as i see it the problem with much of the ron paul analysis you see here is that most people are unwilling (many because of their right wing bias or their general pro-capitalist conditioning and many on the left, christ knows why) to concede or even begin to understand that the main instrument through which the ruling oligarchies implement their economic and militaristic plans is called “global capitalism”.

ron paul represents the very same capitalist system that has created this unholy mess. he is for more big business, not less. more deregulation, not less. more privitisation, not less. more global capitalism, not less.

he says he stands for more personal freedom and more civil liberties but which is to be sacrificed, civil liberties or the rights of big business to make war profits, when the two things inevitably clash? the reason we see a police state now is because of the voracious demands of the military industrial complex to make even greater profits, through unpopular imperialism abroad, and the general looting and dismantling of the american industrial base at home which has further created impoverishment in the working and middle classes.

this is global capitalism at work that has created this situation and ron paul promises us more.

i understand people’s desire to grasp at anything that might represent hope, however faint and false, but the solution lies not in electing another washington politician to administer the fucked up system but rather through people organising themselves to create a new power base and a new movement that calls for an end to the system that creates the chaos and oppression: ie, socialism.

not likely i hear you say. maybe. but that’s what it’s going to take if anything is to actually change.

Whether the GP is imploding or exploding really depends on US. Yet, the talk here is as if the Dems (Edwards) and Repubs (Paul) offered an alternative - after all; we’ve got the progressive green Joshua Frank, here, eyeing a conservative libertarian republican and saying “looks pretty damn good to me. Think I’ll have some of that.”

Building is hard work. And too many folks are just partying and shopping (consumers of the latest hub bub). Seriousness is just a moment away.

bbaker@ubalt.edu

And I do not have to address the problems that you raise of the GP’s delegate structure as I have publicly criticized it many times before and I’m not going to harp on the same no-brainer stuff. A compromise was narrowly defeated in the GNC recently. As an individual, it is out of my hands. Talk to your delegates, they need to vote on it before the GP primaries, or, as Sunil says, the GP will be useless (or actually, he says it is useless now, too early to tell, I think). nevertheless, it will be useless if it cannot democratize its structures. You lecture about this like we have not heard it before when it is all that we have heard about. There are still some safe staters, but Cobb would not have won this year on a safe state approach, this is a different time. Most who were ABB are not now, and Benjamin is on PDA. Can we undo the damage of 04 that we are still feeling and still affects us even locally? I hope, but am not sure.

Finally I have to ask (switching gears):
is this getting us anywhere? Even those who support Paul: by writing about and arguing for us to support him, you cannot will a movement into existence. He will most likely be a flash in the pan, as Dean was.

Also, the ABB/all out question: both Nader and Cobb got less than 1% is this argument doing anybody any good as far as growing, or is it more wheel spinning that keeps us apart from the rest of America? Independence from the Democrats is important, but if the Green Party continues to be loose and decentralized with no accountability and fear of taking a stand, co-optation from the Dems is inevitable. I believe in multi-tendency organization, but damn. Either our locals do endorse democrats or they don’t. Either we are anti-Zionist or we are not. Either we tolerate rule-breaking in our internal processes or we do not. Either we support full immigrants’ rights and insist that our candidates do or we do not. People are afraid to make a goddamned decision about anything in the GP. And even more afraid to enforce anything. Rules must be passed, enforced, then move on and stop being inward-looking. The delegate selection stuff should have been settled years ago!

Also: these on-line internal debates the GP has have sadly, taken the place of productive grassroots work in the streets. While I like the technology, I think that the internet has hurt us. If people are doing the digital dance on their keyboards day in and day out, they are of no use to the movement because when events happen, those people blogging could be organizing. occasional blogging is one thign, but every day?

I am beginning to think that we need more resources put into media. I do not think that most of us (I say most) are “elitist” or “bullshitters”, but I do think that we say the right stuff , but that no one but the choir hears. This site and others are good, but we are not being heard, so it’s not enough.

From what I see, we need to invest in TV (get something like Free Speech. I love Free Speech, but it is too hooked on Identity Politics at times) radio and a newspaper. Wouldn’t it be great to have a radical daily? Until we pool our resources (a feat in itself considering the anarchistic/individualist nature of the US Left) and get more of a voice in the media which can be done in spite of the FCC/Murdoch, etc, we won’t be heard.

Ms. Baker, what I wrote you took entirely out of context but you didn’t address key problems that I’ve raised regarding the Green Party:

The party’s internal disproportional representational structure allowed David Cobb to get the nomination in 2004 against the wishes of the majority of the Greens who preferred Camejo (Nader). The Green Party internally representation is not based on one-person/one vote representation. This organizational weakness is what allowed Demo-Greens like Medea Benjamin and other “ABBers” to disrupt the Green Party in 2004. This issue still hasn’t been remedied. Without remediation, it is likely that “a small group of bigots” or any “small group of Demo-Greens” will exercise control over the will of the majority in 2008 exactly like what occurred in 2004.

The attacks level at Ms. McKinney is only the beginning of this process and it plays to the fears of the “Demo-Green” faction of the Green Party. Like the Democratic Party there are some nice people there to but the DLC controls the party apparatus. The Green Party is experiencing a similar internal dynamic and has not properly address this problem.

Libertarianism has shades which overlap a number of other ideologies and when no one is speaking to the shades than someone like Paul’s message becomes an attactor. But the only way to argue this from a ideological perspective is to go to the source - the ideology that he is preaching and guides his opinions (one good thing about a consistant ideologue is you know their decision making processes on each issue they’re confronted with; Obama would be the complete opposite end of the spectrum: “color me whatever you want” is his message.)

Only a discussion around conservative libertarianism can clear the air of the confusion over such faux arguments like Paul vs Edwards.

This is true. But there is racism in every group, not just the GP. Eddie Boyd, our 2006 Green candidate for Governor here in Maryland was the first African-American to run for the office in a General Election from any party. He got some media, but not as much as the main 2, of course. But you would have expected the Greens in his state to back him 1000%, but the racist shit that some publicly said about him was absolutely appauling. In fact, a tiny group of registered Greens (some of these people even running for state and federal offices as Greens) went to another third Party and ran a candidate against him, talk about dysfunctional.

You are going to see more of it, this type of racism against McKinney and Ball and other candidates of color, up to the Greens’ nominating convention.

But many Greens are not like that, so it’s not fair to judge the whole party based on a small group of bigots.

I don’t know who supports AIPAC? I hope Ron Paul does not think that ARABS and MUSLIMS are supporting AIPAC. The Jews are being against the Iraq war has greatly been exaggerated. The percentage of the Jews who voted for Bush in the second election for his presidency increased compare to the first election. On the contrary the percentage of youth votes were decreased.

Ron Paul thinks the current foreign policy of the US is actually harmful to Israel. He repeats Chomsky’s nonsense that it is the US itself that prevents Israel in its peruse of her interest in talking to Syria since we ask Israel “don’t talk to Syria or we’ll cut off your money.” I hope Ron Paul is not that Naïve to believe that Israel is so desperate for 3 billion dollars to abandon its project “greater Israel” for this aid.
Furthermore, Ron Paul as a doctor believes in free market medicine. Today even those doctors and specialist in Health care believe that Health Care should not be managed by free
Market economy because it will produce harmful consequences, to make medicine less affordable and therefore decrease access to health care which is necessity and not luxury.
Ron Paul’s view on Education, Social Security, government and other aspects of economy is closer to Milton Friedman. Please read
“Capitalism and Freedom” to find out more about Ron Paul’s views on abandonment of government’s responsibility toward its citizen in name of “freedom.”

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120337.html

Understand Manfred Max-Neef to get an understanding of what poverty is and than see what he and others have done to address the conditions.

On the other hand, government is problematic (and always will be) but not because it exists but because power is not decentralized and DC is incapable of reflecting the needs and wants of 300,000,000 people and over a million square mile land mass. No system works at that scale for anyone.

Libertarian ideology is framed around the individual. It is not about common wealth which is why such theorists will invoke conditions that create poverty not alleviate it.

Meanwhile, how has the present government caused poverty? Unless you’re saying that its corruption in favor of capitalist enterprise makes it somehow itself the same thing as capitalist enterprise, that is simply an irrational claim — not to mention a capitalist-excusing one.

Capitalists certainly dominate the U.S. government. As such, they have used the U.S. government to worsen international (non-domestic) poverty. But capitalist domination is not the same thing as government itself. If it were, why would you or anybody bother with caring about elections?

And the U.S. government has in fact lessened domestic poverty, albeit not nearly as much as it should. Business priorities (profits first) cause poverty and governmental corruption. Government itself is up for grabs, and needs to be grabbed and expanded and democratized.

Meanwhile, you simply don’t know your horse from your cart here. Ron Paul is a cart, and an exceedingly crappy one at that.

Regarding Kucinich getting Paul voter support… the fact remains that most of Paul’s supporters are racist Republicans that got tired of being called stupid for voting against their own interests or who never voted, have sense enough to see the party of their papa is lying to them, but sure couldn’t get behind one of them tree huggin queers on the left. Democrats are too attached to winnability and lesser evilism to get Kucinich going and the few who supported him last time got fucked pretty good

Try presenting a Kucinich issues education to a Paul supporter, I’ve done so at least five times and only once did someone say he sounds like a good guy and that maybe they should run together

I’ve never heard of any Greens complaining about “having to alter their “complexion” because McKinney will be a conduit for oppressed groups.” Most Greens that I know are very happy to have her seeking our nomination. I hope to get her to come to my state’s Presidential candidate forum.

If you plan to define the Green Party by the campaign strategy of one candidate in one election, that’s your choice (Cobb, BTW, ended up campaigning in swing states). I would encourage you and Josh to learn more about our party instead of simply repeating John Murphy’s attacks on us. J