Against possibly my better judgement here, I’m going to post my thoughts about Ron Paul. Recently, two of my favorite bloggers, Glenn Greenwald and Dave Neiwert, butted heats over what’s happening with Paul, who he really is, and what his surprisingly successful candidacy means in this election cycle. The fact that neither one of them was being dishonest about Paul, but both found that the other person’s perspective was odd – almost offensive – really demonstrates the minefield that Paul’s candidacy has become.

From Neiwert’s perspective as an expert on white supremacist groups and related far-right extremism, he’s seen Paul as a fellow traveller with these groups for years. His post here details some of the history of those connections. Where I find some agreement with Greenwald is that Neiwert seems to be attributing the popularity of Paul’s far-right libertarian message with an ascendance of far-right racism. There’s obviously an element of that in his support, but the reason that Paul is becoming so popular today has very little to do with racism. When you think of left vs. right as being a struggle between more government and less government, Paul is certainly the most far-right candidate in the Republican field. But in that context, far-right is far from being analogous to racist. And when Paul says, “Well, they’ll be disappointed if that’s why they’re supporting me,” I tend to agree with him in some respects. But his history of ties to the groups that Neiwert has been following also amounts to a legitimate reason to doubt him, especially when he starts sounding like Lou Dobbs on immigration.

In recent decades, “states’ rights” has often been synonymous with the movement to keep the federal government from eliminating policies of segregation that existed in the American south. Many people today believe that ending these policies was a valid and proper use of the federal government, but Congressman Paul has doctrinaire views of the Constitution and what limits it places on the federal government. There’s no reason to conclude that he arrived at these views out of racism, but adopting that ideology certainly aligned him with those whose animosity toward federal power is rooted in the belief that the federal government is foisting “multi-culturalism” on the individual states. And as a Congressman from Texas, it’s very likely that this was some element of his voter base. Whether he needs to disavow this support now in order to appeal to more voters is really the big question, although so far, his candidacy doesn’t seem to be slowed by it at all. And this has nothing to do with racism.

The Bush Administration has made it abundantly clear that the idea that Republicans are more federalist, or support the typical conservative notions of small government, has long been an illusion. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have supported the strong use of federal power whenever it suits their needs. And while most Americans (myself certainly included) don’t have a well-developed legal understanding of the ins and outs of federal power vs. state power, we all recognize circumstances where the federal government oversteps its bounds and needs to be restrained.

Following drug policy and related topics for years, two circumstances quickly come to mind, and help shed some light on why the idea of “states’ rights” means something very different to someone who’s not old enough to remember the civil rights era (the same people who are also driving Paul’s amazing fundraising success online). The first is the federal drinking age. Under pressure from Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 forced states to stop selling alcohol to those under 21. Before this, some states had already moved their drinking age to 21, while others had not. Ideally, this could have set up a situation where the states could compare experiences and determine whether raising the age to 21 was a good idea. Instead, you now have to rely on anyone who’s gone to college in the past 20 years to tell you how much of a disaster this policy is.

As any sane person would expect, raising the drinking age did nothing to stop underage people from drinking. All it did was force the drinking underground, hidden from authorities and other potential supervision, where the likelihood for people to be irresponsible or end up in dangerous situations went up substantially. Why was all of this was done? Because both the Reagan Administration and activist groups like MADD elevated the philosophy (launched by Nixon) that drug use and related moral failings were a federal concern, one for which states needed to have their own judgements overruled if they weren’t sufficiently in line with the moral majority in Washington DC.

The second circumstance involves what’s been happening over the past decade with various state medical marijuana laws. Despite the fact that some states decided to legalize the use of medical marijuana, the federal government just ignored these actions and kept enforcing the antiquated federal law that treats marijuana as a dangerous drug with no medical value. A cancer patient from California eventually took her case against the federal government to the Supreme Court, and the Court’s liberal majority ruled that the federal government had the right to take medicine away from cancer patients because they believed that the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce. And still today, the DEA and the Justice Department still very actively try to prosecute people involved in providing medical marijuana to patients who need it, and Congress continues to give them the A-OK.

Of course, these instances are only part of why Ron Paul’s campaign is resonating so powerfully, especially among younger voters. Many people see him more generally as the candidate who believes most fervently in the power of free markets, which has a big appeal to young voters (especially techies) and isn’t necessarily seen as an extension of the “states’ rights” philosophy. But his opposition to federal power is the message that has carried his success, thanks primarily to a Bush Administration that’s given us a disastrous foreign military occupation, warrantless wiretapping, the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act, massive increases in federal spending, and federal agencies whose corruption and politicization are only outdone by their incompetence. And it certainly helps that many of the leading Democrats have, at best, been wishy-washy in their oppostion to these things. Ron Paul is not. He speaks with the kind of certainly that appeals to voters who see the political situation in Washington, DC as the perfect storm of special-interest pandering, a thoroughly inept media, and poll-driven fecklessness leading to perpetual incumbency.

While his message is resonating, and I find myself truly admiring the run he’s having, I definitely have my doubts about both him and his overarching philosophies. For one, his very firm constitutional basis for determining “states’ rights” isn’t so cut and dry in my mind. While I can easily run through a number of instances where the federal government needs to back off and let states deal with their own affairs, I don’t think that the federal actions that went into ending segregation in the 1960s, or the decision to legalize abortion, were a mistake. I tend to draw the line over whether the the federal government is protecting individuals from a particular state law or protecting the state from its own decision-making. This is its own separate post, and one for which constitutional scholars would probably have a field day (especially if I related it to my support for Roe v. Wade). Either way, I find myself somewhat stuck between Paul’s more extreme view of a very limited role for the federal government and the Democrats’ slow evolution away from their own more extreme beliefs in federal power (every Democratic candidate now wants to reverse the Bush Administration’s policy towards medical marijuana patients in states where it’s legal). As a pragmatist, I admire the intellectual foundation of the Constitution and the results its achieved but I also wonder whether the realities of our 21st century existence means that we can’t always apply 18th century thinking to 21st century problems.

At certain times, I’ve tried to play devil’s advocate with those who try to claim that Paul is a racist. I like to point out that Paul’s desire to end the federal drug war would likely do more to help minority communities than anything any of leading Democratic candidates have stated they’ll do. In the past, I’ve tended to think of this when I think of Paul’s claims that his racist supporters would be disappointed with him as President. The drug war is the single most damaging force in America’s black communities today. Our drug laws, combined with our enormous prison system, has been the driving force behind the devastation of many of our inner cities. It fuels the gang culture, drives the market for illegal guns, and still manages to put millions of non-violent people in prison, many of whom would be good husbands and fathers if it were not for laws that serve no other function than to put more of them in jail. Listen to the loud ovation Paul received at a recent Republican debate in front of a largely black audience when addressing these issues. It’s impossible to watch that clip and then make the argument that Ron Paul is the candidate who speaks for white supremacists.

But where I have major doubts about Paul center around his views on immigration. Earlier, I referenced this article he wrote in 2006, and I have trouble squaring that with some of his other views. As much as he talks about and gets support from people who champion free markets and the free flow of goods and labor, his views on immigration sound like he’s been hanging out with Lou Dobbs. Even worse, in order to make his argument, he touches upon an argument that has often been used as justification for maintaining the federal drug war:

We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty.

This kind of bad logic has often been applied to the drug war in order to justify the federal prohibitions. Repealing the drug war is basically “rewarding lawbreakers”. And by Paul’s logic here, the fact that these lawbreakers would be rewarded will serve as an enticement for millions more to break the law. All of this relies upon the false belief that our laws have any effect at all in these circumstances. They never have and they never will. As we learned during alcohol prohibition, and we’re re-learning now with other substances, prohibitions don’t work when you’re dealing with basic human desires. And the immigration issue deals with primary human desires for survival. What’s most disappointing about Paul’s stance on immigration is that he fails to even mention the affect that drug prohibition has been having in Mexico and fueling the current migrations north. It indicates to me that while his overarching philosophies have often pointed Paul in the right direction on these issues, he still sounds like he’s sometimes flying blind and not getting the big picture for issues that should be clearer to him.

Paul’s candidacy and the rabidness of his supporters is having an interesting effect on this election season. He’s clearly the best candidate on the Republican side, but whether or not he appeals to Democrats probably depends on whether people think his refreshing certainty on views that strike the anti-Bush anti-war chord (ending the Iraq War, repealing the Patriot Act, etc) outweigh his anti-progressive views on whether the federal government should be counted on for addressing some of the major problems we face (global warming, health care, etc). It’s easy to mock him for believing that the free market will protect endangered species, but is that really any more ridiculous than believing that we can defeat drug traffickers in Mexico? As a nation, we’ve drifted towards a point where certain absurdities have been mainstreamed, while others are marginalized. In times of great fear and insecurity, we tend to find comfort in believing that government can accomplish things it can’t. And when those fears and insecurities manifest itself in mythmaking about the power of government, someone like Ron Paul needs to come along to right the ship.

This week’s Birds Eye View Contest is a tough one.

I’m a cynical guy, but even I wouldn’t have imagined this. The following is the report from Conservapedia (the wingnut equivalent to Wikipedia) of their most popular pages (via Balloon Juice):

Main Page‎ [1,906,378]
Homosexuality‎ [1,570,736]
Homosexuality and Hepatitis‎ [517,071]
Homosexuality and Promiscuity‎ [420,676]
Homosexuality and Parasites‎ [388,110]
Gay Bowel Syndrome‎ [377,941]
Homosexuality and Domestic Violence‎ [364,763]
Homosexuality and Gonorrhea‎ [331,548]
Homosexuality and Mental Health‎ [290,437]
Homosexuality and Syphilis‎ [265,317]

In the comments down below, Daddy Love points to an article that debunks much of the conventional wisdom on what effect our military footprint is having in Iraq.

The British army says violence in Basra has fallen by 90% since it withdrew from the southern Iraqi city earlier this year.

Around 500 British soldiers left one of Saddam Hussein’s palaces in the heart of the city in early September and stopped conducting regular foot patrols.

A spokesman says the Iraqi security forces still come under attack from militants in Basra, but the overall level of violence is down 90% since the British troops left.

Britain is scheduled to return control of Basra province to Iraqi officials next month, officially ending Britain’s combat role in Iraq.

Al Gore is receiving yet another award. Stephen Colbert recently commented on this major threat to our planet.

My EffU cohort Carl already noted Bill Virgin’s crazy column on transportation in the PI on Monday, but I have to pull out the most incredibly ridiculous part and share it over here. This is one of his suggestions for how to fix the transportation mess in this city:

Encourage businesses to move out of Seattle and closer to their employees. Actually, the city is doing a fine job of this already, what with tax and land-use policies. Many of those businesses’ employees are in the ‘burbs already, either because of housing prices or schools. As has been pointed out before, congestion is not just a matter of how many cars are on the road but how long they’re on the road and what direction they’re going. Moving places of employment closer to where the employees live would cut the congestion created by putting so many vehicles on a few corridors heading to the same destination at the same time.

The office I work at is located near downtown Seattle. We have less than 100 employees here, but they live in various places like Renton, Snohomish, Vashon Island, Silverdale, and Shoreline. A good amount of them also live within the city of Seattle too. Exactly where should our company move to in order to be “closer to their employees?”

Many businesses are already located in the suburbs. As I’ve gone job hunting in the past, I tend to find that about 75% of the positions I run across are located on the Eastside. This is already well-reflected in the traffic around here (on 520, the reverse commute from Seattle to the Eastside tends to be much worse than the Eastside to Seattle commute). In fact, as a Seattle resident, I’ve been reluctant to take a job on the Eastside because of the difficulty in commuting across the bridge. If anything, there’s a better argument to be made for having businesses located on the Eastside relocating west of the lake. But it’s still a terrible argument for fixing our transportation woes.

The answer, as it has been since I moved to this city 10 years ago, is to invest in rail transit that connects the main corporate/industrial centers across the greater Seattle region (Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, Bellevue, Redmond). The idea that we can fix our transportation mess by simply having companies relocate closer to their employees is completely absurd, especially in a time and place where people change jobs as often as they do. The infrastructure we have now already limits where anyone in this region can work, unless they don’t mind sitting in a car for 3-4 hours a day. It doesn’t have to be that way, and I’ve run out of patience with the clowns who think that there’s a solution that doesn’t involve some form of rail.

That said, I do sympathize with Virgin’s final suggestion:

Ban from regional transportation planning anyone who has uttered, or even thought, the phrase, “We’ve got to get people out of their cars.”

Here is a truth that, as blasphemous as it may sound within the corridors of officialdom in Seattle, needs to be understood: Many people like having a car.

They like driving, or at least find the convenience and flexibility to be worth the cost and occasional frustrations. So long as transportation planners consider those who favor the automobile as the enemy, to be herded, punished and reviled, the public will return the favor — and will likely shred Son of Prop. 1, the Return of Prop. 1, Prop. 1 Strikes Again, Prop. 1: Next Generation, Prop. 1: The Final Reckoning and all the other ballot-box sequels headed their way.

While I find little in common with the kinds of people who cling to their cars (my wife and I share a single car, but I hardly ever use it), the idea that we can get motorists to give up that lifestyle simply by trying to deny them the roads they want is just as crazy as the notion that we can relieve congestion in this city without rail. I can’t even begin to understand what the hell the Sierra Club was thinking when they actually convinced themselves that siding with Kemper Freeman to kill this plan would somehow lead to less roads (and therefore less global warming, as their “logic” went). The problem is that the roads are going to be built no matter what, because without rail and with suburban-based companies like Microsoft continuing to bring in more and more workers from out-of-state who increasingly have no other choice but to live in the suburbs, the demand for more roads will continue to increase. Granted, the demand for rail will likely continue too, and hopefully we’ll be able to expand on what we’ve already started, but this idea that we can shut down all road construction in this region out of concern for the environment has no basis in reality.

What scares me the most about how the Sierra Club, and certain other anti-roads folks, approached this issue is that it was eerily reminiscent of the neocon mindset. The neocons essentially took their fear of Islamic radicalism and internally rationalized that their fear of this problem allowed for them to react to it with any level of extremism and it was justified. The realities of human behavior, logic, common sense, etc…all of that flew out the window. What mattered was that there was a crisis and anyone who wasn’t part of the solution was part of the problem. Much like the neocons, the anti-roads contingency felt that they could establish their own notion of reality, one where an individual who relies on roads is somehow complicit in destroying the planet, and that people would in turn be completely compelled to alter their way of life. They felt that they could transfer their paranoia to the masses and that they’d have support simply by sheer power of will.

Global warming is a very real problem (as is Islamic radicalism, to continue the parallel), but the fight to stop it does not hinge upon whether or not we widen I-405. The calculus involved here was always way more complicated than that. We need to focus on alternative energy sources and favoring automobile technologies that pollute less. A lot of very cool new technologies exist that represent a path away from the status quo. If the Sierra Club wants to support a gas tax that pushes people towards more fuel efficient cars, I’m there. If the Sierra Club wants to support an initiative to put alternate-energy refueling stations along major highways, I’m there. But if the Sierra Club thinks that someone who lives in Auburn and commutes to Sammamish is going to sell the SUV and buy a bicycle because of global warming, they don’t deserve to be taken seriously.

Kudos to Sam Machkovech at the Slog for making the inevitable comparison between the Sonics situation and the plot of the movie “Major League,” where the widowed owner of the Cleveland Indians wanted to move the team to Miami. In order to do this, she filled the roster with a bunch of washed-up no-names so that the attendance would fall to levels that allowed her to move the team.

If nothing else, the speculation that Clay Bennett is secretly trying to lose for the same reason might be the most intriguing thing about the Sonics right now (they’re now 0-7, the worst record in the NBA). I think we’ll know the fix is in if Jim McIlvaine ends up back in a Sonics uniform sometime this year.

I forgot to post this…

This is an open thread

The Wallingford Neighbors for Peace and Justice hold discussions on political topics every Friday night at the Keystone Church at 5019 Keystone Place N in Wallingford. This week, they’re looking at the drug war with the film “American Drug War: The Last White Hope”. Here’s who will be there:

Larry Gossett – King County Councilmember
Nora Callahan – Founder and Executive Director of The November Coalition
Chuck Armsbury – Senior Editor of The Razor Wire
Matt McCally – Former Probation Officer
Douglas Hiatt – Criminal Defense Attorney
Sunil Aggarwal – Immediate Past President of Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility

Matt McCally is a member of LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition). Having thousands of current and former law enforcement officials advocating for ending the drug war is one of the major reasons why public perceptions on this issue have been changing so rapidly.

I think Eli Sanders really captures the sad irony of Pat Robertson’s endorsment of Rudy Giuliani:

See how that works? Let your followers know that you agree that legalized abortion and gay rights were responsible for 9/11, and then, a few years later, endorse a man who is for legalized abortion and gay rights, saying he’s the only person who can defend the country against the “bloodlust of Islamic terrorists.”

Josh Marshall has some fun with it too:

As I noted earlier, Robertson’s reasoning is that God has withdrawn his protection from us because of America’s collective embrace of a godless, secular, gay-loving culture. When you put that together with his claim today that Rudy, a paragon of the secular culture, is the one to protect us from the terrorist hordes, the upshot seems to be that Robertson has more confidence in Rudy’s leadership and national security skills than he does in God’s. And that’s one hell of an endorsement.

I was the 12th voter this morning at St. Andrew’s Church in North Seattle. As I put my ballot into the machine, it registered it, but there was a flashing ***POWER FAIL*** message on the display. Remembering rudimentary Murphy’s Law, I followed the extenstion cord back behind the voting tables until I saw the other end of the cord lying on the floor. A woman asked me, “Can I help you?” I replied, “You might want to plug that in.” She plugged it in and then the main dude came over and patted the machine a few times. This entire episode did not make me regret voting against I-25 in any way.

I’ve been reluctant to join the fun of the Prop 1 debate up here on the front page, but I’ve gotta respond to Josh Feit here. He has a valid point that building massive parking lots around light rail stations will allow more people to drive to them. That’s obvious. But I think he misses the bigger point:

Because, like I said yesterday, ill-conceived light rail lines don’t create density, they create outpost park and rides that fuel exurban development and more roads. (Check out towns like New Market, Maryland “along” the Red Line—or some 40 miles away from DC.)

New Market, Maryland isn’t some new town created by expanded rail. It’s a rest stop town that was established over 200 years ago. It makes sense to build along established trafficways to accomodate the kinds of travel that people normally do. The development of the Philadelphia suburbs was very much shaped by where rail lines existed and along the main travel lanes, from the old Main Line to the newer SEPTA lines.

But while rail lines can concentrate development in certain areas, some people simply don’t like living in dense areas. No amount of urban planning will ever change how they think. One of the main problems I see undermining the development of better transportation solutions in this city is the belief that our transportation solutions should be used in a way to change people’s behavior. You can’t do that – it won’t work. You can only build systems that cater to people’s existing travel patterns and give them better options. Eventually, if you build a system that caters to what people want and need, they will use it to its fullest potential.

Sprawl will still happen no matter how effective your transit system is and how much effort you put into urban planning. New York City has a massive amount of trains going into the city from all over the region, yet people still live in far-off places, drive to train stations, and commute there. You’ll never stop people from choosing to live far from where they work in order to live more cheaply or to be far from others.

The solution isn’t to only build rail to places where people won’t (or can’t) drive to the station to ride it. The solution is to build rail so that larger numbers of people only have to drive their cars a short distance every day, rather than clogging the streets going into the major downtown centers (Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, Bellevue) where most people work.

Last week, President Bush sent a request to Congress for $500 million in supplement aid to Mexico. This is part of a $1.4 billion package known as “Plan Mexico” that aims to combat drug trafficking and other issues of concern involving our southern neighbor. Mexicans are concerned that the plan subverts Mexico’s military and justice system to U.S. demands. Americans are concerned that the plan will be as big of a disaster as Plan Colombia. And Congress is accusing the Bush Administration of keeping information about the plan secret while demanding that they pass the funding before the holiday break. Here’s a quick pictorial rundown of how we’ve ended up in this sorry state.

Americans spend $40 billion per year on drugs that come here from Mexico.

As a result, Mexican drug lords get filthy, stinking rich and very powerful.

Needing someplace to hide all this money, the drug lords started to launder it through Mexican banks.

The Mexican President vows to crack down on this illegal industry.

Gaseous windbags who have no idea what they’re talking about expect this to be simple.

The drug lords use their billions of dollars in profits to arm themselves and bribe public officials.

The violence and corruption wreaks havoc on the Mexican economy, sending millions of people north in search of opportunity.

Drug lords are captured. The head of the DEA declares victory in the drug war.

Gaseous windbags who have no idea what they’re talking about cheer the news and blame Mexico for the immigration problem.

Drug prices spike as addicts continue to drive the market.

The Drug Czar declares victory at the higher drug prices, while crime waves occur along drug distribution points in the US.

New people take over drug distribution in Mexico in order to get filthy, stinking rich and very powerful.

The new drug lords re-establish smuggling routes and drug prices drop. American drug users rejoice.

Gaseous windbags who have no idea what they’re talking about accuse the Mexican government of not being serious and demand that a wall be built along the border.

The Democratic candidates for President argue about whether or not illegal immigrants in New York State should be able to get drivers’ licenses.

The Republican candidates for President vow to keep arresting sick people who use marijuana medicinally.

Drug policy experts explain for the 8 millionth time that the only sensible solution is to decriminalize drug use and have the government regulate and control addictive drugs.

Gaseous windbags who have no idea what they’re talking about scoff at the experts and dismiss them as a radical fringe.

Once the Patriot Act makes it tougher for Americans to make meth in their garages, Mexican drug lords supply it, get even richer, and start putting their money in American banks.

Even more weapons are purchased in the US and smuggled across the border, increasing the amount of terrifying violence.

The Mexican President asks for more assistance from the US while also blaming US drug policy.

Americans do nothing about drug policy while continuing to send millions of people to prison to stop using drugs that 100 million Americans have used.

The President concludes that $40 million per year is not enough money to waste trying to destroy a $40 billion a year industry, so they propose wasting $1 billion instead.

Gaseous windbags who have no idea what they’re talking about are outraged…OUTRAGED!!, that illegal immigrants in New York State can get drivers licenses.

Americans turn to drugs to escape the fact that everyone seems to have their heads up their asses.

Max Blumenthal keeps tabs on the craziest people in America so that you don’t have to.