a different breed than the others, which is why he’ll never be president.  The grandfatherly country doctor of Brünofame is the rare kind of man who actually lives by his principles.  Yet in a quirk proving definitively that fate operates according to its own sense of humor, this one-in-a-million honest politico keeps his principles firmly planted in the Eighteenth Century.

Congressman Ronald Ernest Paul I, Air Force Captain, Doctor of Medicine, and undisputed leader of the modern “libertarian” movement, insists that the public sector is the primary evil plaguing society.  That the “L” word meant “anarcho-communist” until recently doesn’t seem to phase him.  Nor should it, for the traditional definition was junked in North America with the advent of Ayn Rand and a slew of crackpot economists who preached the good news that selfishness is the highest ideal.  Thenceforth, “libertarianism” would mean anything-goes-capitalism under a government so weak that all power to abuse the individual would exclusively lie in the private sector.

This argument for a business-run dystopia rationalizes itself further with a fundamentalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.  As if a vast frontier were still open to settlement and water-powered cotton mills were the height of modern technology, the “strict constructionist” legal theory insists that the role of government today should be the same as it was in 1788.

And herein lies the Ron Paul Paradox.  It is easy to chant the mantra of “small government” as a stock campaign slogan, but quite another to actually believe it.  Into the septic tank of history, should the Paulites ever storm the halls of power, would go everything from warrantless government surveillance, to the Drug War, “enhanced interrogation techniques,” hundreds of overseas American military bases checkering the globe, economic blockades, threats of violence against other countries, undeclared war, bailouts of financial institutions, and billions spent annually on corporate welfare.  The leftist heartily drools at the prospect.

But Dr. Paul’s anti-government bone saw cuts in two directions.  In keeping with his philosophy of imposing a late-Eighteenth Century government on a Twentieth-first Century people, handguns would be allowed on commercial flights, the EPA gutted, federal lands sold off, Interior and Education Departments abolished, healthcare programs and Social Security phased out, the tax system made regressive, and restrictions lifted on offshore oil drilling.  He is, of course, the only member of Congress to vote against banning lead in children’s toys.  After all, it isn’t mentioned in the Constitution.

So is the Congressman right-wing or left-wing?  As he can’t or won’t see that corporate power is as great a threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the authority of the state–he is both, and he is neither.  The sage maintained that people tend to take their collection of political beliefs as a package, leaning towards either criticism or support of hierarchy in general.  The traditional instincts of both left and right are violated by Ron Paul in one way or another, which is why he will never gain wide enough popular support to win the presidency on the basis of policy alone.

But while Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney continue to claw at each other on national television, in that surreal traveling circus that is the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, I can’t help but root for the old country doctor hurling cognitive monkey wrenches into dumbfounded crowds.  Not just anyone gets away with denouncing militarism in South Carolina, the Cuban embargo in Florida, or ethanol subsidies in Iowa.  As millions are spent by candidates over the coming months subliminally promoting the idea that power justifies itself, victims are persecutors, and war is peace, I’ll take as much psychic rebellion as I can get.  At the very least, the absurdity will be priceless.

 

More articles by:
June 30, 2016
Richard Moser
Clinton and Trump, Fear and Fascism
Pepe Escobar
The Three Harpies are Back!
Ramzy Baroud
Searching for a ‘Responsible Adult’: ‘Is Brexit Good for Israel?’
Dave Lindorff
What is Bernie Up To?
Thomas Barker
Saving Labour From Blairism: the Dangers of Confining the Debate to Existing Members
Jan Oberg
Why is NATO So Irrational Today?
John Stauber
The Debate We Need: Gary Johnson vs Jill Stein
Steve Horn
Obama Administration Approved Over 1,500 Offshore Fracking Permits
Rob Hager
Supreme Court Legalizes Influence Peddling: McDonnell v. United States
Norman Pollack
Economic Nationalism vs. Globalization: Janus-Faced Monopoly Capital
Binoy Kampmark
Railroaded by the Supreme Court: the US Problem with Immigration
Howard Lisnoff
Of Kiddie Crusades and Disregarding the First Amendment in a Public Space
Vijay Prashad
Economic Liberalization Ignores India’s Rural Misery
Caroline Hurley
We Are All Syrians
June 29, 2016
Diana Johnstone
European Unification Divides Europeans: How Forcing People Together Tears Them Apart
Andrew Smolski
To My Less-Evilism Haters: A Rejoinder to Halle and Chomsky
Jeffrey St. Clair
Noam Chomsky, John Halle and a Confederacy of Lampreys: a Note on Lesser Evil Voting
David Rosen
Birth-Control Wars: Two Centuries of Struggle
Sheldon Richman
Brexit: What Kind of Dependence Now?
Yves Engler
“Canadian” Corporate Capitalism
Lawrence Davidson
Return to the Gilded Age: Paul Ryan’s Deregulated Dystopia
Priti Gulati Cox
All That Glitters is Feardom: Whatever Happens, Don’t Blame Jill Stein
Franklin Lamb
About the Accusation that Syrian and Russian Troops are Looting Palmyra
Binoy Kampmark
Texas, Abortion and the US Supreme Court
Anhvinh Doanvo
Justice Thomas’s Abortion Dissent Tolerates Discrimination
Victor Grossman
Brexit Pro and Con: the View From Germany
Manuel E. Yepe
Brazil: the Southern Giant Will Have to Fight
Rivera Sun
The Nonviolent History of American Independence
Adjoa Agyeiwaa
Is Western Aid Destroying Nigeria’s Future?
Jesse Jackson
What Clinton Should Learn From Brexit
Mel Gurtov
Is Brexit the End of the World?
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Alabama Democratic Primary Proves New York Times’ Nate Cohn Wrong about Exit Polling
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail