An open letter: 10 ways for Ron Paul to get many more progressives on board

Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
399
Dear Dr. Paul,
While progressives are skeptical of your economic agenda, we find ourselves in agreement with much of what you are advocating, especially restoring American respect and strength in the world through immediately drawing down our overseas military commitments and cutting wasteful, counterproductive and unnecessary military and security spending. We are disappointed with President Obama and are looking to send him and future presidential candidates a message. Challenging him in the 2012 Democratic primary would yield disastrous results. Your candidacy, however, offers us another option. We appreciate your willingness to work with progressives like Senator Sanders and Representatives Frank, Kucinich, and McKinney. For this you have earned our respect and deserve our thanks. We believe that you can and should do more to reach out to disenfranchised progressives. You can help your cause by appealing more to progressives. We acknowledge that you have been doing this consistently; we just want you to amp it up. Your greatest appeal is in your reluctant but pragmatic and humanitarian willingness to allow for current or greater levels of spending on domestic programs and projects if progressives are willing to have a net cut in overall spending. The net cut will come primarily from reductions in military spending and ending overseas commitments. We believe that you can maintain your ideals and your integrity and still get more progressives on board by clarifying the details of your grand compromise and doing the following:

1.) Specify the amount of cuts in defense and other empire building and maintenance you want to make over the next 10 years.

2.) Specify the amount of net cuts and the level of the total budgets over the next 4 years. In other words, tell us how much we progressives can expect to spend on domestic programs and projects in each of the first 4 years of your presidency and how much has to be cut from the overall budgets of each year from 2013 to 2016.

3.) Tell us what excise taxes you want congress to put on legalized drugs like marijuana, heroine and cocaine and how much revenue you would expect to raise from these taxes over the next 10 years. Rates comparable to those on tobacco and alcohol products would be very appealing.

4.) Let us know what other tax revenues you would add. Upping the Trump ante on tariffs on Chinese products in exchange for reductions in domestic spending and income taxes might be doable, especially if you implement number five on this list. A comprehensive plan to base tariff rates on the country of origin's human and civil rights, and labor, environmental and consumer protection policies would be wildly popular with Americans across the political spectrum, especially if you add democracy fees to the purchase of US treasury notes and up the tariffs more for countries who refuse to float their currencies on the open market.

5.) Propose a progressive consumption tax to take the place of the income tax.

6.) Lower the rate of payroll taxes while raising the cap in a revenue neutral way.

7.) Tell us you are willing for states to devise their own health insurance plans and that you will not interfere with states wanting to create single payer and public option systems and to compact with other states in doing so.

8.) Promise to appoint progressives to at least 40% of your domestic cabinet. Naming them in advance of the primaries would work well for progressives. Naming all of your cabinet in advance of the general election would work well with independents, progressives, libertarians, conservatives and all who like to know what they are getting before they get it.

9.) Endorse progressive Democrats, Greens and independents in 2012 House and Senate races against non-libertarian and neo-con Republicans. Urge progressives to vote for you and other libertarian candidates in the 2012 GOP primaries and caucuses.

10.) Promise to pardon all non-violent drug offenders within the first 100 days of your presidency.

Admittedly, this sort of outreach risks sending short-sighted libertarians into the arms of Gary Johnson. It is an unconventional and bold strategy but you have proven yourself to be the type of person who is willing to do the right thing for your country even if it drives the status quo oligarchs crazy. Radical problems require radical solutions. For such a time as this, we need you, Ron Paul, to step forward in a bold, decisive, clear and engaging way.

Yours Truly,

Progressives for Real Change

http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/
 
"Your greatest appeal is in your reluctant but pragmatic and humanitarian willingness to allow for current or greater levels of spending on domestic programs and projects if progressives are willing to have a net cut in overall spending."

I sure hope that isn't the case.
 
Ron is not going to change his message. On whatever points Progressives and Ron agree that is as far as you will get, likewise, with Conservatives. Paul is a libertarian -- realize our positions while logically sound and consistent reach across the completely idiotic (Left-Right - Lib/Prog - Conservative - etc.) spectrum as neither are consistent or logical in their positions. Libertarians do not compromise our positions -- we work with those who agree with us.

1) 10 Years? I suppose that is ok, but Congress appropriates spending per year, and I hate yearly plans as they have no basis in reality as reality is ever changing. I think Ron has all ready come out for 50% reduction in his first year.

2) No qualms here. Expect to not like what you see however.

3) Ron will never raise taxes ever. No new taxes. No raising of existing taxes. Period. Besides, excise taxes are the purview of the individual States, not the Federal Government. Ron and any libertarian does not want to have any excise taxes period.

4) Ron is against all Tariffs and is for Free-Trade. He will never vote/approve of a tariff.

5) Ron wants no tax to replace the Income Tax. Besides, to get rid of the Income tax we have to repeal the 16th Amendment. This will take a lot of time, and there isn't enough support in the House or Senate to get this done. Moot point for now.

6) Ron will sign off on across the board tax cuts and tax abolishments (Getting rid of Capital Gains, Income, FICA, etc.).

7) Yes, Ron is a believer in Federalism. He will not interfere in State affairs.

8) I hope not. Ron would probably appoint a few consistent Progressives in certain positions where it aligns with libertarians -- like Glenn Greenwald on Civil Liberties / Johnathan Turley Civil Liberties, etc.

9) I can live with this.

10) I hope he would do far more than just that.

I think Progressives should be content with voting for Ron based on the myriad positions that libertarians and Progressives agree on:

Repealing Patriot Act / MCA
Ending all the Wars
Bring all the troops home from overseas
Cut the Military Budget (a lot)
Ending the War on Drugs
Legalizing Gambling/Poker
Gutting the FBI/CIA and doing away with them (We need a lot of support in 2012 and 2014 to get this one done)
Ending all subsidies
Ending the Fed / Auditing Fed
Getting us out of the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and enacting unilateral Free-Trade (Like what the EU has for instance between member-States, and like what the States in the US have between each other)

So is War and Civil Liberties more important for you or Socialism? If the former, vote for Ron Paul. If the latter, then I doubt you will.
 
Last edited:
when you put tarriffs on imports that is just an indirect sales tax, which usually hurts the poor more than wealthy.
raising the price of rice hurts those with smaller incomes. i don't see how progressives could support tarrifs.
 
I hate to say it, but we should worry about the Republican primaries. If Ron actually through the primary, I am 100% sure we will win the general election.
 
PFP,

I really like where your head is. I know you only mean well and are an honest progressive that wants real change from the current corporatist government, but I must admit to you that Ron Paul will never endorse many of the suggestions you raise.

What he will do, however, is take the positions he already advocates that progressives already agree with, like ending the wars, Corporate subsidies, etc. and use those to appeal to the Left.

However, we need to win the GOP primary first, so appealing to progressives is the last thing on his (and our) minds right now, unless of course there is a possibility of convincing someone of switching party membership to Republican so they can support RP in the primary.
 
PFP,

I really like where your head is. I know you only mean well and are an honest progressive that wants real change from the current corporatist government, but I must admit to you that Ron Paul will never endorse many of the suggestions you raise.

What he will do, however, is take the positions he already advocates that progressives already agree with, like ending the wars, Corporate subsidies, etc. and use those to appeal to the Left.

However, we need to win the GOP primary first, so appealing to progressives is the last thing on his (and our) minds right now, unless of course there is a possibility of convincing someone of switching party membership to Republican so they can support RP in the primary.

I disagree with the last point because I think the progressives are like us in activism and more likely IF they felt it important, to actually change registration and vote in a primary. But Ron won't promise what he can't deliver. I agree he should detail what HIS view of his transition plan is better so people can envision it, given that during his term, he wouldn't be able to get beyond that and would take our support in electing like minded people and badgering reps who aren't like minded to even get that through.
 
I disagree with the last point because I think the progressives are like us in activism and more likely IF they felt it important, to actually change registration and vote in a primary. But Ron won't promise what he can't deliver. I agree he should detail what HIS view of his transition plan is better so people can envision it, given that during his term, he wouldn't be able to get beyond that and would take our support in electing like minded people and badgering reps who aren't like minded to even get that through.

A few activists might change party registrations, but most are deeply partisan and I'd argue that they have a low amount of numbers. Nothing to waste our time on.
 
Ask not what Ron Paul can do for you, but what you can do for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has been saying the same things and fighting for the same things for more than 30 years. That's why we like him. He isn't going to change his views now just to cater to progressives. And you shouldn't want him to! You already have a president that told you everything you wanted to hear, and he obviously isn't following through on it, so why would you want another? With Ron Paul, you take what you like about his views, weigh it against what you don't like, and act accordingly knowing damn well that he's going to follow through on everything he says to the best of his ability.
 
A few activists might change party registrations, but most are deeply partisan and I'd argue that they have a low amount of numbers. Nothing to waste our time on.

But we're not talking about ordinary democrats. We're talking about everyone who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, plus independents who are social liberals. Many are very disillusioned with the two party duopoly. Ron represents a way out and a short-term plan very similar to what Kucinich or Gravel might offer.

Also, changing party registration is not a big deal when you can do it at the polls on the same day & then switch back as soon as you want to.
 
Right now the only people we care about are likely Republican primary voters!


If we get the nomination
then we can consider how to attract people from the left. But that's a losing strategy during the primary.
 
Awesome, looks like we've got our own regular top-10 list on the board now!
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...icate-with-progressives&p=3163234#post3163234

Look, I don't know how to get this across to progressives, but since you're here, perhaps you can tell us if this doesn't make sense.

When you centralize power, that power attracts the power-hungry.
The power-hungry are not capable of serving the public interest any more than is necessary to retain power.
Because the goal of a centralized system immediately becomes retention of power, centralized systems do more public harm than public good.
The quickest way to centralize power is through taxes and tariffs.
Ergo, taxes and tariffs are to be avoided.

So please, PFP, let us know what about this doesn't make sense, or what plank of what I've just written you reject. And then we will know where to concentrate as we eviscerate you with facts.
 
When jobs are lost and wages decreased because American businesses go looking for cheap labor and low standards, consumers (who are the same workers without jobs) are hurt as well. Initially when tariffs are lowered to allow American businesses to abandon American workers for Chinese slaves, American consumers benefit but over the long run, they run out of money and start borrowing at usurious rates and we all know where that leads. I say start with a 50% tariff. If the Chinese float their currency on the open market reduce it to 40%. If they also raise labor standards to a level comparable to ours, reduce it to 30%. If they also enforce strict environmental standards, knock it down to 20%. If they also allow for religious freedom, freedom of speech, free and fair elections with more than one party, knock it down to 10%. If they also get rid of all tariffs on our products, reduce it to 0%. Until they do all of the above, use the funds we collect to pay down our debt, to build high speed rail, new power grids and new energy sources., etc. Such a policy would put people to work and lift them out of poverty and increase their purchasing power and ability to save and invest. Right now we don't have free trade (if that oxymoron could ever make sense); we have very costly trade that benefits a few people who have lots of money to invest overseas.
when you put tarriffs on imports that is just an indirect sales tax, which usually hurts the poor more than wealthy.
raising the price of rice hurts those with smaller incomes. i don't see how progressives could support tarrifs.
 
can't find what you are talking about...maybe you could paste it here.
Awesome, looks like we've got our own regular top-10 list on the board now!
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...icate-with-progressives&p=3163234#post3163234

Look, I don't know how to get this across to progressives, but since you're here, perhaps you can tell us if this doesn't make sense.

When you centralize power, that power attracts the power-hungry.
The power-hungry are not capable of serving the public interest any more than is necessary to retain power.
Because the goal of a centralized system immediately becomes retention of power, centralized systems do more public harm than public good.
The quickest way to centralize power is through taxes and tariffs.
Ergo, taxes and tariffs are to be avoided.

So please, PFP, let us know what about this doesn't make sense, or what plank of what I've just written you reject. And then we will know where to concentrate as we eviscerate you with facts.
 
Ron Paul will not get the nomination without a massive influx of progressive voters.
Right now the only people we care about are likely Republican primary voters!


If we get the nomination
then we can consider how to attract people from the left. But that's a losing strategy during the primary.
 
Amen Kurt!
But we're not talking about ordinary democrats. We're talking about everyone who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, plus independents who are social liberals. Many are very disillusioned with the two party duopoly. Ron represents a way out and a short-term plan very similar to what Kucinich or Gravel might offer.

Also, changing party registration is not a big deal when you can do it at the polls on the same day & then switch back as soon as you want to.
 
i am not telling him he has to change his views. He has a realistic streak in him that knows that you can't get the whole libertarian agenda in one term. he is smart enough to know he has to tolerate progressives getting something out of the deal to cut overall spending. At a minimum a freeze on current levels of domestic spending with allowance for population increases and inflation.
Ask not what Ron Paul can do for you, but what you can do for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul has been saying the same things and fighting for the same things for more than 30 years. That's why we like him. He isn't going to change his views now just to cater to progressives. And you shouldn't want him to! You already have a president that told you everything you wanted to hear, and he obviously isn't following through on it, so why would you want another? With Ron Paul, you take what you like about his views, weigh it against what you don't like, and act accordingly knowing damn well that he's going to follow through on everything he says to the best of his ability.
 
Back
Top