More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
HuffPost Social Reading
Robert Naiman

GET UPDATES FROM Robert Naiman
 

Will the Media Let Ron Paul Question U.S. Foreign Policy?

Posted: 12/15/2011 1:25 pm

Will the news media let Ron Paul raise serious questions about U.S. foreign policy? It's a crucial test case not only of the prospects that the media will serve the interests of the 99% rather than the 1%, but of the prospects for a foreign military and economic policy that reflects the values and interests of the 99%, rather than those of the 1%.

Economist and media critic Dean Baker recently posed this question in a forum at Politico. Politico's David Mark convened the forum under the headline, "Can Ron Paul Take a Punch?"

Now that Rep. Ron Paul is a top-tier candidate in Iowa rivals are likely to gang up. They may target the Texan's associations with unsavory characters, or a sometimes less-than-pure libertarian stance on congressional earmarks. Middle East politics could also complicate Paul's presidential bid -- he once likened Israel's defensive blockade of Hamas-ruled Gaza to "a concentration camp."

Can Ron Paul take a punch?

Dean Baker responded:

The better question is whether the media will allow Paul to raise serious questions about the nature of this country's foreign policy. I recall watching one of the Republican presidential debates in 2008 where the moderator asked whether the president could unilaterally take military action against Iran.

Mayor Giuliani answered first and gave a characteristic Giuliani answer to the effect of the president can do whatever he wants. Gov. Romney then gave a conditional this and that answer, and then said that if the question was one of constitutional authority, you would have to call in the lawyers.

At that point, Paul jumped in and said that you don't need to call in the lawyers, you just need to read the constitution; Article 1, Section 8 says that Congress has the power to declare war.

This is the sort of refreshing alternative perspective that Paul brings to the debate. Paul also was instrumental in forcing the Fed to disclose the identity of the banks who received trillions of dollars in subsidized loans at the peak of the financial crisis. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke and most of the political establishment insisted that this information had to be kept secret.

It would be really great if the media would give some attention to Paul's ideas and allow the public to make judgments for itself rather than planning how to punch him out if it happens to be the case that the voters in Iowa take him seriously.

[Disclosure: Dean and I are "related" in the sense that Dean is a board member of Just Foreign Policy.]

The example that David Mark gave to invoke the idea that "everybody who's anybody knows that Ron Paul's views on foreign policy are politically marginal" is quite telling:

Middle East politics could also complicate Paul's presidential bid -- he once likened Israel's defensive blockade of Hamas-ruled Gaza to "a concentration camp."

Note how David Mark frames the issue: he doesn't just say, "Israel's blockade of Gaza," he says, "Israel's defensive blockade of Hamas-ruled Gaza." Just in case anyone forgot what people like David Mark claim is the only politically correct view of the Gaza blockade, David Mark makes sure to define terms.

Well, you may say, it's not a news article. It's David Mark's forum; he can say whatever he wants.

But if that were the whole story, then a writer for the Politico could just as well refer to it as, for example, "Israel's economic blockade of 1.6 million defenseless civilians, which was denounced by the Red Cross as collective punishment in violation of international law."

I searched the Politico website, but could not find even one single instance where a staff writer for the Politico ever mentioned the fact that the Red Cross denounced the Gaza blockade as a violation of international law.

Well, you may say, the objection that David Mark is raising isn't just that Ron Paul criticized the Gaza blockade. It's also that Paul criticized the Gaza blockade in an extreme way, likening it to a concentration camp. (In the interview to which David Mark refers, what Paul actually said was that the situation was "almost like a concentration camp.")

But that begs the question: at what meeting was it decided that comparing the Gaza blockade to a concentration camp was beyond the pale of politically correct commentary? Who was invited to participate in this meeting?

Note that the interview to which David Mark referred was conducted in June 2010: right after the Israeli military attacked the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, killing eight Turks and one American, when there was a huge international chorus of condemnation of the Gaza blockade.

Who else has referred to Gaza as a concentration camp? The Catholic Church, for one.

In January, 2009 -- more than a year before the Ron Paul interview -- the Pope's justice minister, Cardinal Renato Martino, likened Gaza to a "big concentration camp," the BBC reported at the time. "Look at the conditions in Gaza," Cardinal Martino said, "more and more, it resembles a big concentration camp."

Is David Mark prepared to stand before 700,000 Catholics in Iowa and claim that the Vatican's criticism of Israeli policies in Gaza was beyond the pale of politically correct commentary?

Or is it the case instead that according to David Mark, it's ok to say such things if you are the Vatican, but if you are a "top tier candidate" for President of the United States, it is not allowed?

 

Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman

Will the news media let Ron Paul raise serious questions about U.S. foreign policy? It's a crucial test case not only of the prospects that the media will serve the interests of the 99% rather than th...
Will the news media let Ron Paul raise serious questions about U.S. foreign policy? It's a crucial test case not only of the prospects that the media will serve the interests of the 99% rather than th...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 109
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
05:57 PM on 12/19/2011
A very news story during Israeli's Luftwaffe attack on Gaza and its population was the comment made by a group of eminent British Jews, who stated that the attack (which killed 1400) was indistinguishable from the Nazi attack on the Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto. You don't have to be the Vatican spokesman or a old Texas isolationist to point out that the vicious attack on men, women, and children living in Gaza (not on its elected governing political party) was a fascist crime against humanity. Israel truly is the chief terrorist agent of the Middle East. No one who has not sold his brain to AIPAC could take an honest look at the attack and deny it. Israel had begun a phase of violent military harrassment of Gaza months before Hamas cancelled its 18 month unilateral ceasefire. Responding to Israel's raids, Hamas officers breached the concentration border and captured one IDF officer who had been part of the Israeli violence, named Gilad Shalit, For the next few years, the Americans and Israelis heard nothing but poor Gilad and his distressed parents and how this proved the unalterable wickedness of "terrorist" Hamas. No mention in our media of the thousands of Palestinian men, women, and teenagers being held for years in Israeli prisons without access to legal counsel or the tortures inflicted on them by the "Israel Defense Force." Where does it say that one Israeli life is worth thousands of Palestinian lives?
07:00 PM on 12/19/2011
You should pick up a dictionary and learn the difference between "isolationism" and "non intervention". There is a significant difference between the two definitions. Ron Paul stands on a platform of non intervention. To call him an isolationist is incorrect.
03:24 PM on 12/16/2011
This is what is wrong with you. You don't have the basic decency and common sense to object to the comparison of Gaza to concentration camps as obscene. When the Gaza death toll approaches 6 million -- no, 6,000 -- call us and we'll revisit the issue. Until then, it's contemtible.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:59 AM on 12/17/2011
No it isn't. Read up on what concentration camps are, then compare. It may not be politically correct, but political correctness is established dishonesty.
11:21 AM on 12/19/2011
6 million corpses. Go away.
01:52 PM on 12/17/2011
You are confusing Concentration Camps with the Nazi Holocaust and Mass Murder. Concentration Camps are just that. A camp for imprisoning a concentration of people usually with the same race or religion. So the US put the Japanese into Concentration Camps during WWII.
06:10 PM on 12/19/2011
You are making distinctions where they are no differences. The Holocaust arrested millions, took them to concentration camps where some were worked to death and others shot or gassed. The forced confinement of one people by another in the world's largest outdoor prison which is bombed daily by Israel's US warplanes, where their the power plant and sewage treatment plant of the residents are destroyed by Israeli bombers in a policy of collective punishment, which is a clear violation of international law and where access to food, building supplies, and even the moneys owed to them by outside parties are harshly controlled by their oppressors, resulting in over 50% of the children being malnourished and the majority of the men being unemployed, and where the fisherman are forbidden to fish the waters where the fish are actually located off their coast, and where kind and brave people try to bring them food are killed. This is a concentration camp.
02:19 PM on 12/16/2011
The complicity of US news media in suppressing intelligent discussion of foolish American foreign policy in the Middle East, is dangerous. Bravo.
01:40 PM on 12/16/2011
To Robert Naiman: I like how you conveniently spun Ron Paul into someone you can support because of his beliefs on one very narrow issue: Gaza. How about you take a look at his record on domestic policies such as civil rights legislation and abortion rights legislation and tell me if you still believe his views are so mainstream and how much you support him then or how big a media platform you think he should have. Its always funny seeing the extreme left come to the defense of the extreme right.

http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/05/ron_paul_would_have_voted_against_civil_rights_act.html

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/08/26/305485/ron-paul-abortion-is-the-most-important-issue-of-our-age/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/ron_paul_on_immigration.html
04:34 PM on 12/16/2011
Do you know why paul would have voted against the civil rights act? It says that the federal government has a right to tell a business operating within the law of its state, how it must operate. this is an issue of constitutionality, and it is the SAME AUTHORITY by which Bush McBama uses the ATF and FBI to raid marijuana dispensaries in California. Are you that myopic?

Ron Paul says our rights come from being an individual . Not from any race. And you don't have the right to tell someone how to run their private business. If some restaurant wanted to ACTUALLY ban black people, how many people would still go there? NOBODY. Education and the media resolves civil rights, not BIG government.
05:05 PM on 12/16/2011
"If some restaurant wanted to ACTUALLY ban black people, how many people would still go there? NOBODY." Congratulations you've made probably one of the most ignorant and ahistorical comments I've heard in a long time. Try being a black person in the South in the 1940s and get a hotel room or go into a restaurant. Do you even realize the history of the Civil Rights Act? It didn't come from out of nowhere or from some desire to give black people more rights based on their race.

"And you don't have the right to tell someone how to run their private business" Actually Congress does have this power, it's explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Read the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) which gives Congress broad powers to regulate interstate commerce, which the Supreme Court held includes all places of public accomodation. The federal government regulates all sorts of businesses and industries (which have been upheld in one Supreme Court case after another) so you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
05:44 PM on 12/16/2011
The dude is not extreme right...believing in freedom isn't right or left...this is why he gets support from both sides of the isle and gets called a liberal by neoconservatives as often as he gets called a right wing extremist by liberals. He's on a completely different level than the right vs left b.s. paradigm you've been spoonfed your whole life.
06:01 PM on 12/16/2011
I don't call allowing businesses to discriminate against other Americans "freedom" and I don't call restricting a woman's right to a medical procedure affecting her life "liberty" so spare me your "freedom" and "liberty" crap because freedom is all well and good until you step on someone else's
09:39 AM on 12/16/2011
Our Nation is bankrupt and Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who addresses this issue.

Ron Paul serves on the House Committees on Foreign Affairs and Financial Services, and on the Joint Economic Committee. He is the chairman of the Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, where he has been an outspoken critic of American foreign and monetary policy.

Dr. Paul is clearly the most qualified candidate to tackle our Nations critical economic and foreign affair issues.

Ron Paul has warned his supporters for three decades and more about the dangers of a fraudulent fractional reserve banking system in the hands of private central bankers, and no one can legitimately argue any longer that those concerns have not been justified.

So are American's educated enough to realize that our monetary system is rigged?... Are they educated enough to realize that most candidates from both parties are owned?

Ron Paul receives more financial contributions from active duty vets than all the other candidates combined. Why is this? They know that Ron Paul is the best solution for our National Defense, though the establishment media is trying to make him look like a kook who would hurt national security. We need to defend our borders and give all these National Guard troops who are on their 3rd and 4th tours of duty a break. Our military is already at the breaking point from wars started to help banks and oil companies.

Vote for Ron Paul 2012!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Freedom and Peace
War is a bankruptcy of policy
09:09 AM on 12/16/2011
I like Ron Paul, except his foreign policy" then watch this...

http://youtu.be/I8NhRPo0WAo

Remember, there will be NO Democratic primaries since Obama will be the Democratic Party nominee. Democrats and Independen­­­­­­­­­ts can vote in the GOP Primaries in states that are open and semi-open. Learn how here...

http://youtu.be/HawiHvxloms
04:31 AM on 12/16/2011
Attention all liberals/democrats/independents. The GOP is foaming at the mouth to start a war with Iran, which by the statements of China and Russia, will start WWIII and completely level our struggling country. If you want to take a chance that Obama will win re-election, or that he won't comply with starting WWIII (based on his failed promises to bring the troops home), then stay home during the GOP primaries/caucuses. I hope you consider otherwise, and vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primaries/caucuses. Check your state to see if it's an open election or if you have to temporarily register as a Republican. Visit BlueRepublican.org for more info. I'm a conservative, but we need your help to prevent to protect this country.
03:39 AM on 12/16/2011
Robert Naiman's comments are spot on as usual. He should be running for Presidet
03:31 AM on 12/16/2011
ron paul rules
02:47 AM on 12/16/2011
You have to ask yourself,Why do our support Dr.Paul? How is it he has more support than all others combined? Simple question why? Support your veterans by supporting who they support as commander and chief!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:51 AM on 12/16/2011
I have to wonder if the time hasn't come in this country when a viable third party candidate like Paul could actually win the Presidential election. I don't see how he can do it as a Republican because he represents the worse nightmare for the GOP establishment. They would never say it in public but they would take a second term of Obama in a heartbeat over Paul.
04:21 AM on 12/16/2011
I agree with your assessment 100% He needs our support in the GOP primaries/caucuses to put the pressure on the GOP establishment. I'm calling all liberals/democrats/independents to vote for Paul in the primaries to crush the war-mongering neo-con establishment that the GOP has become. I consider myself a conservative, but today's GOP does not represent me.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David T Tower
07:17 AM on 12/16/2011
You are spot on....
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:39 AM on 12/16/2011
Paul keeps making statements that make sense and a clear majority of Americans agree with on foreign policy and defense spending. And that scares the bejesus out of the GOP establishment.
01:09 AM on 12/16/2011
Following the exchange Congressmans Paul and Bachmann had during the Fox debate Dr. Paul was not called upon until the final closing of the debate. It was clear Fox was not favorable to his views and then in part did not ask him anymore questions. Generally speaking when a candidate is leading in polls and has polar opposite views of his running mates it is the duty of the media and his fellow candiates to question his positions. Simiply ignoring Congressman Paul will not send him and his supporters home but encourage them even futher. The candidates that prefer to engage Dr. Paul usually end up with their tale's between their legs getting schooled in history and policy. The goal of the media is to spin and contain the message of Dr. Paul and his loyal supporters.
11:48 PM on 12/15/2011
Media will never support Ron Paul. Question: Do you know why? Answer: Because the US media is owned by the 1% and the 1% has its own agenda which is totally against the 99%
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gui Montag
Former Palestinian Supporter
09:12 AM on 12/16/2011
Didn't the US media practically hand the election to Obama in 2008?
05:48 PM on 12/16/2011
Do you think Obama is somehow not beholden to the 1%? He's pushing interventionist war across the globe just as Bush did. He's basically passed a law that forces everyone to buy private health insurance. Who do you think that benefits? Maybe health insurance corporations and healthcare providers? He supported the TARP bailouts and stimulus package that did nothing but benefit the 1%. His biggest campaign contributor is Goldman Sachs. What more do youneed to know?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:36 PM on 12/15/2011
Ron Paul is the only logical, sane guy among the GoP candidates and his strong point is his Foreign policy.
I believe he will not be allowed to win - with the '51st state' lobby strongly thwarting all attempts to give him a platform.
The powerful Republican Jewish Coalition didn't invite him for the P- debate.
He has also be totally ignored by the MSM.
01:43 PM on 12/16/2011
For Ron Paul, the big issue is abortion not foreign policy (that is just where he is most vocal):

http://thinkprogress.org/yglesias/2011/08/26/305485/ron-paul-abortion-is-the-most-important-issue-of-our-age/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tokyomk
It is better to be alone than in bad company.
01:21 PM on 12/17/2011
Nah. Although, his personal beliefs are not pro-abortion, he says it should not be up to the federal government to decide.
02:04 PM on 12/17/2011
For a libertarian a right to life doesn't just include abortion but everything having to do with owning your body. Things like drug legalization (preventing you from putting things into your body), income taxes (taxing your labor), and vice laws. There is still an argument on abortion between libertarians because of when does life and therefore your right to it begin. The argument I happen to agree with is treating abortion similar to eviction. The mother does own her body and womb and the fetus/baby is basically squatting in her property. As the property owner the mother has the right to evict the baby but she doesn't have the right to directly kill it. This is the same as a landlord evicting a squatter. So the mother should be able to take drugs to cause a miscarriage or induce labor but she can't dismember or otherwise directly kill the baby which would be considered murder. Once delivered the baby would have to receive medical care if possible. This effectively sets the viability of the baby with current technology as the limit.