• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ron Paul, Ralph Nader agree on ‘progressive-libertarian alliance’

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
In this corner, a libertarian, tea party hero who ran several campaigns as a candidate for US president on the Republican ticket. And in that corner, a progressive icon of the left who also ran several campaigns for the US presidency but on the Green Party ticket.

One might think the two men, seemingly ideologically opposed to one another, would rather argue than help one another.

However, on Wednesday's broadcast of Freedom Watch on the Fox Business channel, Judge Napolitano sat down for an amiable interview with Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Ralph Nader to discuss a progressive-libertarian alliance in the 112th session of respective chambers in Congress.

You know, at first blush, this might seem like an impossible coalition. And you know what? First blush is 100% correct. While both Libertarians and Progressives have much in common against corporate interests co opting the government of, by, and for the people, all similarities end there.

Ron Paul and Libertarians believe strongly that the issues of abortion, gay rights, and just about every other divisive issue belong to the states, and are not any business of the government. On the other hand, Nader and the Progressives believe in government intervention to a point that approaches Socialism. So what kind of alliance do we actually have here? Not much. I predict that this alliance will hold on a few (very few) issues, concerning the rights of the people versus the rights of corporations. Beyond that, they will be fighting each other like cats and dogs, as they have done in the past.

Alliance? On which planet, and in which sanitarium on that planet?

Article is here.
 
You forgot the other similarity. Both Paul and Nader are nuttier than fruitcakes.
 
Ralph Nader is not a nut. The man is responsible for a lot of positive left wing activism during the 1960 and 70s. This alliance seems ridiculous.
 
Now combined they will get 5% of the totally vote. A force to be reckoned with.
 
Interestingly enough, as I see it, on paper, this would make sense. In practice, it is absurd. Both groups are on the same side on quite a few issues. The difference is HOW THEY GET THERE is totally different and against what the other one stands for. Outcome is similar. Methods are opposing.
 
Personally, I would like to see this alliance, but let everyone know that it's temporary.
 
You forgot the other similarity. Both Paul and Nader are nuttier than fruitcakes.

Are you saying that because you actually have some evidence of mental illness or do you just have no respect for people you strongly disagree with?
 
They would both lose their supporters if that happened.
 
Are you saying that because you actually have some evidence of mental illness or do you just have no respect for people you strongly disagree with?

Neither. it's because I think both their ideas are way out of the mainstream of America.
 
Now combined they will get 5% of the totally vote. A force to be reckoned with.

Sorry but I really do NOT think Nader is capable of getting 4.5% of the vote.
 
Both groups believe in government accountability so it makes sense.
 
When I took the Nolan Chart I ranked as a left-leaning libertarian. I think the alliance of Nader and Paul resembles the odd combination of my beliefs, at least to some extent, which I personally define as being "protectionist moderate-libertarian". What I mean by that is, I believe in moderate libertarianism, which I define as very socially liberal policies with a significant reduction in the size of government, spending and taxes, but not the near total annihilation of government like true libertarians advocate. The exceptions to this would only come in the form of protection. Most all of us believe the governments job is to protect the rights of humans, but I also believe it should protect the rights of animals, the environment and unborn fetuses. Any laws and regulations that are not truly protectionist and simply "protect people from themselves" so-to-speak such as prostitution and drug use, should be eliminated. Also, the very isolationist policy both men stand for is right in line with my left-leaning libertarianism.
 
Neither. it's because I think both their ideas are way out of the mainstream of America.

So it is because you strongly disagree with them. Has it ever occurred to you that the mainstream of Ameircan political thought might not be what is best for the people of this country?
 
one thing that the last two years have made patently clear, the true political battles are between the extremes on both sides vs the two parties and the moderates. a lot of people hoped obama would get us out of war and get the bankers out of politics (a lot of us knew he wouldn't). when it's proven that both parties are for unprovoked foreign wars for natural resources and both parties are for bankers and businessmen running the government, of course the extremes are gonna join together to try to stop this madness. good luck to them, if they succeed, then we can get back to bickering over relatively unimportant things, such as the seating chart at the state of the union.
 
So it is because you strongly disagree with them. Has it ever occurred to you that the mainstream of Ameircan political thought might not be what is best for the people of this country?

I think it is wise for the American people to decide what is best for them.
 
I think it is wise for the American people to decide what is best for them.

Except the American people do not decide what is best for them. The elites decide what is best for them and let the American people think it is actually their idea.
 
Neither. it's because I think both their ideas are way out of the mainstream of America.

So according to you we should just follow along with what everyone else thinks? Should we not question things? Or exprese other ideas?

Well I guess theres that saying " ignorance is bliss" maybe we should just all shut up and follow in line with everyone else........
 
You know, at first blush, this might seem like an impossible coalition. And you know what? First blush is 100% correct. While both Libertarians and Progressives have much in common against corporate interests co opting the government of, by, and for the people, all similarities end there.

Ron Paul and Libertarians believe strongly that the issues of abortion, gay rights, and just about every other divisive issue belong to the states, and are not any business of the government. On the other hand, Nader and the Progressives believe in government intervention to a point that approaches Socialism. So what kind of alliance do we actually have here? Not much. I predict that this alliance will hold on a few (very few) issues, concerning the rights of the people versus the rights of corporations. Beyond that, they will be fighting each other like cats and dogs, as they have done in the past.

Alliance? On which planet, and in which sanitarium on that planet?

Article is here.

I don't know how well this alliance will do practically and pragmatically, but I, for one, am glad that two political activists from such divergent groups are willing to sit down and discuss the issues and try to find some common causes to work forward on, no matter how few or trivial those causes may be.
 
interesting dichotomy you have here. there are infact two political parties in this coutry. the first and most powerful is the republican, moderate, democrat alliance putting forward the policies of the international bankers and war mongers. the second being the fringes led by supposed madmen and lunatics that want government to set a fair playing field for everyone and not provide for super-representation of the powerful elites.

that's a tough choice, either advocate slavery and violence, or lose all the elections.

does the fact that i realize this, and still participate in the process indicate a certain level of insanity?
 
Last edited:
And yet it makes total sense. What’s so exciting is that their common cause shines the spotlight right where it’s needed: on corporatism — the constellation of government policies that primarily benefit wealthy and well-connected business and banking interests at the expense of the rest of us. While much of the Right Wing sees the danger of the Obama administration in Marxism and state socialism, Paul and Nader realize that that makes no sense. Bill Daley, Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, Paul Volcker, and Jeff Immelt are not the men a Marxist would pick as advisors. But they are the picks of a president who believes that economic stability can exist only if government and major businesses manage the economy together. Corporatism is the opposite of free markets, competition, and full individual liberty.

Paul and Nader are also united in their opposition to America’s imperialist policies and perpetual overt and covert wars, which, in truth, is also part of the corporate state. Foreign wars and world policing may not be solely motivated by economic interests, but they play a big role. Writer Nick Turse documents that the military-industrial complex is more pervasive than ever. The “defense” budget is a gigantic trough at which American companies can feast at taxpayer expense. Why take risks on new and better products for consumers, when the government will pay top tax dollar to pay for you make bombs, rockets, and Humvees?

The Future of Freedom Foundation's take on the whole thing

Ron Paul and Ralph Nader on Corporatism and War by Sheldon Richman
 
This is doomed, doomed, doomed. There is a basic 180 degree difference between the attitude of progressives and most libertarians when it comes to government itself and the purposes and uses of government. This causes both groups to develop and instinctive loathing of each other.
 
Back
Top Bottom