"Liberalism is About Intervention"

This is the best definition of liberalism I've ever read. More than that, it provides the perfect standard for measuring any policy, proposal or action as genuinely liberal.

David Atkins "thereisnospoon" at Hullabaloo:

Liberalism is and has always been about intervention. It is the opposite of libertarianism, and always has been. Liberals understand that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Left to their own devices, people with weapons and money will always try to exploit and dominate people without weapons and money unless they are stopped from doing so. It is not because we are taught to do so. It's just innate human nature. If this were not the case, libertarianism would work as an ideology. It does not, and never has at any point in history.

When the government steps in to stop a corporation from dumping noxious chemicals into a stream, that is intervention at the point of a gun, by a superior force against a lesser force attempting to exploit the weak and powerless. When the government steps in to enforce desegretation in schools, that is intervention at the point of a gun, by a superior force against a lesser force attempting to exploit the weak and powerless.

When Abraham Lincoln and the North decided not to allow the nation of the Confederacy--and make no mistake, it was a separate nation with separate laws and an entirely separate culture--to secede from the Union, in large part because the North had an interest in ending slavery in the South and in striking down a competing agrarian economic system, that too was intervention by a superior force against a lesser force attempting to exploit the weak and powerless. To this day, many Southerners feel that their land is being occupied by an illegitimate and invading power, and theirs a Lost Cause that will rise again.

This is what liberalism is. It is unavoidably, inescapably paternalistic in nature. It is so because it understands the inevitable tendency of human beings to be truly awful to one another unless social and legal rules are put in place--yes, by force--to prevent them from doing otherwise.

Conservatives use force of government as well, of course, but not in defense of the weak and oppressed, but rather to maintain the power of money, of patriarchy and of the established social pecking order. Where the oppressive hand of government helps them achieve that, they utilize it. Where libertarian ideology helps them keep power in the hands of the local good old boys, they use that instead.

But a liberal--a progressive, if you will--is always an interventionist, because a liberal understands that society is constantly on a path of self-perfection, in an effort to use reason and good moral judgment to prevent insofar as possible the exploitation of one person by another.

The division between liberals lies in how far to intervene, especially in foreign wars. Almost all would agree that intervention in World War II against the Nazis and Imperial Japanese was the right thing to do. Most would agree that intervention in Kosovo was the right thing to do to stop the ongoing genocide there. Certainly, conservatives at the time opposed involvement in either conflict. Some liberals believe that America should use its power of intervention to help the oppressed around the world by use of force if necessary. Most others understand that such moves, even if well-intentioned, cause more problems and harm than they solve. But there will always be disagreements between liberals about whether, how much and where to intervene in the world in order to stop bad people from doing bad things that either threaten America, or simply threaten to oppress the poor and the weak. Not, of course, that America's war machine is always or even usually used with such good intentions; quite the contrary. It is usually used for the conservative purpose of exploiting and destroying people and resources for the benefit of the wealthy. But here we speak only of liberal ideology and its relationship to the use of military force.

Similarly, liberals have a conflict when it comes to economic intervention. A few on the left choose to pursue a very hard line of intervention toward economic egalitarianism, leading to a vision in line with Communism. More of us tend to see the need for substantial economic intervention on a capitalist substrate, and lean more toward Democratic Socialism. Others see the need for some intervention, but are wary to stepping too far into the middle of the "free market," which makes them more Neoliberal. But in all these cases, the question is only a matter of degree.

It is no accident that the most fervent economic interventionists on the left have also turned out to be the most imperial and bellicose (e.g., the Soviets and the Chinese.) They believe most in the necessity of force to prevent exploitation by the holders of capital, and see no reason why that necessity should stop at their own borders.

Contra Stoller, there is indeed a conflict within liberalism, but it is precisely this: a matter of how much intervention is necessary. It is not a fundamental conflict of ideals.

Read the whole thing for Atkins' detailed explanation of why Ron Paul in particular presents no conflict for liberals.

QOTD

Steve M. recommending

BooMan on Ron Paul, Glenn Greenwald, and Matt Stoller. A brief excerpt:

If you look at Ron Paul's political philosophy in toto, you'll realize that Paul basically opposes every progressive accomplishment since about 1913. I've never heard him oppose female suffrage, but he'd like to roll back just about every other thing the federal government has done since the creation of the Federal Reserve. The only way a progressive can reach the point where their beliefs converge with Ron Paul's is if they've basically given up on this country and on progressivism.

Amen.

Ditto.

The Paul Rules

Ron Paul's supposed libertarianism is not what you think it is. But the question for Kentuckians is: with with our own Senator Rand Paul in Des Moines working his father's presidential campaign, how much of Ron's un-libertarian true politics does Rand share?

Digby calls it "Devolution for some of the people."

As always, Adele Stan nails the story when it comes to the connections among the far right fringies. In today's piece she draws together the strands that bring Ron Paul and the lunatic Christian Reconstructionists together. I urge you to read the whole thing -- it's quite illuminating. Here's the conclusion:

Ron Paul seeks to shrink the federal government to minimal size not because it intrudes in the lives of individuals, but because it stands in the way of allowing the states and localities to enact laws as they see fit -- even laws that govern people's behavior in their bedrooms.

Here's what Paul published on the Web site of Lew Rockwell -- allegedly one of the authors of his racist, homophobic newsletters -- about the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas that struck down the state's anti-sodomy laws, which prohibited sex between men:

The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy." Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

This plays neatly into the hands of Paul's Christian Reconstructionist friends, who seek the destruction of the federal government for the opportunity to implement "God's law" on earth. Via Warren Throckmorton's invaluable Web site, comes this quote from the Christian Reconstructionist Bojidar Marinov, who writes of why "theonomists," as Reconstructionists define themselves, should root for Ron Paul:

The theonomic solution to the problems of sodomy and abortion can not be achieved at the Federal level because at that level liberals outnumber conservatives 20 to 1. And theonomic Christians are almost non-existent at that level. It is only when the socialist state is dismantled and power returned back to the states and the counties that we will be able to successfully deal with the other social and moral issues. As long as sin is protected at the Federal level, our political job as Christians is to dismantle the Federal bureaucracy and return all power to the local communities. Therefore, the great battle is against the socialist state.

Given that, Ron Paul is the man with the best position to work for that goal on the national level.

I continue to wonder why Ron Paul is considered a libertarian. He's an isolationist Tenther. If that's your philosophy, then fine. But I think an awful lot of libertarians are missing the bait and switch.

Update: There's a lot of talk about how all this libertarian white supremacy was just a political pact with the devil 30 years ago, along the lines of the Southern Strategy. That may be true. But it seems that Ron Paul has bought his own hype, if that's the case.

He could be crusading to end the drug war, for instance, on a moral or philosophical level. But as with his defense of Lawrence as a states' rights issue, he isn't. He crusading for it to be devolved to a state by state issue. That is not the same thing.

Libertarianism has a real position on this and it's universal:

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.

Nothing in that says force is ok as long as its used by the state of Texas instead of the FBI. And yet, that's Ron Paul's position on sodomy laws and drug laws and choice and a whole host of issues pertaining to individual liberties and human rights. So all of you who believe that Ron Paul would release the millions incarcerated for the victimless crime of using drugs should realize that he would only release those held in federal prisons. If you're locked up in the State Penitentiary, he sympathizes, but thinks that States have a perfect right to do it.

In case you were wondering, the total federal prison population in 2010 was around 200,000 people while the state and local prison population was about 1.5 million. Paul says there's nothing he can do about the latter and wouldn't dream of telling those states what they should and shouldn't do. That's his principle, not freeing the victims of the drug war.

Since the Civil War, the federal government has been the sole - albeit inconsistent - protector of individual liberties against reactionary state and local governments.

If your goal is to expand individual rights - on sex, on drug use, on religion, on war - your best bet is to reform and strengthen the federal government, rather than eliminate it.

And put not your faith in Pauls.

Lastest Republican Fad: More Racist Than Thou

Seriously, people: I do not have time to keep throwing yet more evidence of the obvious at you.

Of course Ron Paul is crazy. And of course all republicans are racists. That's not the point. The point is that republicans are no longer denying being racist motherfuckers.

They're not even trying to hide the fact that they are racist motherfuckers.

They are out there, announcing their presidential campaigns, and claiming the right to republican votes because they are the most racist motherfuckers out there.

It's not even real news.

Wanna have some fun? Start a rumor that Newt Gingrich once helped a little old lady across the street.

By tomorrow morning's Sunday shows, Tim Pawlenty will be insisting that he, Tim Pawlenty, grabbed a little old lady off the street, beat her to a pulp and stole her church plate money.

Now that's a real republican.

Ben Chandler: "Racism, what racism? I don't see any racism"

Barr's opponent, U.S. Rep. Ben Chandler, D-Versailles, said he won't make Barr's club membership a campaign issue. Kentuckians don't dwell on such things, Chandler said.

"We've moved past all that, and we're in a better place now," said Chandler, who is white, as are Paul and Barr — and for that matter, everyone ever elected to federal or statewide office in Kentucky. -- Lexington Herald-Leader, Sunday, July 18

Hey, Wire Hangar: Far be it from me to call you a racist, but if the shoe fits ....

Wanna know why no African-Americans have been elected to statewide office in Kentucky? Because assholes like Ben Chandler and every other white politician in this state pretend black Kentuckians are invisible.

I've watched in disgust for decades as white Kentuckians congratulated themselves on being "color-blind" or "post-racist," even as they maintained segregated schools into the mid-'70s and still maintain segregated housing. Racist treatment in hiring, law enforcement and criminal justice is as severe in Kentucky as it is anywhere in the country, but you rarely hear about it.

Instead you hear filthy racist lies like "We've moved past all that, we're in a better place now."

Really, you Blue Dog douchebag? Black per-capita income two-thirds of white income is "a better place?" Black incarceration rates four times that of whites is "a better place?" Black unemployment rates almost double that of whites is "a better place?"

Sixteen years ago, white Lexington cops shot and killed an unarmed black teenager in Lexington. African-American citizens marched in protest through downtown, in what has been misnamed the "Sullivan riot."

That had to be the quietest, most polite and non-violent "riot" in history. A van was destroyed and a photographer beaten, but nobody died.

The horrific part was the self-congratulation of Lexington whites: See how post-racial and colorblind we are? Our darkies know how to behave, even in a riot!

In 1994 they said this shit. And white people across the state nodded wisely.

But neither Chandler nor Paul are being dumb in their refusal to acknowledge the racism endemic to and epidemic in Kentucky. No politician in Kentucky ever lost an election by exposing himself as a racist, although Chandler, Barr and Paul do seem to be betting on winning that way.

Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic ....