PDA

View Full Version : Why Compare Paul to Reagan? It's just stupid.




Thelibertywire
08-23-2007, 04:09 PM
AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, can you talk about this, the people that are now running the administration are some of the very people who ran the Reagan administration more than 20 years ago?

NOAM CHOMSKY: That’s quite true. The Reagan administration is either the same people or their immediate mentors for the most part. I think one can say that the current administration is a selection of the more extremist and arrogant and violent and dangerous elements of the Reagan administration. So on things like – I mean, that is true on domestic and international policy they are, both in the Reagan years and now, they are committed to dismantling the components of the government that serve the general population — social security, public schools and so on and so forth, but in a more extreme fashion now. Partly because they think they have achieved a sort of higher stage from which to launch the attack, and internationally it’s pretty obvious. In fact, many of the older Reaganites and Bush, number one people have been concerned, even appalled by the extremism of the current administration in the international domain. That’s why there was unprecedented elite criticism of the national security strategy and the implementation in Iraq – narrow criticism, but significant.

So, yes, they’re there, in fact, you cannot — some of the examples are remarkable, including the ones that you mentioned. And very timely they picked Negroponte, who of course has just been appointed, the new ambassador to Iraq where he will head the biggest diplomatic mission in the world. The pretense is that we need this huge diplomatic mission to transfer full sovereignty to Iraqis and that’s so close to self-contradiction that you have to admire commentators who sort of pretend not to notice what it means, also to overlook, consciously, what his role was in the Reagan administration. He also provided — he was an ambassador in the Reagan years, ambassador to Honduras where he presided over the biggest C.I.A. station in the world, and the second largest embassy in Latin America, not because Honduras was of any particular significance to the U.S., but because he was responsible for supervising the bases from which the U.S. mercenary army was attacking in Nicaragua, and which ended up practically destroying it. By now, Nicaragua is lucky to survive a few generations. That was one part of the massive international terrorist campaign that the Reaganites carried out in the 1980’s under the pretense they were fighting a war on terror.

They declared a war on terror in 1981 with pretty much the same rhetoric that they used when they re-declared it in September 2001. It was a murderous terrorist war. It devastated Central America, had horrendous effects elsewhere in the world. In the case of Nicaragua, it was so extreme that they were condemned by the World Court, by two supporting Security Council Resolutions that the U.S. had to veto, after which, of course, they rejected the court judgment and then escalated the war to the point where finally the effects were extraordinary. By the analysis of their own specialists, the per capita deaths in Nicaragua would be comparable to about 2.5 million in the United States, which as they have pointed out is greater than the total number of casualties in all U.S. wars, including the Civil War and all wars in the 20th century, and what’s left of the society is a wreck. Since the U.S. took over again, it’s gone even more downhill.

Now the second poorest in the hemisphere after Haiti and not coincidentally, the second major target of U.S. intervention in the 20th century after Haiti, which is first. The recent health administration statistics show that about 60% of children under two are suffering from severe anemia caused by malnutrition and probable brain damage. Costa Rica, the United States is trying to – doing enough low-level work so that they can send back some remittances to keep the families alive. It’s a real victory. You can understand why Colin Powell and others are so proud of it. But Negroponte was charge of it in the first half the decade directly, and in the second half more indirectly in the State Department and National Security staff where he was Powell’s adviser. And now he is — he is supposed to undertake the same role and similar role in Iraq. He was called in Nicaragua “The Proconsul,” and the “Wall Street Journal” was honest enough to run an article in which they headlined “Modern Proconsul” on which they mentioned his background in Nicaragua without going into it much and said, yes he will be the proconsul of Iraq. Now, that’s a direct continuity, but there’s a lot more than that. What you mentioned is correct.

Elliot Abrams is an extreme case. I mean, he’s now the head of the Middle East section of the National Security Council. He was — as you know, he was sentenced for lying to Congress. He got a presidential pardon, but he was one of the most — he was in charge in the State Department of the Central American atrocities, and on the Middle East, he is way out at the extreme end of the spectrum. This does reflect the — in a way the continuity of policies, but also the shift towards extremism within that continuity.

AMY GOODMAN: There was a very little critical comment about President Reagan this weekend on his death perhaps explained by his death, what happens when a person dies, and what people say or perhaps also because there is a kind of rewriting of history that has been going on. But one of the few people who were quoted in the mainstream media was the Mexican foreign minister, Jorge — the former Mexican Jorge Castenada, whose father served as foreign minister as well in 1979 to 1982 who said Reagan was extremely unpopular in Mexico when he was president because of his policies in Central America, and what was viewed in Mexico as a Mexico-bashing campaign over drug trafficking. Reagan’s involvement in Nicaragua and El Salvador, viewed in Mexico, he said was unwarranted meddling that was “interventionist, rooted in cold war rivalries and disrespectful of international law.” Castenada conditioned, “not only were his policies viewed negatively, but he pressured Mexico enormously to change its foreign policies.”

NOAM CHOMSKY: That’s correct. Casteneda is being diplomatic. He’s understating with regard to the international law and with regard to the intervention. It was – it ended up with a couple hundred thousand people being killed and four countries ruined. And even the world – the US – the people now in office in Washington have the unique honor of being the only ones in the world who have been condemned by the World Court for international terrorism. That’s a little more than what he said, but that’s what he’s aiming at.

The unpopularity continues. The latest figures show that this George Bush, number two, latest Latin American figures, among Latin American elites, the ones who tend to be more supportive of the United States, I think it was about close to 90% opposition throughout the hemisphere and approximately, if I remember, 98% opposition to him in Mexico. But to be accurate, we should say that this goes way back. So, John F. Kennedy was — tried very hard to get Mexico to line up in his anti-Cuba crusade. A famous comment by a Mexican foreign minister when Kennedy tried to convince him that Cuba was to join in the terrorist war against Cuba and the economic embargo strangulation, in fact on the grounds that Cuba was a threat to the security of the hemisphere and the Mexican ambassador said he had to decline, the prime minister had to decline because if he tried to tell people in Mexico that Cuba was a security threat, 40 million Mexicans would die laughing, which is approximately the right answer.

Here not so. The one point on which I think Casteneda’s comment that you quote is really misleading is when he refers to cold war thinking and rivalries. There were no Russians in Latin America. In fact, the U.S. was trying very hard to bring them in. Take, say, Nicaragua, when the terrorist war against Nicaragua really took off, Nicaragua tried to get some military aid to defend itself. And they went first to European countries, France, others. The Reagan administration put extreme pressure on them not to send military aid because they were desperately eager for Nicaragua to get military aid from Russia or indirectly through Cuba. So they could then present it as a cold war issue. Nicaragua didn’t fall into the trap as Guatemala had in 1954, basically the same scenario. So, they didn’t get jet planes from Russia to defend their airspace against the U.S. attacks. They had every right to do it, but the responsibility to do it, but they understood the consequences.

So, the Reagan administration had to float constant stories about how Nicaragua was getting MIG jets from Russia in order to try to create a cold war conflict. Actually it’s very revealing to see the reaction here to those stories. Of course, Nicaragua had every right to do it. The C.I.A. had complete control over Nicaragua’s airspace and was using it. It was using it to send communications to the guerrilla army, which was — guerrilla is a funny word for it, computers and helicopters and so on to send them instructions so that they could follow the U.S. command orders to avoid the Sandinista army, the Nicaraguan army and to attack what are called soft targets, undefended civilian targets. It’s a country that doesn’t have a right to defend its airspace to protect that, I don’t know what you can say. So obviously, they are a right to do it, but they didn’t. They allowed the U.S. to have control of the airspace and to attack — to use it to attack undefended targets.

AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, you have written about the U.S. as being only country in the world to be convicted in the World Court of terrorism. And this had to do with the bombing of the Nicaraguan harbor, which took place under Reagan. Can you talk about that?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah. That, too, is a little misleading. Nicaragua was hoping to end the confrontation through legal means, through diplomatic means.

AMY GOODMAN: I mean the mining of the harbor.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Yes, the mining of the harbors. They decided to — they asked a legal team headed by a very distinguished American international lawyer, A. Chayes, professor of law at Harvard who had long government service, and that legal team decided to construct an extremely narrow case. So, they kept to matters that were totally uncontroversial, as the U.S. conceded like the mining of the harbors, but it was only a toothpick on a mountain. They picked the narrowest point in the hope that they could get a judgment from the World Court, which would lead the United States to back off from the whole international terrorist campaign, and they did win a judgment from the court, which ordered the U.S. to terminate any actions, any violent actions against Nicaragua, which went way beyond mining of the harbors. That was the least of it.

So, yes, that was the narrow content of the court decision, although, if you read the decision, the court decision that goes well beyond, they’re all conscious of the much wider terrorist campaign, but the Harvard – the Chayes run legal team didn’t bring it up for good reasons. Because they didn’t want any controversy at the court hearings about the facts. There was no controversy about that, since it was conceded. However, it should be read as a much broader indictment, and a very important one. I mean, the term that was used by the court was “unlawful use of force,” which is the technical term for the informal notion, international terrorism. There’s no legal definition of international terrorism in the international domain. So I bet it was in effect a condemnation of international terrorism over a much broader domain.

However, we should bare in mind, it’s important for us, that horrible as the Nicaragua war was, it wasn’t the worst. Guatemala and El Salvador were worse. I suggest that in Nicaragua, the reason was that in Nicaragua, the population at least had an army to defend it. In El Salvador and Guatemala, the terrorist forces attacking the population were the army and the other security forces. There was no one to bring a case to the World Court that can be brought by governments, not by peasants being slaughtered.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Chomsky, I wouldn’t want to end this discussion without talking about the Reagan years and Africa, particularly southern Africa.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, the official policy was called “constructive engagement.” I recall it during the 1980s, by then there was enormous pressure to end all support for the apartheid government. Congress passed legislation barring trade and aid. The Reagan administration found ways to evade the congressional legislation, and in fact trade with South Africa increased in the latter part of the decade. This is incidentally the period when Collin Powell moved to the position of national security adviser.

The U.S. was strongly supporting the apartheid regime directly and then indirectly through allies. Israel was helping get around the embargo. Rather as in Central America where the clandestine terror made use of other states that served as — that helped the administration get around congressional legislation. In the case of South Africa, just look at the rough figures. In Angola and Mozambique, the neighboring countries, in those countries alone, the South African depredations killed about million-and-a-half people and led to some $60 billion in damage during the period of constructive engagement with the u.s. support. It was a horror story.

LibertyEagle
08-23-2007, 04:13 PM
Another question might be...

Why are you listening to Chomsky? He is a major socialist.

Thelibertywire
08-23-2007, 04:15 PM
You obviously didn't even have time to read the article, since i just posted it like 35 seconds ago, but yet you make a comment.

Maybe I listen to Chomsky, because he has probably been the biggest critic of American imperialism in modern history. I don't bother with his domestic policy, but his views on U.S foreign policy, are quite similar to those in the book "Blowback" which RP endorses.

Brasil Branco
08-23-2007, 04:15 PM
Another question might be...

Why are you listening to Chomsky? He is a major socialist.

Actually, Anarcho-Syndicalist.

And are you telling me you've dismissed "Manufacturing Consent" and "Hegemony or Survival" because he's a socialist? Those two books do more to support Ron Paul's cause than anything out there, (well the latter one mostly).

I don't like the comparison- especially when they think he's a fan of Reaganomics. He's not. Reagan brought one of the greatest swings over to Protectionism in American History.

LibertyEagle
08-23-2007, 04:21 PM
You obviously didn't even have time to read the article, since i just posted it like 35 seconds ago, but yet you make a comment.



You are assuming that you are the sole source of information.

Thelibertywire
08-23-2007, 04:28 PM
You are assuming that you are the sole source of information.

OK. You got me there. But with your argument as far as disregarding Chomsky, should we disregard Jefferson because he owned slaves? Not everyones ideas are going to be perfect. I guess that is my point.

LibertyEagle
08-23-2007, 04:31 PM
OK. You got me there. But with your argument as far as disregarding Chomsky, should we disregard Jefferson because he owned slaves? Not everyones ideas are going to be perfect. I guess that is my point.

I agree. Now apply the same thing you just said to Reagan. He talked a good game. The problem is that he didn't do what he said. A whole lot of Republicans only remember his WORDS and they have him on an altar. I say we use it to our best advantage.

Thelibertywire
08-23-2007, 04:34 PM
The difference is I am not comparing Chomsky to Paul. Or putting Chomsky on Slim Jims. To people that actually remember Reagan's foreign policy, this does a disservice. I guess it is a point of little interest, but none the less it irritates me.

LibertyEagle
08-23-2007, 04:36 PM
Oh, I see your point. I only use the Slim Jims for Republicans. I wouldn't think about using them with others.

derdy
08-23-2007, 04:36 PM
I find Reagan appalling , but I think they use the comparison to appeal to the GOP old schoolers. They think of him as a demi-god or something, probably some new schoolers too.

LibertyEagle
08-23-2007, 04:41 PM
I don't think we have a good flyer for anyone who is not Republican. I don't like the tri-fold on the campaign website either. Perhaps we should design one.

Dustancostine
08-23-2007, 04:43 PM
The problem with Chomsky is that he has all the facts, but comes to the wrong conclusions. Yes he is right about the atrocities that the US has committed with interventionism. But he is not upset that we intervene just the way we do it. He would be perfectly happy with one big world nanny government. He also talks about World Organizations like they are perfect or something. Always talking about the World Cort or the World Bank, or the UN or NATO. He doesn't think we should pull out of these organizations but that we should give them our sovereignty. He complains that we give aid to Israel not in terms of how it is hurting our economy, but in terms of how we don't give enough to other countries in places like Africa.

Chomsky ideas:

That there isn't much difference between slavery, and renting yourself to an owner, or "wage slavery." He feels that it is an attack on personal integrity that destroys and undermines our freedoms. He holds that those that work in the mills should run them

Critical of the American capitalist system and big business, he describes himself as a libertarian socialist who sympathizes with anarcho-syndicalism and is highly critical of Leninist branches of socialism. He also believes that libertarian socialist values exemplify the rational and morally consistent extension of original unreconstructed classical liberal and radical humanist ideas to an industrial context. Specifically he believes in a highly organized society based on democratic control of communities and work places. He believes that the radical humanist ideas of his two major influences, Bertrand Russell and John Dewey, were "rooted in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism, and retain their revolutionary character.

From Wikipedia....

Blah....

Really Smart Man, He sees whats going on in the world but has no grasp of economics what so ever.

--Dustan

Nash
08-23-2007, 05:30 PM
You guys are forgetting all the great things Reagan did, like slash taxes, end the war on drugs, get rid of the department of education and energy, adhere to the principle of federalism that our founders espoused and take a stand against amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Ok well he slashed taxes at least.

Yeah you're right he didn't really do all that much for the cause of liberty but he sure sounded great at the podium!

Perception is reality anyway, at least if you're talking to old guard Republicans. The truth is unfortunately relative.

quickmike
08-23-2007, 05:44 PM
If he can use Reagans name to get votes I say go for it. Are you all so proud that you wouldnt use someones name that could get your candidate votes? Would you say "sure, if people who like Reagan might vote for Ron Paul because they liked the "small government" Reagan talked about, but we dont want those votes!!!!" Thats just stupid. Reagan talked a good game, but never came through, yet people remember his "smaller government" message and many have a fondness of him. Regardless of what some of you might think, were gonna need mainstream GOP voters liking Ron Paul for a chance to win.

As for Chomsky...................... isnt that guy pretty much irrelevant to the average person anyway? Chomsky LOL.............. who cares.

Broadlighter
08-23-2007, 06:20 PM
We can all agree that foreign adventures and interventions do more to harm America and undermine our security. Chomsky appeals to all those young idealists who haven't quite figured out the game. He probably gets grants from the Rockefellers.

scrosnoe
08-23-2007, 06:40 PM
but please don't tell the GOP old guard that until we get them on board. we have an incredible amount of work to do to pull a coalition together inside the republican party to take the thing for ron paul - so let's get busy and use any advantage we have / his being there to help put reagan in helps us with that group if we use it properly

we must show and convince the GOP that we have the numbers and are here to stay and will in fact move the party in the constitutional direction (like it or not - so like it and help us is my strong suggestion)

oh yes and by the way - 'you' cannot beat the democrats without our help and ron paul at the helm so wake up, help us, and let's get on with it ;)
no brag - just fact - make them run to keep up with us . . .

what is the old saying, lead, follow, or get out of the way!

jpa
08-23-2007, 06:51 PM
To answer the subject line question:

Ron Reagan was very popular. We are trying to win a presidential campaign. The more Ron Paul compares well to Ron Reagan, the better the odds of winning the election.


Yours (or my) personal opinions of Reagan's foreign policy does not matter. Getting wide spread public appeal for Ron Paul does matter.

fletcher
08-23-2007, 07:21 PM
Why compare Paul to Reagan? Because Republicans like Reagan, and Paul is a Republican, with similar beliefs to Reagan, trying to win the Republican nomination. Chomsky, on the other hand, does not appeal to Republicans. In fact, most Republicans rightfully hate Chomsky.

klamath
08-23-2007, 07:24 PM
As I stated in an earlier thread. We should never attack and degrade any popular president ie Reagan- Kennedy ect while campaigning for Paul. Address US policies that may have been ongoing during those administrations leave the names out. My grandmother was a new deal democrat and God forbid anyone say anything bad about Roosevelt. People have their heros, don't put Ron Paul between them and their heros. I think you will notice that Ron Paul only talks issue and policies without bringing up names.

BarryDonegan
08-23-2007, 07:30 PM
ron paul dissented against reagans policy in the end, as did goldwater. however reagan's MEMORY has been immortalized by his death, and by the fall of the soviet union. most people in the political sphere are more affected by the memory of reagan, than noam chomsky's recollection of it. not to mention, anyone able to read chomsky is not going to be able to be spun off of ron paul by a vague reagan comparison. obviously they will be able to make their own decision.

BarryDonegan
08-23-2007, 07:34 PM
The problem with Chomsky is that he has all the facts, but comes to the wrong conclusions.

amen.

feel the same way about jello biafra. its like, man, what a smart man at finding out what the problems are, but the solutions he is suggesting have already been tried in other countries and failed.

if everyone just realized that all we gotta do is do a /systemrestore on america to about 1860, reinterpret the constitution to say that all men are created equal includes every race into common law, and we're good to go.

LastoftheMohicans
08-23-2007, 08:03 PM
You guys are forgetting all the great things Reagan did, like slash taxes, end the war on drugs, get rid of the department of education and energy, adhere to the principle of federalism that our founders espoused and take a stand against amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Ok well he slashed taxes at least.

Yeah you're right he didn't really do all that much for the cause of liberty but he sure sounded great at the podium!

Perception is reality anyway, at least if you're talking to old guard Republicans. The truth is unfortunately relative.

He didn't even slash taxes. He and the Democrats in Congress cut tax rates but tax revenues went up. And despite what the supply-siders say, tax revenues didn't go up because of economic growth. Growth was about the same under Carter. They went up (not that that's a good thing) because of Republican tax increases. TEFRA in 1982 and the Social Security Tax increases.

Kuldebar
08-23-2007, 08:04 PM
2008 ELECTION - FOUGHT IN 1964 (http://www.libertariansforpaul.com/category/economic-freedom/)

Ronald Reagan laid out the issue in 1964 - Freedom or Statism. In 2008 that is still the issue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s06YhQyv3w


Reagan was probably a decent man, but he failed to follow through with much of his rhetoric. His rhetoric was damn good and what got him elected.

Ron Paul was a very early supporter of Reagan's bid for the presidency, but Paul grew disappointed when the Reagan Administration increased spending and the deficit.

On a side note, Reagan never really wanted Bush, Sr. to be his Vice, but that was a backroom deal that was made at some point in order to appease certain factions in the GOP.

constituent
08-23-2007, 08:10 PM
kuldebar....

and the assassination attempt?

constituent
08-23-2007, 08:11 PM
oh wait... hot topics...

foo?

PaleoConservative
08-23-2007, 09:53 PM
The Gipper's tax cuts caused the American economy to grow and thus the increase in taxes. It happens everytime it's tried: cut taxes and watch the economy grow and increase revenue. The only fault of the gipper was actually trusting the democrats to cut spending.

LastoftheMohicans
08-24-2007, 12:11 AM
The Gipper's tax cuts caused the American economy to grow and thus the increase in taxes. It happens everytime it's tried: cut taxes and watch the economy grow and increase revenue. The only fault of the gipper was actually trusting the democrats to cut spending.

"Tax revenues are up 59 percent since 1980. Because of our economic

growth? No. During Carter's four years, we had growth of 37.2 percent;

Reagan's five years have given us 30.7 percent. The new revenues are due to

four giant Republican tax increases since 1981.

All republicans rightly chastised Carter for his $38 billion deficit.

But they ignore or even defend deficits of $220 billion, as government

spending has grown 10.4 percent per year since Reagan took office, while the

federal payroll has zoomed by a quarter of a million bureaucrats.

Despite the Supply-Sider-Keynesian claim that "deficits don't matter,"

the debt presents a grave threat to our country. Thanks to the President and

Republican Party, we have lost the chance to reduce the deficit and the

spending in a non-crisis fashion. Even worse, big government has been

legitimized in a way the Democrats never could have accomplished. It was

tragic to listen to Ronald Reagan on the 1986 campaign trail bragging about

his high spending on farm subsidies, welfare, warfare, etc., in his futile

effort to hold on to control of the Senate.

Instead of cutting some of the immeasurable waste in the Department of

Defense, it has gotten worse, with the inevitable result that we are less

secure today. Reagan's foreign aid expenditures exceed Eisenhower's,

Kennedy's, Johnson's, Nixon's, Ford's, and Carter's put together. Foreign

intervention has exploded since 1980. Only an end to military welfare for

foreign governments plus a curtailment of our unconstitutional commitments

abroad will enable us really to defend ourselves and solve our financial

problems." Ron Paul

"In 1980 Ronald Reagan promised to balance the budget by 1984, but in
eight years in office he didn’t propose a single balanced budget — and he never
used his veto to keep Congress from spending more and more of our money." Harry Browne

PaleoConservative
08-24-2007, 12:39 AM
I'm all for cutting taxes and spending. Yes, I think deficits do matter. I'm not a tax and spender or a tax cut and spender.

BuddyRey
08-24-2007, 01:06 AM
Another question might be...

Why are you listening to Chomsky? He is a major socialist.

I thought he was an anarcho-syndicalist. :confused: :confused: :confused:

NCGOPer_for_Paul
08-24-2007, 06:20 AM
Me, old-school Republican. Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater, and Thomas Jefferson are my political heroes. I HATE Noam Chomsky.

Reagan's problem was a Democrat Congress that wouldn't cut spending no matter how much Reagan pushed. Reagan argued for a line-item veto in every State of the Union speech he delivered. Reagan's Republican allies in Congress would argue over spending, and Democrats would bring pictures of "starving" children on to the floor of the House, knowing it would bother Reagan, being a child of the Depression who many times would go to bed hungry.

Reagan wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, reform Social Security, and seriously roll back the welfare state. Reagan COULD NOT DO THIS, because of a Democrat Congress and Rockefeller Republicans that did not share his vision of a more "libertarian" country.

No, I do not support pre-emptive war, war for the sake of war, or war for anything other than self-defense and self-preservation, but I DO feel we had an obligation to prevent the Soviets from establishing a beachhead in our backyard.

mtmedlin
08-24-2007, 09:58 PM
Without reading the entire post I will answer in this short way...

Because it works!

ideologically are hey different, yes, but who the hell cares. Average GOP voter get warm in the shorts when you mention the Gipper.