I recent ranted about why I don't think civil libertarians should support Ron Paul's Candidacy. In the linked essay, Glen Greenwald calls people who've been writing things like the rant I wrote out on the floor, accusing us of being either simple minded or "lying partisan enforcers."

My problem with Paul, which I've expressed consistently for several election cycles, is that he does not support civil liberties, yet he is presented as someone who does, without qualification. I think that is dishonest - I think its a trap that is used to reel in money and support from libertarians with whom Paul does not actually share common cause. I care about this because I care about what it means to be libertarian, and I don't like to see civil liberties issues left in the dust. Greenwald misses this point in his essay, and calling people names is not a useful way of engaging a serious argument.

So why link Greenwald's essay at all? Because I think his point is nonetheless interesting:

Paul’s candidacy forces progressives to face the hideous positions and actions of their candidate, of the person they want to empower for another four years. If Paul were not in the race or were not receiving attention, none of these issues would receive any attention because all the other major GOP candidates either agree with Obama on these matters or hold even worse views.

The exact same accusation that I make about Ron Paul - that he is being sold as a civil libertarian but he is not one - can be made about Barack Obama. The reason that I was excited about Obama's candidacy is that my primary problem with the Bush Administration was their deliberate disregard for legal structures in our society such as habeas, FISA, and international norms regarding warfare that have been created as a consequence of historical lessons as framework for statecraft that prevents totalitarianism. I thought a law professor who claimed to care about civil liberties could help construct a new framework in the wake of the destruction that the Bush administration left behind - a framework that balances liberty and security in the age of terrorism.

Obama has done no such thing. On civil liberties, Obama has been just like the Bush admin. In many ways, civil liberties might have been better off under the Bush admin because at least then the Democrat's partisan noise machine was drawing attention to every debate. The left is now silent on these issues, and when the Republicans try to raise them they lack credibility given their cheerleading for Bush. In the future, the failure of the left to raise the profile of these issues right now will harm their credibility if they try to raise them during a future Republican admin. Its basically check mate for civil liberties as a political issue in the United States.

The differences between Obama and the Republicans are really difficult to discern.

The Republican position on healthcare is that people with pre-existing health conditions should not be able to purchase insurance to cover other unrelated health problems, because it requires subsidies that are too expensive. The Democrat position is that everyone should have access to healthcare.

Thats a difference, but that was last season's issue.

This season the Republicans are promoting a totally discredited view of the economic crisis. That is inexcusable and should make them unelectable. The Dems should and probably will corner the Republican candidate with this and beat them senseless with it.

Other than those two points, I can't really think of anything, and the fact that I'd prefer to vote for somebody who isn't totally full of shit regarding the housing crisis does not make me particularly excited about the Democrats.

So I've got to say, Greenwald is right about Ron Paul, in that he is certainly the most interesting Republican option. Having Obama run against any of the other Republican candidates is merely going to involve the slaughter on economic issues that I'm referring to here. Having him run against Ron Paul would be - complicated. He'd be forced to address a slew of issues, like the drug war, that most Americans are genuinely frustrated about but which our political leadership is usually unwilling to discuss. Having those kinds of discussions would be useful.

Just please don't call him a civil libertarian.

Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies - Salon.com