Challenge: Make Ron Paul a major figure in the New Left

[Aelita]

This one is pretty self-explanatory. Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to make Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul a major figure of the 60s and 70s New Left and enduring presence in the far left for the period after, with a POD no earlier than his 18th birthday.

Bonus points if he is still an OB/GYN by profession.

(Challenge inspired by my roommate, who called Libertarianism the Marxism of the 21st Century in an off the cuff remark today)

 

[Teshuvah]

What role does he play in your timeline? Isn't he the leader of the only major capitalist party in the UASR?

Anywho, lemme see...*wikis*

Well, given how ardent an opponent he is of the war on drugs and government intervention in other countries, he could certainly keep some of his OTL personality in this scenario. The big change is to keep him away from Rand and Hayek. Perhaps he could become a libertarian socialist?

-AYC

 

[Aelita]

What role does he play in your timeline? Isn't he the leader of the only major capitalist party in the UASR?

Anywho, lemme see...*wikis*

Well, given how ardent an opponent he is of the war on drugs and government intervention in other countries, he could certainly keep some of his OTL personality in this scenario. The big change is to keep him away from Rand and Hayek. Perhaps he could become a libertarian socialist?

-AYC

Chance double date with Noam Chomsky?

 

[wolf_brother]

Jello, is this for your TL?

Or an AHC set in OTL?

If for the latter this is somewhat tough, simply due to the randomness of Paul's entry into politics IOTL. After reading Hayek, von Mises, and Rand, etc., immediately followed up by the US' decision to leave the Bretton Woods system, Paul decided to run for his local House seat. So you'd need to change his literary tastes - or change the context of the political environment he was living in at the time.

Perhaps von Mises' critique of Polanyi's The Great Transformation is published ITTL, which causes Paul to look into Polanyi and other writers, and this in turn becomes a gateway, so to speak, for Paul to turn from rightist libertarianism to leftist.

 

[Zacoftheaxes]

Very easy. His earliest political beliefs were forged by conversations with his dad during The Great Depression. Have him learn a different lesson from those conversations than he did in our timeline.

 

[xie323]

This one is pretty self-explanatory. Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to make Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul a major figure of the 60s and 70s New Left and enduring presence in the far left for the period after, with a POD no earlier than his 18th birthday.

Bonus points if he is still an OB/GYN by profession.

(Challenge inspired by my roommate, who called Libertarianism the Marxism of the 21st Century in an off the cuff remark today)

This will be interesting(I have been a Paulbot for some time so I know a good degree of this).

I see that Ron Paul as a left-libertarian would have about 35%-45% of the positions he holds OTL. He will still be very anti-war, anti-drug war and pro-constitution & civil liberties IMO, but he will be more pro-gay rights, anti-capitalist, pro-union and pro-choice---almost all his social policies will be flipped essentially, but he still might advocate it on a state level over a federal level. I am unsure about what his policies on small government will be through, and he probably might still be against the fed(I'm not sure what the left-libertarian stance on the fed is).

A possible POD in here would be, as many noticed, would be to change what he is exposed to when he was young. Perhaps, as noticed above after he discovers libertarianism through Mises, it could open up, through Mises critique of The Great Transformation and other leftist works, a gateway that allowed Paul to be influenced by these views. Changing the lesson learned through the dialogue between him and his father during the depression might help.

 

[NKVD]

Considering how I turned from someone who agreed with Ron Paul about 90% into a radical leftist, it might not be all that hard.

Perhaps...something to do with Vietnam? Just a matter of things effecting him a bit differently, and leading him first down the path of anti-nationalism, and then towards anti-capitalism and general revolutionary-ism.

 

[BigWillyG]

What about changing the New Left?

 

[d32123]

What about changing the New Left?

It's generally easier to change the political views of one man rather than many.

 

[BigWillyG]

It's generally easier to change the political views of one man rather than many.

Even with the New Left? There's already alot of overlap with OTL Ron Paul's open social views and we can change the New Left from having statist. big government economic views towards a more free market mindset. Especially since we're looking at a time when both the mainline Left and Right are extremely big government by modern standards.

 

[Red Cesar]

Even with the New Left? There's already alot of overlap with OTL Ron Paul's open social views and we can change the New Left from having statist. big government economic views towards a more free market mindset. Especially since we're looking at a time when both the mainline Left and Right are extremely big government by modern standards.

New left's statist, big government economic views? Ron Paul's open social views?

What in the fuck are you on about?

 

[The Red]

Witnessing the horrific casualties from Vietnam shapes his political views to anger at Washington elites, something which intensifies after witnessing the amount of people who can't afford decent healthcare back home whilst the Govt wastes millions on defence. This leads to him becoming a libertarian socialist, a health activist who campaigns for free healthcare for the poor and better benefits for veterans. He gains popular appeal due to his more mainstream appearance than many of his New Left associates, becoming known as the 'angry voice of the silent majority', a reference to Richard Nixons famous remarks. In 1971 he sets up his first Social Cooperative where he and a number of like minded associates offer free healthcare as part of a Labour exchange. It's success leads to several 'Paulvilles' being spread in poor areas around the country by those seeking a practical solution to the failures of conservatism and liberalism. His success and 'outsider' appeal leads to him being considered for the Vice-presidential nomination for the Democrats, which is ultimately unsuccessful, he does however become mayor of Richmond, beginning what many jokingly referred to as the People's Republic of Richmond...

 

[Osakadave]

Considering how I turned from someone who agreed with Ron Paul about 90% into a radical leftist, it might not be all that hard.

Perhaps...something to do with Vietnam? Just a matter of things effecting him a bit differently, and leading him first down the path of anti-nationalism, and then towards anti-capitalism and general revolutionary-ism.

Heh - similar path to the rad-left here.

One point to change is his views on race.

 

[BigWillyG]

New left's statist, big government economic views? Ron Paul's open social views?

What in the fuck are you on about?

The New Left's economics views have a lot of socialist elements and you don't get much more big government than that. Also Paul personally may be socially conservative if we keep his whole libertarian thing going he won't be pressing those on others and will be seen as a social liberal by the social and religious conservatives. Assuming we still have the '60s-'70s counterculture with drugs and the Sexual Revolution Paul would probably have been a good character for getting Silent Majority votes since he'd already be "Clean for Gene."

 

[Makemakean]

This one is pretty self-explanatory. Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to make Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul a major figure of the 60s and 70s New Left and enduring presence in the far left for the period after, with a POD no earlier than his 18th birthday.

Bonus points if he is still an OB/GYN by profession.

(Challenge inspired by my roommate, who called Libertarianism the Marxism of the 21st Century in an off the cuff remark today)

Not particularly difficult at all: Have him become one of Karl Hess' friends.

Done.

Didn't even need to change his ideology.

 

[Red Cesar]

The New Left's economics views have a lot of socialist elements and you don't get much more big government than that. Also Paul personally may be socially conservative if we keep his whole libertarian thing going he won't be pressing those on others and will be seen as a social liberal by the social and religious conservatives. Assuming we still have the '60s-'70s counterculture with drugs and the Sexual Revolution Paul would probably have been a good character for getting Silent Majority votes since he'd already be "Clean for Gene."

The New Left was intensely anti-all government, libertarian Marxist, and even very Anarchist to a degree. Not Big Government...Also, keeping quiet on social policies (which Paul does now) doesn't make his social views "open."

 

[BigWillyG]

The New Left was intensely anti-all government, libertarian Marxist, and even very Anarchist to a degree. Not Big Government...Also, keeping quiet on social policies (which Paul does now) doesn't make his social views "open."

I don't see the difference on social view for practical, voting purposes if we have Paul as a New Left candidate or politico in Congress. Weren't alot of the New Left figures personally far less socially liberal than their platforms, especially ones who weren't Boomers?

 

[Libertad]

I don't see the difference on social view for practical, voting purposes if we have Paul as a New Left candidate or politico in Congress. Weren't alot of the New Left figures personally far less socially liberal than their platforms, especially ones who weren't Boomers?

......You don't really know much about the New Left then.... probably buying into the cartoonishly evil idea that "all socialists are evil and just the same"

The New Left is not about social democracy or statist socialism from Lenin.... which is the big government you're thinking of... and I'm not convinced of Ron Paul's personal beliefs in social issues... especially on what you're considering as "open". Of course, by the virtue of his libertarianism, we can consider him as "open" based on his platform... but those newsletters from the 90's is really on my head right now. What do you all think?

Speaking of the topic, just give him some different experience of the 60's social revolutions and he would be a New Left figure... but as a leftist congressman? Which part of the country could he ran from which would elect him for being a libertarian socialist/social anarchist kind of a person? Would he become a Noam Chomsky like intellectual turned politician that decided to go and change the system from within? Doesn't that violate his libertarian socialist beliefs then right? So why would he run if we can consider that change cannot be realistically found within the current system then... especially if he would dabble within conspiracy theory stuff also but from the New Left lens? At least he just thought that maybe he can do something from having some position in power rather than nothing?

A New Left Congressman Ron Paul's political positions? Let's look at his OTL positions from Wikipedia... and then twist it a bit with New Left ideals... along with continuing his reverence for the American Founding Fathers and limited federal government... actually it could work in a way.... the New Left's quite libertarian anyway...

This topic is still not fully settled... so please don't accuse me of necromancy please...

Let me try in how his views would look... Hehehe...

 

[Libertad]

Now, It seems that for me... the closest Ron Paul from the New Left movement that we can get is the idea that he follow the free market anarchist tradition of Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner as well as the mutualist tradition of Proudhon. That means that he would not necessarily advocate for a total destruction of the American state, but yes, he would subscribe to a minimalist version of the American state and a strongly limited government.

At least he's leftist this time around. Murray Rothbard toyed with the idea of alliance with the New Left during the 60's. This might really happen if more leftist libertarians rose up during the 60's and it would be better if a radical Christian Left even rose up supporting leftist libertarian ideals even though it is not as strong as the Christian Right, which supports their own right wing libertarianism with Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand philosophies floating around with it.

And TTL Ron Paul would even go as far now as in limiting not only federal but also activities of all levels of American political governance since he would be more anarchistic in his beliefs... but still retaining that American nationalism.

It would be an interesting timeline really if someone can came up with this....

Now, from a leftist standpoint, would the American ruling class like those Koch brothers toyed with giving money to those under the libertarian umbrella, even if they were from the right-wing, if it would mean fighting more lefties within the center of global capitalism itself because it would mean that they risk losing their grip on the middle and working classes even though it's just a bit?
What would happen to the rise of neoliberalism and the Washington Consensus then? And that of the usage of the rhetoric of free markets? Mind you, I'm reading a book now on free market anarchism that supports the idea that the word "anarcho-capitalism" is sort of an oxymoron and that Rothbardian "anarcho-capitalism" is more leftist that a lot of people believe.

It would be great if some people give their comments on this.

 

[Libertad]

Not particularly difficult at all: Have him become one of Karl Hess' friends.

Done.

Didn't even need to change his ideology.

God... that's what I'm talking about... Karl Hess is a market anarchist after all... Good idea.