Un programme révolutionnaire pour 2012

Un programme révolutionnaire pour 2012

On trouve dans un texte que nous utilisons par ailleurs (Faits & Commentaires de ce 25 août 2011), le commentaire fort long d’un lecteur, qui se présente sous le nom (réel ou pseudonymique) de “Hank Xavier”. (Le texte est de Alex Pareene, de Salon.com, le 24 août 2011, et porte sur l’hypothèse de Ron Paul devenu président des USA.)

Bien plus qu’un commentaire, l’intervention de “Hank Xavier” constitue un exposé sélectif très clair du programme de Ron Paul, essentiellement économique et de politique intérieure, avec certains points polémiques (Ron Paul est-il raciste ?), avec un dernier chapitre consacré à l’attitude des partisans de Paul. Ce texte nous a paru intéressant parce qu’éclairant pour un des deux volets principaux des intentions de Ron Paul. On connaît fort bien ses positions en politique extérieure (antiwar, anti-Pentagone, neo-isolationniste dans le sens de l’anti interventionnisme, etc.) ; on connaît beaucoup moins ses options de politique intérieure, hors de son hostilité pour la Federal Reserve et sa volonté d’établir l’or comme deuxième monnaie d’échange avec le dollar.

Tout naturellement, nous proposons à nos lecteurs la lecture du texte de “Hank Xavier” (mis en ligne le 24 août), dont le titre est «Misrepresenting Paul's views»

«1. Paul has stated repeatedly that he would not threaten the beneficiaries of current federal programs like social security, medicare and medicaid. He has gone on record, that while opposed to these programs, he would initiate a responsible and reasonable phasing out by allowing younger people to opt out. To continue funding them in the meantime, he would end foreign wars, foreign militarism, close needless federal bureaucracies and use those monies to continue to support our domestic social safety nets. THAT is Paul's position.

»2. Ron Paul is the single most strident defender of civil rights in Congress, consistently voting against any legislation that seeks to impair the individual rights of anyone under the constitution. This position does not pander toward any racial group as Ron Paul believes that racism is a very base form of collectivism and Paul is a life long individualist. He has also gone on record as saying that he would have vehemently opposed the Jim Crow laws, which were the main federal intervention in race relations in those days that enforced segregation. His position is that rights do not come as afforded to particular groups, they are inherent as individuals and this is consistent with the views of our founders and the founding documents. A difference of opinion is fine here, but to leave the inference of racism hanging in the air is wrong. And Paul did not write those newsletters, a writer on that particular newsletters staff did. He was fired for those remarks and Paul apologized for allowing them to be published without his knowledge. This was debunked 20 years ago.

»3. Ron Paul is anti-corporatist. In our current form of government, which is indeed bordering on a kind of fascism where the public/private partnership between government and corporations has hedged out the consent of the governed, we are faced with corporations that are able to do exactly what you claim to oppose. Do whatever the hell they want. This is due directly to behaviors like Obama recently appointing a Monsanto big wig to a top position in the FDA. And is also due in no small part to the massive lobbyist industry in DC where some 19,000 lobbyists spend some 3.8 billion dollars (as of 2010) to buy out our elected officials so that they, not the people, can control the direction of the federal government and hence the nation. This is something Ron Paul has long opposed, often as a singular voice standing against these rising tides of fascism in American government. Very often against his own party. Ron Paul simply advocates a return to free market principles where the markets (consumers/labor) regulate corporate interests, and they are sure to do a better job than this completely corrupt government. When markets regulate the economy, those corporations that do bad things fail and go bankrupt as other, more fair companies rise to compete and the consumer/labor base abandons the bad guys. However, in this current environment, corps that do bad things are instead rewarded with massive bailouts paid for by a people who are already struggling to make ends meet, and so the rich fat cats get richer and fatter on your dime. Or rather, China's dime because it's all debt money anyway. Ron Paul is calling for an end to this runaway Ponzi scheme and a return to individuals making decisions and choices for themselves in the marketplace. That's all.

»4. Finally, a word about congress and gridlock. Ron Paul is one man. But he is one man who represents a massive and deeply energetic and determined movement. We call it the rEVOLution (note the emphasis on the backwards word love in caps, this is important. Some refer to it as the Liberty Movement. All those millions donated. That's us. All those polls won. That's us. All those calls and comments. That's us. We are the grassroots, the real grassroots movement, not to be confused with the neocon astroturfing of the other half of the Tea Party. And we have a plan. Already you have witnessed some of it with the induction of many Tea Party freshman in the last midterm. This is a trend that will continue. But you should know that we are not partisan by any means. We also support members like Dennis Kucinich who has a deep respect for the Constitution. We also are allied with progressives like Ralph Nader, with whom we agree a great deal about many things, most especially antiwar and anticorporatism. And in the years to come, you will see us actively at work in our districts, moving to promote and elect Liberty candidates to congress and to sweep out the fascists that have gotten us into this mess. So... let me clue you in on a piece of the plan. If Ron Paul is elected in 2012, the following mid-terms will show a massive undertaking by the rEVOLution to elect liberty candidates to congress. On the heels of such a huge win, we expect momentum to be clearly in our favor and our movement will have grown exponentially. This will not be a right v. left effort, as our movement is very much non partisan and is rather focused on principles over politics. You will see Democrat liberty candidates and you will see Republican liberty candidates. Both sides will work within their respective parties to shift their parties policies back toward Constitutional principles and away from corporatism and war. This is the goal and if you have been witnessing anything about our movement, you know that not only are we not going away, but we are succeeding and will continue to push, and push, and push until we win. Why? Because we must. Because the future of this nation depends on it. But mostly, because we love the American people and we believe with our whole hearts that America and her people, of all colors and creeds, deserve to be free. That's why. Think about it.»

Nous ajouterons un dernier point, autour de cet intéressant article de Alex Pareene, de Salon.com, qui suscita cette intéressante intervention de “Hank Xavier”… Dans sa conclusion, Pareene écrit : «And can you imagine Paul dealing with a 2008-style financial crisis? I am guessing he'd let all the banks fail – which has its good points and its very terrifying points...»

C’est un intéressant dernier point, – l’effondrement des banques que laisserait faire Ron Paul, qui est un acte (ou un non-acte, disons) décrit par Pareene comme “terrifiant” en même temps que “positif”, – ce qui, à notre humble et joyeux avis, résume plutôt les contradictions pathologiques et autodestructrices du Système plutôt que l’insanité des projets de Ron Paul… Dans les (très, très nombreux) commentaires suivant le texte (en général favorables, bien que Salon.com soit très progressiste), – on trouve cet échange à distance entre trois lecteurs, qu’il est intéressant de signaler.

Premier lecteur : «I suggest you read up a little more on economics and finance. Particularly banking. Tell me, exactly why the banks failing would be so bad? Take BOA for instance. Who is going to lose out if BOA [Bank of America] goes under? Yes, its shareholders. Yes, its lenders. So what? This “too big to fail” paradigm has been created by the elite to justify their lending and spending to their fellow cronies on Wall Street…

Deuxième lecteur  : «... Who going to lose out if BOA goes under? Yes, its shareholders. Yes, its lenders. So what.. And the average guy who banks with BOA... what happens to him?»

Troisième lecteur : «The FDIC insures all bank deposits up to $250,000. (http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/dis/index.html.) Besides that, another bank would almost certainly buy B of A's deposit accounts.»)

dedefensa.org