Rand Paul’s Chas Freeman

A while ago, Andrew declined to address arguments about Charles Freeman’s competence, and despaired that Obama had been “denied a true contrarian” — we won’t discuss whether he might be a pseudo-contrarian — “to challenge the old way of thinking” … It makes you wonder whether the Dish will be consistent and marshal a similar defense of Michael Scheuer being one of Rand Paul’s foreign policy advisors.

Scheuer is the author of Blowback, which presents a starkly different paradigm for how to deal with terrorism than the one embraced by neoconservatives and the contemporary Conservative base. Is this paradigm not useful, particular in its differences from what some might characterize as an ideological monopoly?

Like with Charles Freeman, one can subordinate questions about the competency of this man’s judgment and rate of accurate predictions to the singular usefulness of having a contrarian voice to listen to. As Andrew argued back then, why must me demand that our politicians be defenseless victims of an ideological monopoly?

Adam Holland tells us how Rand Paul would be well-informed about such contrarian positions on U.S. defense as defending American citizens against tyranny of Rachel Maddow and Michelle Obama’s elitism, with armed rebellion, if need be:

Outraged at Rand Paul’s poor performance on the Rachel Maddow program last week, during which Paul came out against the Civil Rights Act’s ban on racist discrimination by public facilities, Ron Paul advisor Michael Scheuer has written a bizarre screed which actually goes so far as to make the case for armed rebellion against the U.S. government. (Read here: Maddow and the Obamas: Killers of hope, spurs of rebellion | Michael Scheuer’s Non-Intervention.com.) Scheuer writes that Maddow’s interview of Paul was an “attack”, then goes on to describe Maddow as an “extremist” and an advocate of “a warmed over version of the 1920s’ Bloomsbury ideology: effete, secular, socialist, pacifistic, elitist, and libertine.” He writes that “(a)nyone disagreeing with her … is not just wrong but perverse, racist, badly educated, antiquarian, and could only come from the scum of the earth”. (I suppose he means that these anti-Maddow anti-elitists are regarded or portrayed in this manner, not that he believes this to be true.) He also writes that Maddow advocates that the U.S. “lap up humiliation from Israel and Mexico”.Scheuer goes on to oddly single out Michelle Obama for condemnation as an “elitist”, citing as evidence only Mrs. Obama’s statement that she was proud of her country for nominating a black candidate and the fact that she attended ivy league universities.

Typical of the tea party right and Ron Paul supporters, Scheuer goes on to make much of the fact that some presidential appointees are referred to as “czars”, although Scheuer seems to mistakenly believe that this is an innovation of the Obama administration. In fact, this harmless term of art for an appointee who heads some significant office but does not require congressional approval, was an innovation of the FDR administration. It doesn’t refer in any way to elitism, arbitrary exercise of power, socialism (!), or any of the other absurd imputations made by the teabag right. In fact, the George W. Bush administration had far more “czars” than the Obama administration does. (Read here.)
Scheuer then runs through a laundry list of far-right talking points, along the way calling the American Medical Association “murderers for hire” because its members “have murdered… more than 47 million unborn Americans”.He calls upon private citizens along the border with Mexico to take up arms, writing that they should

arm themselves to protect their kith and kin against the brigands flowing across the southern border and the federal officials eager to prosecute U.S. citizens and defend the brigands.

Don’t be distracted by Scheuer’s antique vocabulary. He’s saying that private citizens should take military action against people they believe to be illegal immigrants, and, astoundingly, against federal officials! How Scheuer expects federal authorities to protect the border while under attack from his band of amateur border agents, he doesn’t bother to explain.

After running through his extremist bill of particulars against the “elitists” he thinks are ruining this country, singling out both the federal government and “Hollywood” for particularly strong approbation, Scheuer offers a modest proposal for a solution. Revolution. He recruits two of America’s greatest revolutionaries as posthumous (and therefor involutary) supporters for his cause: Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson.


Interestingly, this extreme, irrational reaction has garnered support among a certain sector of the electorate who are more comfortable with doctrinaire explosions such as this than they are with rational political discourse. I refer of course to Ron Paul supporters. At the official forum of the Ron Paul presidential campaign in exile, known alternately as the “Ron Paul Forums” or “Liberty Forest”, Scheuer’s column has gotten raves. (Read here.) It’s a special breed of patriot and “Constitutionalist” who calls for the overthrow of the government when their candidate performs badly on television.

(Bold print is mine.)

Regardless of what Scheuer has to offer, the Paul candidacies seem to beckon the worst elements in political culture to form an alliance with a American official and poison the political discourse of the country worse than the Bush-Clinton wars. (Didn’t the Dish tell us that one reason he was supporting Obama was to detoxify the American political discourse?) The Paul candidacies also seem to beckon certain pundits forgetting about issues like the Rwandan genocide and aid to the world’s poor in the interest of … keeping things interesting.

The Dish’s professed devotion to Orwell has never been more in question than when reading his posts on Ron Paul … in fact, it seems like he must either be joking: about liking Orwell, or in using the Paul candidacies to play a callous, Cartmanesque joke on targets of Dish criticism across the mainstream political spectrum.

So far, zero mention on the Dish of Scheuer’s advisory role to Rand Paul and whether this fact has any bearing on Paul’s fitness for office.

%d bloggers like this: