editors note: Since writing this article Dennis Kucinich has emerged as a force of his own. Please read this article in the context of Ron Paul being one of the lone, honest politicians at the time to make a break on the Internet. In addition, Chomsky has contributed his own opinions on Ron Paul.

Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky

Having been a long time social-libertarian, it’s been interesting to observe the rise in popularity of Congressman Ron Paul on the Internet. I first discovered him about a year ago when I read a transcript of a speech he gave to Congress on monetary policy. It was startling to see such honesty, especially from a Texas Republican; it was truly the last place I expected to find it. His withering critique of the petro-dollar represented a kind of understanding that American politics usually holds in contempt and indeed that is the status of Ron Paul to the Washington elite, contemptible. His success on the Internet and his appeal to a wide audience brings up a number of important issues and offers an important possibility of dialogue in a highly divided nation.

Untangle yourself for the moment from political prejudices and think about this statement; the libertarian left and the libertarian right are in most cases indistinguishable. Consider this quote from the distinguished social libertarian, Noam Chomsky:

“I find myself in substantial agreement with people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I also admire their commitment to rationality which is rare.” ~ Noam Chomsky, in an interview entitled “Noam Chomsky on Anarchism,” December 1996

We have all grown up with immensely distorted views of “Left” and “Right”. Anyone who favours state medical is branded a Communist and anyone who favours a weakened central bureaucracy is labeled a dangerous Libertarian. No need to listen to the actual arguments, this extremely superficial distinction is all that is required. At least that’s what we’ve been taught to think. The truth is that anyone who has taken the time to classify their political position as “libertarian” has done so out of a belief in maximizing human freedom.

The Ultimate Wedge Issue: Private Property

The libertarian left and right have been easily divided by their differing views on private property. Those on the right believe that social libertarians just want to steal all their property, while those on the left are fond of saying that property itself is theft. The reality of course is much more subtle. While there are reactionaries in both camps, a moderate synthesis between the two is achievable and would certainly help promote reasoned debate, ultimately undercutting the reactionaries. If we boil the arguments down to their most important features:

left) Private structures of control can be as bad or worse than state structures.

right) The freedom of the individual to create and produce must be the central focus of a political system.

That’s it. This is the wedge issue that divides the left and right. Kind of ridiculous isn’t it? What is needed is a serious debate of these issues. A real debate. Not the kind you see on CNN or FOX; One that can clear the air on why there are really differences of opinion on global warming, gun control, Medicare, “free” trade and environmental regulation. People need to hear this stuff when it is not suffocated inside a bag of patriotic posturing. I want to see Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky make time in their busy schedules to create dialogue between two marginalized forces. Why these two men? Ron Paul is on the verge of making a breakthrough by appealing directly to people through the Internet. The mainstream press is having a hell of a time suppressing his popularity and with continued support he could become a serious challenger for the presidency. His appeal extends deep in to the left, but to really make inroads with this constituency he is going to have to negotiate with the “arguably the most important intellectual alive”.

To put it mildly, this would not be like debating Rudy Giuliani. Noam Chomsky has had an iron grip on the most prestigious philosophy chair in the world for 40 years for very good reason. His knowledge of political systems and human nature has seen intellectuals like Richard Perle, Alan Dershowitz, Michele Foucalt and BF Skinner humiliated in their exposed ignorance. Whether people on the left have even heard of him, his influence guides them because he guides the opinion leaders. This is not a negligible number of people. His approval could directly or indirectly give Ron Paul considerable support. There is common ground between Ron Paul and Noam Chomsky, such that if the left and right can put aside their differences momentarily and engage in reasoned dialogue we have a brief chance to accomplish what was once thought impossible: democracy.

Robinson, Paul (February 25, 1979). The Chomsky Problem; Chomsky. New York Times: “Judged in terms of the power, range, novelty and influence of his thought, Noam Chomsky is arguably the most important intellectual alive today. He is also a disturbingly divided intellectual.”

Licensed under Creative Commons

I like Ron Paul, but often when I listen to him, I can’t help but think about how much better he could be. Whether it’s the candidates’ debate or appearing on Bill Maher, he makes claims that although convenient, just simply aren’t accurate. The claim he is most fond of is that traditional Republicanism is non-interventionist. As proof of this claim he cites Eisenhower and Nixon’s platforms of disengagement from Korea and Vietnam respectively. Furthermore he mentions Reagan’s wisdom in pulling troops out of Lebanon, which is supposed to be evidence that Reagan learned from the mistake of foreign intervention and adopted a more conservative foreign policy. He could well be saying these things in order to ingratiate himself with loyal Republicans who want a flattering self-image, or he could actually believe it; either way these statements are false and it’s important for the public to know this.

Let’s look carefully at his examples. Eisenhower was more-or-less in favour of non-intervention but nevertheless was given to “fighting Communism” wherever he saw it. This meant interventions in Iran, Guatemala, Congo, El Salvador and Cuba; not to mention setting the stage for Vietnam. He can hardly be described as non-interventionist even if his transgressions were minor compared to some of the people to follow him.

To claim Nixon was “non-interventionist” borders on the absurd. Yes, he campaigned to get the United States out of Vietnam (a pledge he never lived up to) but this hardly captures the essence of his presidency. To name a few of Nixon’s interventions: the Dominican Republic, Chile, Uruguay, El Salvador, Cambodia and Laos. Hundreds of thousands of people died because of Nixon and Kissinger’s “non-interventions” without mentioning their ridiculous domestic policies that directly contradict most of what Ron Paul stands for.

As for Ronald Reagan; did you know the United States is the only country in the world to ever be successfully prosecuted for terrorism by the World Court? Do you know why? The Nicaraguan civil war is seriously worth understanding in order to put modern relations with Latin America into context. It depicts quite viscerally, the depths to which American power will go to have its way. Through covert action, Reagan was able to hide his dealings with the Contras from the American people and support a group of people who committed all kinds of outrageous barbarity. But this was just part of Reagan’s Latin America blood-orgy. Interventions in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras were disgustingly brutal. The documentation is readily available for those interested in reading about crimes that will make your stomach turn. These historical facts were also central to the skepticism of the Bush’s intentions by the anti-war left and right.

What Ron Paul either doesn’t want to say, or doesn’t know to say, is that citing any American president in the last 60 years as embodying an ideal we should strive for is a step in the wrong direction. Paul would do well to listen to fellow libertarian Noam Chomsky when he says:

“If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged.”

And, like Paul’s message to Giuliani at the candidates’ debate, that statement can easily be supported. Are you listening Paul?

jordan [at] introspections.org

License under Creative Commons.