These are some links I was planning on posting this weekend/Monday, but was too busy actually having an awesome weekend. Sorry.
If it seems like I spend an inordinate amount of time dogging Ron Paul, it’s because so many seemingly progressively-minded people seem to have some seriously rose-colored glasses on when it comes to what Ron Paul really stands for.
Liberty? Only if you can afford it. And you’re white. And male. And straight. How is this any different from any other Republican?
And how many excuses can you make for his stances before you start to realize that you’re working awfully hard to defend the indefensible?
P.S. If you’re wondering about that headline, check this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EQSOwgWG1c
Okay, I have yet again had “this country was intended to function like X and we need to put it back like that” thrown at me, this time by a Ron Paul supporter but eh. It’s too pervasive for me to just point at them and say it’s their argument, though I’ll get to him when I’ve picked apart that little highly-polished ball of shit.
Here’s my feeling.
I am a lot less reverent of “the way things were intended to be” than I am “how things would need to be so that privileged and currently-marginalized people can have equality of opportunity.”
The country we create means a lot more to me than the degree to which it matches someone else’s idea of sufficient faithfulness to the ideological orthodoxy of a group of social contract theorists two centuries ago who had no more experience with the kind of culture I want to live in now than anybody else did at the time.
So rather than spending the rest of my life building a political theory around slavish obedience to the ideals of men who owned black people and mostly didn’t think women were qualified to vote, I’m going to look at politics and government as a problem-solving exercise, not a test of my loyalty to “the founders.”