59 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Crossed Pond is powered by WordPress and a modified IndexNet theme
© 2007. All Rights Reserved by the authors
The comments at the link are awesome. Ron Paul hates man breast smokers!
Comment by Jack — 2/25/2008 @ 8:29 pm
I would like to suggest that on that one point, I can possibly find common ground with Dr. Paul. I mean everyone knows how hard those things are to light.
Comment by James — 2/25/2008 @ 9:10 pm
Ah, TNR.
What image is he supposed to put there, a middle aged white grandma?
Fliers go out like this all the time from Republican candidates. TNR makes this one an issue and you guys fall for the bait.
TNR is a smear rag. Why you give it the time of day I do not know.
Comment by daveg — 2/26/2008 @ 4:45 am
Well, for me, I’m pretty much done defending Ron from charges of race-baiting. I take some solace that this was almost certainly put together by a few of the buffoons working for him rather than the man himself (I’m of the opinion that Ron has surrounded himself with at least a few complete idiots in high level staff jobs), but still, it’s exactly the worst kind of instinct, and exactly the opposite of appealing to our better instincts.
Comment by Brad — 2/26/2008 @ 10:03 am
If “fliers go out like this all the time from Republican candidates,” then the party needs to take a good long look at its political tactics.
The argument that public benefits programs should not be made available to non-citizens is a reasonable one. When you contaminate that argument with racism (and the photo on the flier is an overt appeal to full-on racism), you wreck the ability of non-racists to make the argument.
As for the “smear mag” bit: the entirety of TNR’s take on the question was to post the flier under the caption “Is This Libertarianism?” If that’s all that’s necessary to create a smear, then the problem isn’t with the magazine.
Comment by Rojas — 2/26/2008 @ 10:46 am
The source doesn’t matter if the material is accurate, daveg. Once again, you defend obvious race-baiting. Just when we were finding areas of agreement, too.
Comment by Jack — 2/26/2008 @ 10:52 am
This isn’t in defense of this particular one, but yes, they do. This would not be a particularly unique anti-illegal immigration flyer for a candidate with a particular hard-on for the issue. Though obviously, national political candidates would tend to shy away for obvious reasons. Look in any election year for liberal sites that make it a point to catalouge flyers and other campaign or unofficial campaign materials; you’ll find loads of this kind of stuff, mostly in Senate races in redish states.
Comment by Brad — 2/26/2008 @ 11:17 am
This must be time for me to repeat my preference for the small-government movement hopefully arising from the Ron Paul campaign not to have much of Ron Paul about it.
Comment by Adam — 2/26/2008 @ 11:24 am
The thing of it is: I actually think there are a number of very, very good arguments to be made for restricting immigration, and even better ones for enforcing existing immigration law to a greater extent. Brad, Adam and I all know a certain Texan who has spoken very eloquently and in a very gentlemanly fashion about the issue on another forum.
I do not understand why it is necessary to contaminate the entire anti-immigration movement with this sort of appeal to racist sentiment. It might produce short-term political gain, but the inevitable long-term effect will be to marginalize the entire movement…just as, for example, principled defenses of states’ rights were contaminated for all time by the likes of Lester Maddox and George Wallace.
Comment by Rojas — 2/26/2008 @ 11:56 am
I don’t think that the arguments for restricting immigration (as in, legal immigration) are good at all — there’s not enough legal immigration (in particular, the H1B cap is laughably low). Arguments for enforcing current immigration laws are a different matter, however.
Comment by Adam — 2/26/2008 @ 12:15 pm
“What image is he supposed to put there, a middle aged white grandma?”
I guess I agree with this sentiment. I mean, I don’t agree with the anti-immigration position, but if your argument is that we want fewer (illegal) Mexican immigrants, what image are you going to show:
a) a non-Mexican
b) a Mexican guy dressed up in his Sunday best.
c) a happy Mexican family
d) a (Mexian-looking) guy who looks like a drain on society
I think daveg was correct in one of his earlier posts that we, as a society, are way too sensitive to race. It has become the trump card that defeats all other values.
Comment by Redland Jack — 2/26/2008 @ 12:16 pm
Rojas: Word. I wish, daveg, that you would take this message to heart. I have gotten a lot out of some of your links. I have been influenced by them. But every time you defend, for example, obvious race baiting in support of your larger immigration point, then you significantly decrease the likelyhood that we will be open minded to your arguments. By these actions, you reenforce the unfortunate perception that defense of strong anti illegal immigration is goes hand in hand with racism.
Comment by Jack — 2/26/2008 @ 12:19 pm
Redland Jack #11: The problem is, I think, that picking a racial stereotype (because it is racial, as you explicitly mention) is what Rojas said it is, race-baiting. When you generate any material — not just political, but commercial or recreational — you have a bunch of constraints and, it seems to me, choosing not to make a race issue out of a legal and practical issue (illegal immigration) is fine.
Also, on the general issue, refusing Social Security to people that have actually paid into Social Security (which some of the illegals have) isn’t something I thought that Ron Paul would embrace, as it is effectively confiscation of money to enrich government. I would have thought that there were other means he’d prefer. Additionally, the business of verifying employment and immigration status will inevitably increase the amount of record-keeping and identification documents required of everyone in this country, US citizens included. Again, I am unsure why Paul is pursuing this line.
Finally, as Brad and others have pointed out, an immigration focus has not been a great vote-getter in national elections. Thus, successful candidates give lip-service to it without raising it as a standard. Why the Hell produce a leaflet like that? How many lapses of judgement will the Paul campaign commit before the supporters start to see him as a busted flush?
Comment by Adam — 2/26/2008 @ 12:35 pm
Immigration is a net positive for the country. Illegal immigrants contributing to Social Security is a net positive for Social Security too. Right now they are unlikely to draw benefits from Social Security and by paying into that system they are extending the lifespan of that program. (Personally, I would like to see it die a fiery death as soon as possible.) Their contribution and their possible drawing of benefits worsens the long term shortfalls for Social Security, but what difference is that going to make. It’s only a few trillion on top of 70 trillion existing shortfalls.
The best type of immigration is the highly educated single person. The argument for increasing H1B’s by orders of magnitude (100x) is extremely positive. These immigrants are productive, create jobs, and pay lots of taxes. The current state of H1B’s really depresses the wages of these immigrants. Since H1B’s are so scarce, companies are taking advantage of immigrants through this legal restriction. The current levels of H1B amounts to protectionism for professionals and compromises future growth for elevated wages now.
The worst kind of immigration is the anchor babies. I can see arguments made against that based on social burdens, etc, but Paul’s attacking very productive illegal immigrants. He’s also applying a stereotype against them. This is rather a depressing mailer and really appeals to the worst in the worst kinds of voters.
Comment by TanGeng — 2/26/2008 @ 1:03 pm
The question “what picture should he have used instead?” begs the question of why he needed a picture of any kind in the first place.
There is a perfectly coherent argument to be made against making social services available to illegal immigrants. The choice–because it is, in fact, a CHOICE–to accompany those arguments with a racist caricature is pandering to the very worst elements in the electorate.
I’m sorry. I’m a Ron Paul fan, and I see no other way to read this. He’s a better man than this, and should be held to a higher standard.
Comment by Rojas — 2/26/2008 @ 1:16 pm
How is that image racist?
Comment by anon4rp — 2/26/2008 @ 3:52 pm
Anyone else picking up a “No Soup For You” Seinfeld reference from that flyer? Or is it just me.
Comment by anon4rp — 2/26/2008 @ 3:53 pm
How is this racist? How is this race-baiting? This image just reflects the reality that most illegal immigrants _are_ male Hispanics. It isn’t saying all Hispanics are evil or bad, it is just providing a visual representation of an illegal immigrant in way that registers with a typical reader.
The fact is that image is pretty close to what a a typical illegal immigrant looks like and I do not see how it is “race-baiting” or “racist” to use an image that is representative of statistical realities.
I don’t see what is wrong with this flyer. I would love to read an explanation of why people think this flyer is bad, because right now I don’t see anything inaccurate about it.
Comment by anon4rp — 2/26/2008 @ 4:06 pm
With how many illegal immigrants do you interact on a daily basis, anon?
Comment by Rojas — 2/26/2008 @ 5:26 pm
“According to the Pew Hispanic Center, about 56 percent of illegal immigrants come from Mexico.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/19/us/19raquelside.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Comment by anon4rp — 2/27/2008 @ 12:01 pm
And to answer how many illegal immigrants I interact with on a daily basis, I don’t know for sure, since generally folks don’t inform me of the legality of their presence in this country nor do I inquire. I imagine it might lead to some rather awkward interactions if I did, however.
My point here is solely that using a representative photo for a class of people is not “race-baiting.”
Comment by anon4rp — 2/27/2008 @ 12:06 pm
It is most definatively race baiting. The flier selected a photo of a shirtless, slovenly, gang tatooed, smoking, overweight hispanic as:
1) representative of illegal immigrants
2) stealers of our social security
Your inability to see it as race baiting is extraordinary.
Comment by Jack — 2/27/2008 @ 12:51 pm
Anon, the question is not about the fact that the guy is of mexican/hispanic extraction, but of the use of a racial stereotype. Is that person what most mexicans look like, anon? Because when you equate 56% of illegal immigrants being Mexican with that picture, that’s implicitly what you’re saying (or are you, incredibly, claiming that mexican extraction is the only, or even the primary, impact of the selection of that individual for the flyer?). For that matter, how much welfare money are illegals taking out compared to how much they pay in (through using SSNs that aren’t theirs)? They clearly use other services (but then, they pay sales tax, property tax through renting and those that are using fake SSNs are presumably paying income tax too).
Comment by Adam — 2/27/2008 @ 12:51 pm
The more I think about this, the madder I get.
First off: there’s no question this is race baiting. One can take great pains to be strictly rational and say “well, that is surely what some illegal Mexican immigrants look like”, and true enough, but that’s beside the point, and deliberately obtuse. It’s a direct attempt to stir up racial feelings of ill will for the sake of political expediency. I certainly go at the rest of the Republican field enough for such tactics; no reason to give Ron’s team a pass on this.
But I think what makes me the most angry is how Keystone Cops his campaign staff has become. They’re still trying to nickel and dime 1-2% in the Republican presidential primary race that they have absolutely no chance of making even a dent in at this point, and they’re doing so at the express expense of creating a wider base, and a moral, higher purpose that might allow the movement to become a force once this race is over and done with (and judging from the anxious rumblings, Ron’s own congressional career might be done in less than a week). To what end? What the hell’s the point?
If Ron has surrounded himself with a smart team—and some of them, I can say, are, but not many of the real key players—he would right now have pivoted away from trying to squeeze blood from the stone of this particular race and would instead be looking to build a Revolution. Instead he’s trying to pick off 2% of Tancredo supporters in Texas. It’s stupid, and sad. But Jack’s right, I hate to say. He’s still surrounded by people more interested in trying to coopt Pat Buchanan’s electoral legacy than, say, Goldwater’s movement legacy (or even Toomey’s). And though I can still say so for the entire course of this campaign, at this point, I no longer think he’s doing a service to his cause.
Lord knows I’ve bent over backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt on campaign incompetence, past and persistent associations with knuckle-dragging “America First!” idiots, and lapses of management or political savvy—because I absolutely believe Paul is an honest, kind, non-racist, smart man and his ideas are vitally important and speak for themselves. But the choices in how to present the case for the man and the ideas has now become wholly counterproductive, and completely puzzling.
Bah.
Comment by Brad — 2/27/2008 @ 1:01 pm
At least we can bask in the warm glow of me being right.
Comment by Adam — 2/27/2008 @ 1:51 pm
You weren’t, and still aren’t, right.
The key right now is to move the Ron Paul Revolution people into a broader movement not focused on the sole election of Ron Paul. To do that, however, you need Ron Paul himself to lead them there.
This changes nothing in that regard. I’m still not sure why you don’t get that.
That the Ron Paul campaign doesn’t appear to either be interested in or effective at sheparding this is what disappoints me, but it still doesn’t make my answer to the question “what should the Ron Paul Revolution do now?” wrong, or your non-answer right.
Comment by Brad — 2/27/2008 @ 1:57 pm
I still don’t see how showing a picture is race-baiting, especially if some illegal immigrants do in fact look like that and the majority of illegal immigrants are in fact Mexican. If I’m following what you’re saying right, they can’t use a picture of a Mexican if they want to illustrate illegal immigration, because that’s race-baiting, _even though_ most illegal immigrants are Mexicans?
Comment by anon4rp — 2/27/2008 @ 2:37 pm
And Adam, you are right that that individual doesn’t look like what “most Mexicans look like,” but the fact of the matter is no individual looks what “most Mexicans look like,” because each Mexican is an individual human being with his or her own dignity, just like any other human being on this planet.
I don’t think an individual picture in any way translates into a judgment on an entire group; the campaign is simply showing one particular person to illustrate a point about illegal immigrants.
Comment by anon4rp — 2/27/2008 @ 2:40 pm
I’m mostly with anon on this. (I would think that, for example, people sending out a flier attacking welfare would show some sloppy looking single mother.) I find this kind of thing somewhat distasteful, since you should be making logical arguments instead of “emotional” arguments, but I’m apparently an extraordinary guy, since I don’t see this as race-baiting. The picture says to me, “illegal immigrants are poor slobs.” That so many can only see this through the lens of race validates daveg (IMO), of all people. (No offense daveg, but your posts often come across as a bit strident).
Comment by Redland Jack — 2/27/2008 @ 2:50 pm
Deliberately obtuse is the only way I can describe 27. YOu know damn well the question is not about him being simply Mexican or not. Your wide eyed wonder that we would object is self parody.
Comment by Jack — 2/27/2008 @ 2:54 pm
So you’re objecting to a “shirtless, slovenly, gang tatooed, smoking, overweight” Mexican? But a shirted, clean-cut, tattoo-less, non-smoking, thin Mexican would be ok?
I don’t see this ad as offensive at all. To me, it’s showing one down on his luck person, who happens to be Mexican, and the point of the ad is “we don’t want people who are illegally in this country to receive benefits,” which is a plausible argument. The person is Mexican since well, most illegal immigrants are Mexican. And the person appears poor because well, non-poor illegal immigrants would conceivably not be in need of benefits.
I don’t see how this is race-baiting. I’m not trying to be deliberately obtuse, I honestly don’t see how this is racist or race-baiting and I still haven’t gotten an explanation here how it is race-baiting. Spell it out for me, please, because I don’t see it. Telling me it’s obvious or self-evident or that there’s no question doesn’t help. How is it race-baiting?
Comment by anon4rp — 2/27/2008 @ 3:07 pm
Yeah. I can’t figure out if A) I’m just not seeing something, B) reasonable people can disagree, or C) Adam, Brad, Jack, and Rojas are just wrong. It has to be one of these, because, like with anon, it is not obvious or self-evident to me.
Comment by Redland Jack — 2/27/2008 @ 3:29 pm
” To me, it’s showing one down on his luck person, who happens to be Mexican, and the point of the ad is “we don’t want people who are illegally in this country to receive benefits,””
This is absolute nonsense, and I can scarcely believe that you even believe it. It is not at all saying “look at this down on his luck man but by the way we don’t want him to receive benefits.” It is saying, this is what illegal immigrants are: dirty gang tatooed overweight smoking shirtless slovenly mexicans that are here specifically to take benefits.
Comment by Jack — 2/27/2008 @ 4:25 pm
I am sure, for the record, that many illegal immigrants are dirty gang tatooed overweight smoking shirtless slovenly Mexicans. I understand your point, Redland Jack/anon/daveg. But look at it this way: the intellectual argument against providing social services is not “…because they are dirty gang tatooed overweight smoking shirtless slovenly Mexicans”. Right? Or at least it damn well shouldn’t be.
Pairing that image with that policy position, as in the flyer, begs exactly that association.
If the reason you’re against providing social services to illegal immigrants is in large part or even primarily because they are slovenly gangbanging shitless layabouts, you ought to give a real long hard look at that, is all I’d say. I would certainly call that pushing past the line and into racist or at least xenophobic territory.
What’s more, even if we were to put aside that entire debate (which we should not), I’m fairly confident that MOST people would agree with me/Rojas/Jack/Adam, and would see that flyer and think the same thing (as an example, here is the reaction of Freedom Democrats and The Liberty Papers; not exactly latte-sipping liberals or freedom-hating neocons). Coming on the heels of the newsletter scandal, which left real doubts in the minds of people who otherwise might have been receptive to Paul’s message (and would have been the mostly likely next wave of expansion of the movement), it just represents an idiotic and unnecessary political move. Whether you think it was “technically” correct, it pretty much seals the deal to all those people not inclined to give Ron the benefit of the doubt (but otherwise favorable to him and his views), which makes it a crappy political move that will almost certainly lose him more support than it gains him.
Hell, the two issues that most divide small l libertarians are immigration and abortion. That Ron is making a point to tack hard to those two things, rather than try to transcend them and create a broader umbrella for his movement (as he has mostly done through the campaign), is a bad move. For his message, and for his ability to create something beyond his campaign(s). All that, and I highly doubt it does anything positive for his campaign.
Comment by Brad — 2/27/2008 @ 4:44 pm
For myself, I completely fail to understand how you expect this fantasy to occur. Paul doesn’t have the judgement to be a big part of a movement. He doesn’t have even have the judgement to not appoint people who also lack that the judgement. The way to make a swan out of that ugly duckling is to eat the duckling and use the energy to go out and catch yourself a godamned swan.
Comment by Adam — 2/27/2008 @ 4:59 pm
I think that you are ignoring why they picked that picture, to wit, to use it to represent an ‘entire group’. You can also not pretend that there aren’t racial agitators (on both sides, I would say) also fighting this fight — to use the same methods as them is to affiliate yourselves with them. To imagine otherwise is, it seems to me, naive, except I don’t think that the leaflet creators were imagining otherwise but were, rather, deliberately trying to co-opt the same tawdry sentiment from the same tawdry people.
Comment by Adam — 2/27/2008 @ 5:02 pm
The specific question is “how do you continue to organize Ron Paul supporters and focus them past the Ron Paul campaign”. BY DEFINITION these are people that you don’t have to throw Ron under the bus with, and in fact doing so would be pretty much exactly the opposite of what you’d hope to accomplish (getting current Ron Paul supporters to step towards a broader liberty movement not focalized around Ron Paul specifically). I don’t know why you can’t get this.
Comment by Brad — 2/27/2008 @ 5:17 pm
As far as it being a fantasy, I say again, the movement is ALREADY EXISTENT. It’s the only small government liberty movement to show any degree of punch, in terms of fundraising and organization, that IS existent (or has been existent for a good long while, though some organizations, like the Club for Growth, are along similar lines).
The question is how to move it away from the Ron Paul campaign and into a broader spectrum which becomes not about Ron Paul himself, but about the ideals, roughly speaking, that he represented to these folks. But to bring those current folks in the existent movement INTO that hypothetical broader movement, in the short term, the only unifying figure you’re going to find is Ron Paul. Again by definition.
The alternative answer is not: “Disband the Ron Paul Revolution and wait for another non-Ron Paul small government liberty movement to spontaneously generate itself”, or if it is, then I’d say that’s the fantasy, apropos of the question we’re discussing.
All of that is neither here nor there with the current topic, except in that the Ron Paul people (advisors and whatnot, I mean) appear to not be onboard my (and your!) vision of things and are instead trying to squeeze every drop of blood they can from the current stone of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, which is the exact opposite tack I (and you!) have been suggesting.
Comment by Brad — 2/27/2008 @ 5:20 pm
“But look at it this way: the intellectual argument against providing social services is not “…because they are dirty gang tatooed overweight smoking shirtless slovenly Mexicans”. Right? Or at least it damn well shouldn’t be.
Pairing that image with that policy position, as in the flyer, begs exactly that association.”
My point, such as it is, is that you could replace the word “Mexicans” with “persons” in the above and the intellectual case would be just as weak, but the emotional case would be (IMO) just as strong. That is, I think the point of the flier is to state that (illegal) immigrants are “dirty gang tatooed overweight smoking shirtless slovenly [persons].” I think the Mexican part is incidental, and that the only reason the person depicted is Mexican, is because (I assume) most illegal immigrants are from Mexico.
I don’t disagree that the picture is a poor excuse for an argument. Heck, I’m an ‘open borders’ libertarian. My only argument is against the claim that the flier is bad because it is racist. I don’t think it is racist. I would submit that reasonable people could consider it not racist. Furthermore, I would submit that non-racists could have constructed the flier with no animosity (or do I mean animus or something?) whatsoever (though maybe they didn’t. I just don’t know).
So, to sum up, IMO, the flier is bad, but not racist.
Comment by Redland Jack — 2/27/2008 @ 5:21 pm
Brad #38: If the price of doing that is keeping the Ron Paul brand out there front-and-center then I suspect that the price will turn out to be too high. Things like this leaflet contribute to raising that price, incidentally.
I do think, however, that some fraction of Paul’s support aren’t just in it for Paul but either had already, or have since, acquired an enthusiasm for small-government conservatism that will outlast Paul in any case. As to those that haven’t yet aquired that enthusiasm and the attracting of whom would require Paul’s brand being placed on whatever small-government movement goes forward, perhaps they’re just going to be lost. That’s not ideal, but Paul’s becoming toxic, in my opinion.
Comment by Adam — 2/27/2008 @ 5:22 pm
Adam #40: Maybe what you’re missing is the most likely current scenario, i.e. the problem that is most urgent. That being, once the campaign ends, without a concerted effort to rope the current Revolution in a new direction, it just disbands, everybody goes back to the respective rocks they crawled out from, and any opportunity to harness it to GET to the point you’re talking about become totally moot. At which point we’re just back to waiting for some new movement to spontaneously generate itself. And all of us small government liberty folks like me (and many other Ron Paul supporters) have to sit around for another 25 years twiddling our thumbs and waiting around for some other candidate like Ron to come around.
OF COURSE at some point you have to broaden past Ron Paul. And I’d hope that would happen sooner rather than later. But the first order of business is to figure out what to do with what is ALREADY EXISTENT, which is a movement coalesced around a single man that is nevertheless capable of raising 20 million dollars in two months and sending out small armies of supporters and volunteers at the drop of a hat.
Once that is accomplished, THAN we can get to the questions that you’re begging. But your questions are moot if if that doesn’t get accomplished, at which point we’re left with the same small government libertarian force in the Republican party that we had before the Ron Paul campaign, i.e. none.
Comment by Brad — 2/27/2008 @ 5:28 pm
Redland Me, is it possible we are getting wrapped up in the difference between racist and race baiting?
My entire position is that the flyer is an obvious and direct appeal to racism, regardless of the printers feelings. That you can’t see it is, and I don’t mean this as a rhetorical technique, amazing to me. The issue is not “can you construct any scenario in which a person might have constructed this flyer without the intention of appealing to bigots” because hell, with time and imagination we all could. But we know that is not how politics and PR works. Pictures are designed to evoke thoughts and emotions. The obvious and simplist solution is it is a clear appeal to or reenforcement of the image of illegals as slovenly gang etc etc.
Comment by Jack — 2/27/2008 @ 5:30 pm
Brad #41: well, what I’m saying is that it may turn out that the best scenario is that some of the Paul momentum for small government, that which can be retained without Paul himself, is retained. Also, if it takes 25 years before small-government enthusiasts get a candidate, let’s hope we get a better candidate than Paul.
Comment by Adam — 2/27/2008 @ 5:32 pm
I see your point Redland Jack, but I have to agree with Regular Jack.
One CAN construct scenarios in which race played no part in the decision-making scenario which led to that picture being paired with the flier, but I don’t think any reasonable person can say that said scenarios are the most likely.
To put it another way, when the guy who ordered those flyers made (not, I’m sure, Ron himself), do you think he told his graphics guy “Find me a picture of a guy who looks unqualified to receive public entitlements?” or do you think he said “Find me a picture of a lazy Mexican?”
Honestly.
Comment by Brad — 2/27/2008 @ 5:34 pm
I kinda suspect that the guy in the flier IS the guy who made the flier.
Or maybe the guy in the flier is actually Ron Paul in his Air Force days.
Comment by Rojas — 2/27/2008 @ 5:36 pm
Adam 43: I don’t know that the Ron Paul movement, such as it currently is, is big enough to start parsing at that level. “Hey guys, we don’t want to have anything to do with Ron Paul, but let’s form another small government movement” is just, practically speaking, a lousy rallying cry for this purpose. And that’s the whole point of my article, which is why I think you’re being obtuse. You’re thinking “what small government movement would I sign up for” rather than “how do you channel the Ron Paul Revolution into a broader small government movement?” I understand the tendency—you’re horribly self-centered—but it’s still deliberately missing the point.
Ideally, one could use the current Ron Paul Revolution and massage it into something that BECOMES said small government movement you (or Jack, or whoever) could sign up for. That would be the obvious direction in which to take it—you and I are in total agreement on that point; that’s the entire unspoken thesis behind my article. But without the Ron Paul Revolution, there is currently NOTHING, and the Revolution itself (absent Ron) has shown some tremendous things to recommend it, so I think developing a strategy that attempts to harness them towards the ends that both you and I agree on is a good idea, and simply put, that’s just not going to happen without leadership from Ron.
But you don’t like Ron Paul.
We get it.
Comment by Brad — 2/27/2008 @ 5:38 pm
Rojas, for chrissakes, back me up here.
Comment by Brad — 2/27/2008 @ 5:43 pm
No, this isn’t about not liking him. I care enough about the idea of a wider movement to hold my nose if I thought that a high-profile Paul involvement would help (for that matter, I’d do the same if Tom Delay, or someone equally unlikely and unpleasant, suddenly had a change of heart and became a small-government conservative with potential to lead people into the fold, although I’d keep an eye on the good cutlery while he was in the room), but I think that Paul’s involvement will hurt. I said all through that my interest in Paul and my concerns were both about what came afterward. The worse Paul looks, the more I don’t want him involved with what comes afterward; frankly, in any case, he’s the agent of most of his own misfortune. I am concerned that he doesn’t become the agent of misfortune for the small-government movement as a whole.
Comment by Adam — 2/27/2008 @ 5:47 pm
We’re talking about two different audiences, Adam.
Without Ron Paul’s initial leading his folks towards a broader movement, the movement, such as it is, disappears.
The initial concern is not “how do we target this to a wider Republican base”, because if you start with that question, by the time you find an answer, there’s nobody standing around to take the marching orders on your behalf.
Comment by Brad — 2/27/2008 @ 5:51 pm
I am saying that attracting the one audience will affect the other. That they are different audiences hardly means that one will not be affected by what you do to win the other (in fact, that’s grim political reality pretty much all the time). I don’t want a movement made up of just Paulites but I think that is the risk you run if you use Paul to attract those people, because the rest (not currently Paulites) just won’t want to be in same room. Thus, given the choice, I’d do without the Paulites that won’t come without Ron Paul branding. That’s the least-worst outcome, for me.
Also, I don’t particularly care whether this movement is entirely contained within the Republican Party (although it seems to me that its Centre of Gravity will be in GOP-land).
Comment by Adam — 2/27/2008 @ 5:55 pm
Brad #47: I kind of agree with both of you actually.
A small-government movement CAN arise from the ashes of the Paul campaign, and probably cannot arise from elsewhere. And yet…it is going to have to be a movement completely shorn of the neo-Confederate, conspiracy, and radical anti-immigration elements. No movement involving those groups is sustainable at the national level. This campaign has proven that conclusively.
And the Paul campaign, at this point, is not merely giving us no help in creating such a movement, it is actively catering to those elements which would inevitably destroy any such effort.
It’s a hell of a mess.
Comment by Rojas — 2/27/2008 @ 6:05 pm
“But look at it this way: the intellectual argument against providing social services is not “…because they are dirty gang tatooed overweight smoking shirtless slovenly Mexicans”.”
Let’s see what the flyer says:
If You Sneak Into America
Ron Paul Says – No Social Security For You!
It’s time we end Social Security payments to illegal aliens.
That is why Ron Paul sponsored the Social Security for Americans Only Act in Congress.
From the text of the flyer, it appears the intellectual argument is:
If you are an illegal immigrant, Ron Paul believes you should not get Social Security payments.
Now if we put the picture into the discussion, then can conclude that the picture is an example of a possible illegal immigrant who might want Social Security payments in the future.
Is the picture an inaccurate example of such a possible illegal immigrant? I would say no, it is not inaccurate. Is it the painting illegal immigrants in the best possible light? No, it is trying to paint illegal immigrants as socially undesirable, and it performs admirably in that regard. Is it true that some illegal immigrants are socially undesirable? Yes, undoubtedly. Is this because of their RACE? No. It is because of the fact that they are ILLEGAL.
Comment by anon4rp — 2/27/2008 @ 6:05 pm
I’d like to know what Paul thinks should happen to the Social Security money some of those illegals have paid into the fund, actually.
Comment by Adam — 2/27/2008 @ 6:09 pm
anonrp, the GOP, or any other establishment, should be enormously thankful that you and your gigantic, willfully naive tin ear is not helping with their campaign flyers.
1) You don’t divorce the words from the picture; the picture is more important, the words speak to the picture. Your preferred method of analysis is not the way it was designed or the way people will see it.
2) The picutre is not “an example of a possible illegal immigrant” it is a pciture of the worst type of illegaal immigrant and it is clearly designed to represent the typical immigrant.
3) “Is it the painting illegal immigrants in the best possible light? ” No shit, you think? It doesnt because it is intentionally trying to paint them all as utter looser leeches.
4) “No, it is trying to paint illegal immigrants as socially undesirable, and it performs admirably in that regard.” Aside from your egregious use of the word “admirably” this is the only honest thing you have said.
5) It may not be becuase of their RACE to you, but it certainly is part of the package for the target audience.
Comment by Jack — 2/27/2008 @ 7:17 pm
ITT: anon4rp trolls half of this site’s bloggers with his “I don’t geddit” routine.
Comment by tessellated — 2/27/2008 @ 7:39 pm
Mm. Thank you for your explanation Jack. It’s still hard for me to understand how people can extrapolate evaluations for an entire class of people based on one photo, but if you say they do, then I’ll take your word for it.
1) It may be not be the way most people see it, according to you, but it is honestly the way I see it.
2) There are far worse types, I assure you. The photo is quite tame.
3) That’s your interpretation, I don’t think the flyer goes so far as to say “all” illegal immigrants are “utter looser leeches.” You may be reading in your own prejudices here.
4) Admirably in the sense that it achieves the goal it set out to do, not that the goal is admirable.
5) That seems more of a fault of the target audience than anything else.
Comment by anon4rp — 2/27/2008 @ 8:03 pm
The whole point of them using the photo is extrapolation of evaluations of an entire class of people. That’s what, in large part, we are objecting to.
Comment by Adam — 2/28/2008 @ 12:45 am
When the anti-smoking people show me a picture of a gnarly old dude with a hole in his throat, are they indicating that all smokers are like that?
When the local animal shelter is trying to get me to adopt a pet, do they show a commercial with a cute puppy or a commercial with a mangy, diseased mongrel?
When the pro-immigration people show me a television ad with a handsome Mexican fellow serving as part of the volunteer fire brigade, are they using that commercial to extrapolate an evaluation of an entire class of people? Is this okay? Are only the pro-immigration people allowed to show photos and run commercials, since the opposition will necessarily be painting people of a different race in a negative light?
It may be that I’m missing the point. That there was something visceral and vile in the photograph.
To Brad’s point: ‘To put it another way, when the guy who ordered those flyers made (not, I’m sure, Ron himself), do you think he told his graphics guy “Find me a picture of a guy who looks unqualified to receive public entitlements?” or do you think he said “Find me a picture of a lazy Mexican?”
Honestly.’
I could see him saying either one, although he would have to augment the first with, “Oh, and make sure the picture is of a Mexican, since the graphic is regarding illegal immigration.”
To some extent, I think your question underlines the most salient point of the discussion. That is, the fact that the image depicted (if an image was needed at all, as Rojas noted earlier) a Mexican individual was a necessity. There’s almost no image they could show that would make any sense if it didn’t contain a Mexican. Given they are against immigration it seems unreasonable to expect them to depict the individual shown in a positive light. Since they wanted to show a negative image and they were (essentially) required to show a Mexican, the fact that the eventual image turns out to depict a Mexican in a negative light strikes me as wholly unsurprising.
I think maybe this is just something that we can’t find the common ground on which to agree. I’m willing to concede that I may just be missing some requisite life experience, which hobbles my understanding of the issue.
Comment by Redland Jack — 2/28/2008 @ 3:15 am
When the anti-smoking people try to do that, there is an element of making smokers feel pathetic by representing their future like that, yeah.
Whatever you feel about the ad yourself, I find it hard to believe that you don’t think it was aimed at the sort of effect, in general, that Regular Jack and the rest of us are talking about.
Comment by Adam — 2/28/2008 @ 10:19 am