Ron Paul challenges liberals?

This is an interesting conversation. I'm not sure what to make of it, or even what parts to excerpt to give an overview of the story.

Why Ron Paul challenges liberals, by Matt Stoller
Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies , by Glenn Greenwald
Debunking the “Ron Paul Cares About Civil Liberties” Myth
Glenn Greenwald is an asshat for his support of Ron Paul.
Democratic Party priorities, by Glenn Greenwald
Ron Paul has two problems: one is his, the other is ours, by Corey Robin
Naked Capitalism, “A Home for All Sorts of Bircher Nonsense”, by Matt Stoller
Ron Paul Challenges Liberals - or Maybe Not, at Angry Bear

A Republican strategy

Peter Dorman speculates about A Game Plan for Rational, Self-Interested Republicans

Let’s suppose for a moment that all this talk about ideology—about the evils of big government, the flood of debt that threatens our moral and economic collapse, and of course the line that must be drawn in the sand against any new taxes of any kind on anybody—is simply a fig leaf, and that Republicans are pursuing their own partisan advantage without any scruples whatsoever. What would such a strategy look like?

As an unpaid advisor to Boehner and company, here is what I propose

Read the rest to discover Dorman's cunning and ruthless plan.

2012 and beyond

These are not predictions; I'm just speculating on a more-or-less worst-case scenario.

The economy takes a double-dip recession in late 2010, and unemployment is still above 9% or perhaps rises above 10% again. The Democratic party loses more seats than expected, hanging onto a slim majority in Congress. More importantly, several existing and new Republican seats in the House go to ultra-right "Teabagger" sympathizers.

The economy worsens between 2010 and 2012. Civil unrest grows, especially in the inner-cities (read "Black"*) and among industrial labor. A charismatic and strong leader of the ultra-right Teabagger faction gains national prominence. His or her platform rests squarely on oppression, expulsion and barely-concealed eliminationism of immigrants, socialists, Muslims and atheists to purify America of the corrupt elements that are holding us back. (Add a healthy dose of racism and misogyny on the side.) He or she also promises to put America back to work (by intensifying and expanding the wars in the Middle East). The Teabaggers act violently, often against other protesters, but also against a few select (relatively) moderate or especially recalcitrant Republicans.

*i.e. I expect black people to get screwed by the economy extra hard.

President Obama is severely weakened by the mid-term elections. He tries to become more confrontational and combative, but it's too little, too late. Additionally, in a series of PR blunders, the existing Republican party leadership alienates the Christian right. The Republican party, with severe internal divisions, nominates a dark horse candidate. Neither Obama nor the Republican nominee have a strong popular showing in 2012, with the incumbent Obama having a slight plurality. The Teabaggers run a third-party candidate who secures about 20% of the popular vote.

One of three things might then happen: The Teabagger candidate might actually win a state, giving him or her representation in the Electoral College. It's possible too that state-level Teabaggers might get proportional representation passed in one or more red states, giving the Teabagger candidate at least one electoral vote. It's also possible to directly suborn one or more of the Electors: at least some are not legally compelled to vote for the candidate they're pledged to. If the election is close, just a few votes in the Electoral College would be enough to deny both the Democratic and Republican candidates a majority.

The election is thrown to the House of Representatives, who consider the top three candidates from the Electoral College vote: a Republican, a Democrat and a Teabagger. This is the moment for the big putsch.

The 12th Amendment structures the House vote for president weirdly. The congressional delegation as a whole from each state has one vote. Because there are fewer, more populous Democratic states, it's virtually impossible for Obama to win... unless the Teabaggers, who have enough representation in enough states, throw the vote.

They make a bold bluff, and threaten to vote for Obama unless the Republican states vote for the Teabagger. A near-riot crowd of Teabagger supporters surrounds the Capitol, and there's demonstrations and rioting around the country. There are also hints of violent retribution for "recalcitrant" Republicans. The Republicans turn to the conservative Democrats, to no avail: they hope that the Teabaggers aren't bluffing. With partisan animosity and what little party discipline remains to the Democrats, it's not enough. The mainstream Republicans must choose: the Teabaggers or Obama.

The mainstream Republicans blink. Of course they blink. They respect power. A few phone calls, perhaps from Hindenburg Rupert Murdoch or Tom Monaghan, cliches the deal: we can do business with the Teabaggers.

Why not? Hitler's machinations were no more plausible.

The mood of the country

Paul Krugman is not happy about Obama's interview with Business Week

Just to be clear: what freaks me out about [the interview] isn’t what it says about Obama’s policies, it’s what it says about failure to read the mood of the country. The president seems solely concerned that someone might think that he’s anti-business, without — in this interview, at least — appearing to consider it necessary to say a thing about the pervasive sense of unfair Wall Street privilege. He doesn’t have to bash bankers every step of the way, but to respond to a question about bonuses solely by praising free markets and comparing bankers to baseball stars is … clueless.

Clueless? Only if you think it's in Obama's interest to read (and respond to) the mood of the country.

Obama got to the White House in no small party because of big business, and the Democratic party owes its congressional majority to big business. That's not the only reason they won, but without the support of big business, or its active opposition, they would definitely not have won.

I have no good idea why big business supported Obama over the Republicans. Perhaps they saw the crash coming and figured only Nixon could go to China, and only a Democrat could sell the bailouts and other financial shenanigans. There's something heavy going on between the factions of the capitalist ruling class, but it seems pretty clear by now that no faction has both the interest and will to appease the working class. So Obama must please big business, can't directly please the people, and can only pray the Republicans will fuck up their propaganda and he has a chance in 2012. Deviate from the first two, and he will definitely lose.

The Randian faction of the capitalist and middle classes, the Republican party and the Christian fundamentalist popular base, however, are still showing exceptional discipline and focus, which is overcoming their disconnection with reality. The Republican party is using every trick in the book to block Obama's agenda, and the Democratic party is letting them get away with it. The pundits and propagandists are keeping up the full-throated "socialist, traitor, terrorist sympathizer" roar with no sign of embarrassment or weakness.

Remember that Obama is an intelligent and charismatic man, and he was running against a party in an unpopular war, in an uncertain and declining popular economy, against an opponent noted for his lack of charisma and only half-hearted party support. Even with all these advantages — as well as a lot more money from big business than McCain — Obama was trailing in the polls until the financial crisis hit like an avalanche, and he won by a much narrower margin than he should have.

Franklin Roosevelt was a capitalist, imperialist bastard, but at least he wasn't a Randian fascist. He knew what it took to defeat his fascist, Nazi-sympathizing political opponents and he wasn't afraid to defeat them. And he exerted leadership, he mobilized and organized his faction of the capitalist ruling class in a way that Herbert Hoover failed to do. (Hoover shared many of the same policy and political attitudes as Roosevelt, as was by all accounts a terrific guy. But Hoover was himself clearly not a leader of his faction, trying to please everyone and pleasing no one. At least part of his failure was probably simple timing: he was the poor sap who had to try all the standard remedies to pave the way for Roosevelt's more radical solutions.)

Other than timing, the biggest difference between 1932 and 2012 is that in 1932 it was the Randian faction that was complacent and too-cautious from decades of nearly unchallenged rule. The proto-Keynesian, liberal faction was organized, disciplined, focused and ready to win. Today, it's the Keynesian faction whose success has rendered them undisciplined, unfocused and complacent; the Randians have been focused by both an epic narrative, Atlas Shrugged and the struggle against the liberals. (I think liberals still haven't really gotten over Reagan, much less Bush fils.) The Christian right will go to the Republicans if they're smart enough to use Palin as a spokesperson and name someone fundamentalist but a little smarter to the Vice Presidency, such as Brownback or Huckabee. The socialist left will be fragmented, and the middle will jump to whoever seems to be winning.

The big problem is that the Randians are not really all that big on "elections" or "democracy" even in their weak capitalist form. Not only do they find democracy inconvenient, they find it abhorrent. Stealing is stealing, and all democracy does is legitimatize theft from the privileged rich productive and industrious by the working people masses of moochers and looters. If by their lack of discipline and focus the Keynesian faction and the Democratic party are repudiated in 2012 then the Randians will do to America what Hitler did to Germany.

Which is not to say that liberals and socialists necessarily should support the Democrats in 2012. The Democrats have become lite Randians. They'll give us better food and extra blankets in the concentration camps, and they'll have the decency to be appalled by the suffering there.

Jobs!

Remember that Hitler's rise to power was supported in no small part by his promise — which he kept — to put the German people back to work.

If the right-wing and Republican party can successfully merge the eliminationist narrative of purity — we must purge the corruption of liberalism and socialism and restore our pure American values — with the story that the Republicans can succeed in putting America back to work where the Democrats have failed, they will win handily in 2010 and 2012. The Republicans await only the emergence of a leader as disciplined, focused, and most importantly pitiless as Hitler. They lack only the will, not the opportunity.

Remember too that Hitler did not have a majority of popular support, but his minority was, like him, disciplined, focused and ready to do what was necessary. The Christian fascists are just as disciplined, just as focused, and just as ready to do the job, however dirty. They lack only leadership.

Another bold prediction

I predict that the latest seasonally adjusted underemployment rate (U-6) available at the time of the 2012 election will be at or above 17%. The seasonally adjusted standard unemployment rate (U-3) will be above 9% unless a lot of discouraged workers have stopped looking for work.

Furthermore, the median income at the time of the election should will be down slightly from now, and income inequality will be greater.

The Obama administration is backing off of both health care reform as well as economic stimulus. This is precisely the error FDR made in the mid-1930s, and the result will probably be similar: something like a double-dip recession. It's much easier for the capitalist ruling class to manipulate the GDP (they ran it up in 2008 selling each other bad loans), so the telling metrics will be unemployment and income distribution.

Paradoxically, all of these statistics will result in a win for the Republican party in the 2012 elections. Then things will really go to shit.

Update: This prediction is based in part on Paul Krugman's post:

There is a lot of near-term fiscal tightening built into the budget, mainly because of the fading out of the stimulus, but reinforced by the freeze and the expected wind-down of Iraq/Afghanistan and the planned expiration of Bush high-end tax cuts. All of this will take place in the face of high unemployment, with the Fed unable or unwilling to take offsetting action. 1937!

Unlike FDR, Obama is not going to have any room to maneuver. He's going to trot out the old "Hope and Change" bullshit, which will stink on ice by 2012. All the Republicans have to say is, "We're not ineffectual half-assed whiny babies like the Democrats. Elect us and we'll purge the rottenness and corruption from American society." Americans will eat it up in 2012 just like the Germans ate it up in 1939.

Update 2: From what I'm reading, it looks like the Bush tax cuts Krugman refers to may well be made permanent, leading to additional fiscal tightening. (More precisely severely retarding fiscal loosening.)

A bold prediction

I will repeat and reinforce (and slightly qualify) my prediction from August 2007 that Barack Obama will lose the November 2012 election for President of the United States to the Republican candidate. I will make only one reservation: If the Republicans run Sarah Palin as the candidate or vice-presidential candidate, Obama will win. Furthermore, whether or not Palin runs and Obama wins or loses, the Republicans will have a majority at least in the House of Representatives in the 2012 elections.

It's possible the Republicans will run a candidate (such as Palin) that simply cannot beat Obama, but I think they went with their 2nd string in 2008. They'll see that Obama is as vulnerable as Carter was, go with their "Ronnie", their first string in 2012. They shouldn't run Palin, but they should give her a prominent role as a spokesmodel. She might even run in the primaries, but she should do so only to gain credibility.

We might even see a ????/Lieberman ticket, unless progressives are able to focus their voodoo powers and Joe drops dead of an aneurysm.