Islamo-Bonapartism Comes to Egypt


The true axis of the present government passes through the police, the bureaucracy, the military clique. It is a military-police dictatorship with which we are confronted, barely concealed with the decorations of parliamentarism. But a government of the saber as the judge arbiter of the nation – that’s just what Bonapartism is.

The saber by itself has no independent program. It is the instrument of “order.” It is summoned to safeguard what exists. Raising itself politically above the classes, Bonapartism, like its predecessor Caesarism, for that matter, represents in the social sense, always and at all epochs, the government of the strongest and firmest part of the exploiters; consequently, present-day Bonapartism can be nothing else than the government of finance capital which directs, inspires, and corrupts the summits of the bureaucracy, the police, the officers’ caste, and the press.

The “constitutional reform” about which so much has been said in the course of recent months, has as its sole task the adaptation of the state institutions to the exigencies and conveniences of the Bonapartist government. Finance capital is seeking legal paths that would give it the possibility of each time imposing upon the nation the most suitable judge-arbiter with the forced assent of the quasi-parliament.

Leon Trotsky, July 1934

A broad compromise alluding to the “principles” of Islamic law as a guiding reference, as in the current Constitution, seemed to have been reached earlier this month but disintegrated as Islamists tried to rush through the draft document, whose concentration of power in the presidency is worrying

Railroading a document of this importance is not an option. Egypt will split, investment dry up and unrest continue. Morsi must overcome his Brotherhood suspicions to forge a credible constitutional assembly including liberal opponents who, like Republicans in Congress, should now express patriotism through pragmatism.

New York Times one-percentrist columnist Roger Cohen, November 29, 2012

Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.

Napoleon Bonaparte

Is anyone scratching their head right now as to why we aren’t hearing every neocon, every Zionist, and every bible-thumping militarist in Washington denouncing Mohammed Morsi’s Hitlerian power grab in Egypt? Save for John McCain’s Alzheimer’s-induced rants, it’s crickets. What explains the hegemonic power of this silence? For more than a decade, these American-Enterprise-Institute types have bombarded us with the specter of Islamofascism whenever some girl so much as showed up to school in a hijab. Yet today, Egypt appears to be actually on the verge of a faith-flavored post-Jacobin totalitarian nightmare, and the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment is unwilling to lift a finger. At best they say “play nice” and leave it at that.

To grasp the stance of Washington toward the events now playing out in Cairo, one would do well to remember President Obama’s reluctance to abandon Hosni Mubarak during last year’s January 25 revolution. Hillary Clinton, remember, assured us that Egypt was “stable” mere days before Anderson Cooper was dispatched to the Cairene barricades.


Joe Biden, meanwhile, told us that Mubarak was “not a dictator.”

It was only when Anderson got his precious little ass kicked by “pro-Mubarak supporters” and had to broadcast the next night’s news report from a bunker in an undisclosed location that our imperialist decision-makers realized the jig was up.

Immediately after arriving at this realization, they had no choice but to insist that what was happening in the world’s most populous Muslim country was not 1979 in Tehran but rather 1989 in Berlin.

Only Fox News failed to get the memo.

After all, millions of Egyptians had taken to the streets demanding liberal, democratic freedoms—the very things George W. Bush had told us we were fighting for in Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. imperialism simply could not side with its client dictator of thirty years under such circumstances and continue to maintain the popular fiction that it was something other than imperialism.

Thus, after our dependable ally in the Middle East, a man who had maintained a desert with Israel for thirty years that Washington called peace, was overthrown by masses of farmers, factory workers, and other moochers who take more in government handouts than they contribute, even Bill O’Reilly had to concede that this man was “a thug and a criminal.”

In the new, post-Mubarak narrative of the global one percent, the Middle East and North Africa were in the midst of an “Arab Spring”—a term which evokes in the minds of those who study history the European revolutions of 1848 or the Prague Spring of 1968. Such an implied historical comparison is naturally comforting to parasitic bankers and politicians and their hangers-on the world over because the springtime, like all seasons, is finite—it always comes to an end. Furthermore, every revolutionary moment in history that has subsequently been labeled a “spring” has ended up being ruthlessly and violently repressed, and one or another parasitic, tyrannical regime came out triumphant in the end. Private property and finance capital always survived these springtimes unscathed.

So the “Arab Spring” was to be co-opted and channeled into yet another extension of the “End of History,” much like the fake color-coded revolutions that the Bush-Cheney administration engineered as part of their “global democratic revolution.”

Except that the reality on the streets of Egypt in 2011 was no different than the reality playing out in the streets all over the world—the End of History was beginning to end, the politics of open, zero-sum class struggle that these Washington dandies and toffs assumed had been dead and buried for good burst forth from it’s premature grave with a vengeance. Egypt and Tunisia were but the opening salvo in a relentless and ongoing assault on the global capitalist class from below in country after country, an assault that is to this day ongoing and indeed intensifying. This is no mere spring we are experiencing. It is permanent political climate change. No cosmetic replacement of ruler, no reshuffling of legislatures will pacify the hungry, indebted millions who now approach the gates of the McMansion.

And so in Mr. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, the imperialist West sees its last hope for “stability” and the only force standing between its “interests” in the region and utter, historic defeat. Like Napoleon before him, Morsi promises to crush this revolution in the name of saving it. He will stamp every aspect of the theocratic tyranny he seeks to establish with the brand of January 25 and Tahrir Square. He will govern exactly in the manner of the fictional brown-skinned Hitler the neocons scared us with tales of, and our leaders, at this moment trembling far more at the thought of fiscal cliffs and an electorate that demands wealth redistribution than childish ghost stories about a resurrected Islamic caliphate, could not be more grateful to him for it.

Nobody in one percent media land has yet dared to compare the political situation in Egypt over the past two years to Russia in 1917, but those who govern us know deep within their bones that were Egypt to go communist, were Egyptians to overthrow and smash not only Mubarak but also the Muslim Brotherhood and the military apparatus to boot, confiscate the wealth of the country’s rich without compensation, seize and nationalize all Western-owned assets in the country, and set a political example for workers and youth in Europe, North America, and the rest of the planet, the West’s only allies in Cold War II would be the same jihadi elements that helped us defeat the Soviets in Cold War I before turning on us and flying planes into our buildings. Because at the end of the day, Bush, Cheney, Bin Laden, Obama, and Morsi are all on the same side of the global class divide. If defending the institution of private property and the rule of capital requires the architects of Western imperialism to ally themselves with the “savages” who planned and executed 9/11, their justification will be “better dead than red.”

Check Your Premises Before You Wreck Your Premises: The Romney Campaign Shrugs

“The rich and the crooks are two sides of the same medal, they are the principal category of parasites which capitalism fostered; they are the principal enemies of socialism.”

-Vladimir Lenin, 1918

“We risk hitting a tipping point in our society where we have more takers than makers in society, where we will have turned our safety net into a hammock that lulls able bodied people into lives of dependency and complacency.”

-Paul Ryan, 2012

“I’m stupid rich, got retarded money/I’m special Ed, I got special bread”

-50 Cent, 2008

Today’s conservative has a rather easy time dismissing leftists as naïve “bleeding-hearts” who are presumably too lazy and perhaps effeminate to undertake the rigorous analysis necessary to achieve an understanding of the contemporary world in all of its economic, political, and social complexities. The straw-man “lib’ruls” that right-wing nutjobs love to hate are a cognitively inferior race of beings first and foremost because, like sissies, they evaluate the world in terms of “fairness” and “justice” without acknowledging inconvenient truths such as ballooning government deficits or shrinking profit margins.

But whenever a leftist acknowledges such inconvenient truths and persists in calling attention to the bankruptcy of the capitalist system in the twenty-first century, the right-wing nutjobs get nervously quiet all of a sudden. How can it be that more government spending, not less, is the best plan for the people in both the short and long run if government borrowing at the current levels is unsustainable in both the short and long run?

The scientific socialism of Marx and Engels has always posed a far more serious intellectual threat to the legitimacy of capitalist rule than the utopian moralism of reformers and anarchists. It sets forth a rigorously scientific methodology for understanding the real world in real time that acknowledges and even welcomes the existence of material contradictions in the social organization of production.

Like most people living on the planet, Marxists are indeed morally outraged by the parade of horribles that capitalism has unleashed and continues to unleash upon society. But the methodology of scientific socialism demands that one temporarily set aside one’s personal indignation when studying the social reality of the present time. It demands that one pay close attention to objective contradictions in the global economy, like the fact that more productive factories that produce more widgets in less time using fewer workers may lower businesses’ operating costs but in so doing produce higher unemployment, lower wages, and thus ultimately less demand for those very widgets. To acknowledge contradictions such as these is to give up any illusion that capitalism can be “fixed” or that we should even be trying to “fix” it. It is this dialectical thought process, and not the rigid adherence to any set of dogmatic principles, that makes one a Marxist.

Ayn Rand, the Muhammad of the Mayberry Machiavellians that comprise today’s Republican Party, did not merely declare war on social democracy and collectivism of all types. She also set out to undermine, by way of sheer philosophical argument, the very dialectical thought process that Marx and Engels introduced into the realm of the social sciences. Rand denied the existence of contradictions and claimed that whenever one perceives a contradiction, one must “check one’s premises,” because surely at least one of those premises is wrong. Thus money cannot possibly be simultaneously a store and a measurement of value on the one hand and a means of exchange, circulation, and repayment on the other. Waves are waves and particles are particles, goddamit! Why? Because Ayn Rand said so. Now get a fucking job, slacker.

Which brings us to the premises Mitt Romney assumed to be true when he shared his opinion about the 47 percent of Americans who don’t pay federal income taxes with what he believed at the time was a private audience of Atlas Shrugged characters. Either Romney himself assumed, or he assumed that his audience assumed, that the same 47 percent of Americans who pay no federal income tax are (a) committed Obama supporters who can never be persuaded to vote otherwise and (b) welfare cheats who produce zero value for society while consuming an ever-growing proportion of society’s resources.

Had Romney or his audience applied dialectical thinking when studying this large chunk of the American electorate, they would have acknowledged the seemingly contradictory state of affairs in which masses of Bubbas and Skeeters numbering in the tens of millions who are part of that 47 percent have been a reliable and absolutely crucial part of the Republican base ever since Richard Nixon’s campaign staff started inventing various innocuous-sounding euphemisms for putting uppity blacks in their place. They may have even pondered the fact that the loyalty of said Bubbas and Skeeters to the Republican Party has always been tenuous because the GOP has not in the past several decades actually benefitted them in any substantial way (other than, ironically, lowering their tax burden!) but has merely validated their (largely valid) resentments against a “liberal” class that threw them under the bus in its drive to appoint slightly more women and minorities to manage its hedge funds and private equity holding companies.

The “47 percent” video will not, by itself, determine the outcome of the election, but it is a prophetic foretelling of things to come. Romney’s statement is symptomatic of the attitude of an entire ruling capitalist class that has long ago given up trying to check its ideological premises.  The apologetic politics of American capitalism today is in increasing jeopardy not, as Rand might have claimed, because any one of those premises is false, but in fact because each of them, taken on its own, is empirically true. Yes, there is a class of parasites and moochers in America who accumulate and consume without working, and yes, a good number of these parasites and moochers—perhaps even Romney himself in previous tax years—are part of the 47 percent who pay no federal income taxes. Yes, Obama supporters are more likely than Romney supporters to believe in a stronger role for government in the economy. Yet when the Republican presidential candidate attempted to weave all these separately valid empirical truths together into a coherent narrative that fits into the intellectual straightjacket that characterizes the mass politics of the contemporary GOP, the contradictions stood naked and exposed for all to see.

Getting rid of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, federal college assistance, food stamps, unemployment insurance, and other “free stuff” is not exactly a “surgical strike” that will affect only the black welfare queens, union thugs, and dope-smoking Marxist grad students who probably would never vote for Romney anyway while leaving the Bubbas, the Skeeters, the limbless war vets, the old timers with more “traditional” values, and countless other “decent white folks” unscathed. Romney is now on record as saying essentially to America’s poor and working-class white voters: “You are no better than niggers, and I intend to enslave you.” Maybe it’s about time they took the hint.

The Imperial Wizard Has No Clothes

Anybody remember Kony 2012? The YouTube video produced by an erstwhile obscure nonprofit called Invisible Children urging the youth of America to make African warlord Joseph Kony famous? The most viral video in history? And anybody remember what happened to Jason Russell, the head of Invisible Children, when adults started to analyze Kony 2012 and determined that it was a racist, colonialist, propaganda piece that exploited the political idealism of little kids to build support for a U.S. military invasion of Uganda, and when they started showing it in Uganda to people who were direct victims of said African warlord, and said victims got so offended that they threw rocks at the movie screen? Seriously, if Rudyard Kipling, Joseph Conrad, and George Orwell sat down and smoked a blunt together, they would probably come up with something like Kony 2012.

For those of you who don’t remember, Jason Russell was found by police in broad daylight on the streets of San Diego, buck naked, jumping on top of cars, picking fights with people on the street, and muttering something about iPods and the Devil. He looked like he was on drugs or something. And he had something in his hand–his dick. When the 5-0 arrived on the scene, they didn’t arrest him. They merely gave him a blanket and took him to the psych ward for treatment. Poor Jason was stressed out. The international scrutiny to which he and his nonprofit were subjected had so warped his fragile little mind that he had a meltdown. It happens to the best of us, doesn’t it?

Russell’s meltdown happened in mid-March, right around the time when the homicide of a black teenager by a neighborhood watch captain in Sanford, Florida was just beginning to break as a national news story. Those of you who fail to understand what these two incidents have to do with each other are not part of the solution and are therefore part of the problem. If this applies to you, and you wish to become part of the solution, then keep reading. This blog posting is an experiment, but it will only work if you pay very close attention.

If you have been following the Trayvon Martin story, you are probably familiar with the argument that had George Zimmerman been black, he would be in jail right now. This insight is most likely true, but it is also banal, and as such, it is not very effective in helping white people understand the true extent of the privilege their skin color affords them in America. Instead of wondering what would have happened if Zimmerman were black, ask yourself what would have happened if Jason Russell were black and had the same mid-day suburban meltdown. What would have happened if it was Trayvon, or better yet, one of those Ugandan kids who had escaped from Kony, except a few years later after going through puberty, jumping on cars, picking fights with all the white folks in the neighborhood, and flicking his ding dong?

Kony 2012 provoked the righteous wrath of millions because it exploited the impressionable, formatively left-wing sensibilities of youth in the service of a reactionary, imperialist agenda. This agenda goes a long way in explaining why the only black people you see in Kony 2012 are the evil Kony himself and his helpless, infantile victims. When Russell shows his blond-haired, blue-eyed five year old son Gavin Danger (that’s his name, I shit you not) a picture of Kony and tells little Gavin that “this is the badguy,” anybody with the slightest decency and understanding of history cringes.

The 1%, on the other hand, rub their hands together in a sinister, Montgomery-Burns-like fashion and think “OMG, liberals and their kids are so fucking stupid . . . this psy-op may actually work!” The idea of a black Hitler, after all,  is the El Dorado of U.S. imperialism. There’s one particular Kony 2012 poster that shows Hitler, Bin Laden, and Kony side by side as if to signal some racist teleology whereby evil incarnate grows progressively blacker as history marches on. If imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, then Joseph Kony is the highest stage of black-on-black crime, and the good white people of America therefore have a moral obligation to stop (and frisk) Kony.

Future historians might plausibly argue that the genuine grassroots movement to arrest George Zimmerman is blowback from the astroturfed psy-ops campaign to arrest Kony (and secure our oil in Uganda from the greedy clutches of the Chinese). In previous centuries, the scheme might have worked, but information moves too fast in the twenty-first century, and karma for the 1% is now, if not instant, at least heavily expedited. It may be as yet unknown whether George Zimmerman is a racist, but it is clear as a naked white boy jumping on cars, beating his meat,  and violently assaulting multiple people in broad daylight without being charged with a crime that conservatives, free marketeers, and small government-types all over America are openly and nakedly projecting their most reactionary and, yes, racist desires and fantasies onto Zimmerman, all the while claiming racism doesn’t exist. The imperial wizard has no clothes.

Hoodies, Reasonable Suspicion, and Black America’s Revolt Against Cosbyism

Are you not paying attention, people with their hat on backwards, pants down around the crack. Isn’t that a sign of something, or are you waiting for Jesus to pull his pants up (laughter and clapping ). Isn’t it a sign of something when she’s got her dress all the way up to the crack…and got all kinds of needles and things going through her body. What part of Africa did this come from? (laughter). We are not Africans. Those people are not Africans, they don’t know a damned thing about Africa. With names like Shaniqua, Shaligua, Mohammed and all that crap and all of them are in jail.

Bill Cosby, 2004

NYPD critics . . . erroneously assert that the police are racially biased in making stops, ignoring the fact that we focus police resources where spikes in violent crime are the highest, and where last year 96% of shooting victims were minorities, mainly young men of color.

From a March 18, 2012 official NYPD press release titled “New York Times is Wrong: NYPD Lawfully Thwarts Terror & Suppresses Violence”

In the last post, your humble host made a passing, parenthetical reference to a phenomenon he labeled Cosbyism. Cosbyism is an ideology that says black people in America, particularly the younger generation, have nobody to blame but themselves for the fact that their schools are underfunded and crumbling, they can’t get a job, they get harassed and worse by cops all the time, their wealth evaporated into thin air after the housing bubble burst, and so on and so forth.

Cosbyism is a variation on the classic American rugged individualism of Horatio Alger novels, but with an important twist: the traditional idea held that individual moral failings are the cause of one’s poverty and lack of upward mobility and that therefore individual personal responsibility was the solution. Cosbyism, however, holds that black people have failed collectively, as a race, to achieve the American dream, but it nonetheless holds each black individual responsible for pulling up his or her pants, turning off the TV, saying ask instead of ax, “looking like a prospect instead of a suspect,” and doing whatever else is necessary to endear himself or herself to America’s ruling white capitalist power structure.

White people, even white people who appear regularly on Fox news, will seldom if ever publicly espouse Cosbyist talking points because the racism that is inherent in the Cosbyist line of thinking becomes impossible to deny when such talking points come out of white lips. Instead, you see various “leaders” of the black community saying these things, and that somehow makes it ok, as though changing the messenger somehow changes the message.

The intellectual history of Cosbyism is part of the intellectual history of neoliberalism more generally but is a product, more specifically, of the “broken windows” theory of crime control that criminologist James Q. Wilson conceived of in the 1980s and NYC Police Commissioner Bill Bratton implemented in the early 1990s. New York in those days had a lot of character. Subway trains were covered in graffiti, giant boomboxes blasted Gang Starr, Public Enemy, and A Tribe Called Quest, Times Square was obscene, squeegee men serviced car windows at every major intersection, and Washington Square Park was an open air supermarket for dope. The 1% felt at the time that the city was impossible for them to govern. Somebody had to clean it up, make it safe again for tourists, yuppies, Mickey Mouse, and Elmo.

The savior our social betters were looking for was a man named Rudolph W. Giuliani. Giuliani become mayor in 1993 by posturing himself as the tribune of the NYPD and of the ethnic white communities in the outer boroughs from which most NYC cops hailed. He had lost his previous bid for mayor to David Dinkins in 1989, who then became NYC’s first black mayor. The ferocious degree to which the city’s predominantly Irish and Italian police force resented having to answer to a black man in City Hall equaled if not surpassed the Tea Party’s racially tinged hatred of President Obama. Giuliani won in 1993 by stoking this white ethnic working-class resentment while simultaneously telling the city’s financial and business elite that unleashing that resentment on poor black communities in the Bronx and East New York was the key to cleaning up the city and making it open for business once more.

Yet Giuliani was smart enough to avoid sounding like George Wallace with a Brooklyn accent when justifying his police department’s new reign of racial terror to the liberal media, and here’s where Wilson’s “broken windows” theory came very much in handy. That theory attributes high crime levels in a neighborhood not to poverty, lack of opportunity, or underinvestment, but rather to superficial aesthetic deficiencies like broken windows or graffiti-covered walls and more generally to the social acceptance in those neighborhoods of trivially minor crimes like smoking a joint, taking a leak in a dark alleyway, or jaywalking. If society imposes draconian punishments on these de minimis offenses, the neighborhood will look cleaner, people will have more respect for authority, and therefore the incidence of truly serious, violent felonies will drop, and then maybe one day a Starbucks will move in. Liberals, particularly the white ones, love Starbucks, so they never objected to broken windows policing. To them, the end really did justify the means. To this day, there has never been a Democrat mayor of New York City since Dinkins.

It was now Giuliani Time, which meant that if you were black, you could be lawfully walking down the street minding your own business when all of a sudden, out of nowhere, cops might haul you into the station and stick a plunger up your ass or unload a number of rounds into you that would put the Corleone family out of business. Whenever something like this happened, the mayor would go on TV and reflexively defend the cops before doing everything he could to defame your character, including illegally unsealing your juvenile record in order to prove that because you were caught playing hooky twice, you were “no altar boy.”

After 9/11 happened, the there was a lot of scrutiny on how the NYPD was treating Muslims, and rightfully so, but little awareness of the department’s new “stop-and-frisk” policy. Bloomberg was now mayor, and the Starbucks-drinking, Sex-and-the-City TEVOing liberal class didn’t seem to take offense to an unabashed plutocrat the same way they took offense to a thinly-veiled bigot like Giuliani. The term “stop-and-frisk” is familiar to any law student who ever had to read Terry v. Ohio for a criminal procedure class. Terry was a case about a cop in downtown Cleveland who saw two suspicious figures looking like they were casing a store they intended to rob. The cop didn’t have probable cause to make an arrest, but he stopped them briefly and patted down the outside of their clothing to see if they were armed. The Supreme Court said this is ok, as long as the cop’s suspicion is “reasonable,” even in the absence of probable cause. This has been the law since the late 60s.

Under Bloomberg, however, such “reasonable” suspicion is no longer individualized–it is the black community in its entirety that is under suspicion, and the NYPD claims, if not in these exact words, that its suspicion of the black community is “reasonable” because, well, they’re black. They then cite some kind of statistic about black-on-black crime and shed crocodile tears over the victims of such crimes. Their private Facebook pages, meanwhile, say something different entirely.

What happened with the NYPD in the last 20 years has happened in police departments nationwide, but communications technology has only very recently enabled videotaped evidence of  “broken windows” policing’s excesses to spread to millions instantly. The economic downturn, meanwhile, has caused a lot of white folks for the first time in their lives to get uppity with the State. All last fall, Americans saw footage of a mostly white crowd chanting “fuck the police!” and even identifying themselves with the black victims of broken windows policing (“We are all Sean Bell, NYPD go to hell!”). It is unclear how many of these uppity white folks realized that their loud, aggressive, and vulgar professions of solidarity with black America in the face of police repression was itself a product of of the “courtesy, professionalism and respect” which white America reserves exclusively for its own malcontents. Much of black America, however, and the youth in particular, must have viewed Occupy Wall Street with a mixture of elation and trepidation–elation at the change that was seemingly around the corner in this new radical period we’re living in but fear of personally being an agent of that change after a lifetime of repression that had been invisible outside their own communities. After all, white people getting loud and disorderly in America may be a political inconvenience for our rulers, but black people doing the same is grounds for calling out the National Guard.

Which brings us to Trayvon Martin, a young man who lived his life, it seems, according to the Cosbyist playbook. Martin’s friends say he never picked a fight in his life. He was wearing his hoodie on the night he was shot for its intended purpose–it was raining. His shooter, meanwhile, was a wannabe cop whom the police academy probably rejected as too overzealous. The housing crisis had hit central Florida hard, and lots of foreclosed homes in Sanford were selling for dirt cheap, which meant that the gated community George Zimmerman was so altruistically protecting had grown considerably more racially integrated in recent years. In seeking to emulate a real police officer, Zimmerman copied the aggressive, authoritarian, “broken windows” style of policing that he saw real police officers practicing. And here’s the rub. Black bodies have one thing in common with broken windows and graffiti-covered walls: all three bring down property values in a neighborhood. In this sense, the free market is, quite literally, a bigot.

When a young man comes to realize that he is the broken window the system is perpetually trying to eradicate, when he realizes that pulling up his pants is not the same thing as pulling himself up by his bootstraps and that speaking the king’s English will only make the nobility despise him all the more passionately, when he sees the middle-class utopia that has from time immemorial defined itself by excluding him suddenly crumbling to dust and its citizens in open revolt, it is not inconceivable that he will from all of this conclude that it is well past time to exercise his God-given right to be just as uppity as these white folks in the Missouri GOP caucuses in the video below got when they found themselves suddenly disenfranchised.

Ron Paul: The Highest Stage of American Exceptionalism

“In the United States, the imperialist war waged against Spain in 1898 stirred up the opposition of the ‘anti-imperialists.’ the last of the Mohicans of bourgeois democracy who declared this war to be ‘criminal,’ regarded the annexation of foreign territories as a violation of the Constitution, declared that the treatment of Aguinaldo, leader of the Filipinos (the Americans promised him the independence of his country, but later landed troops and annexed it), was ‘jingo treachery,” and quoted the words of Lincoln: ‘When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself and also governs others, it is no longer self-government; it is despotism.’ But as long, as all this criticism shrank from recognizing the inseverable bond between imperialism and the trusts, and, therefore, between imperialism and the foundations of capitalism, while it shrank from joining the forces engendered by large-scale capitalism and its development-it remained a ‘pious wish.’”  (Vladimir Lenin, Spring 1916)

“Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.” (Ron Paul, February 8, 2005)

What are we to make of the ideological oddity that is Ron Paul? The Texas congressman, who is by many accounts slowly and steadily attaining frontrunner status as a candidate for president in the GOP primaries, in spite of the media’s willful ignorance, wants to end U.S. imperialism in the Middle East and beyond–along with the military-industrial complex that supports and profits from it–and then remove every last governmental restraint on the ability of America’s ruling capitalists to reinvest the “peace dividend” in what he promises will be productive, socially beneficial endeavors. He wants to dismantle the expanding Homeland-Security police state at home and force cops to actually give a shit about the Bill of Rights, even presumably in the ghettos, which he tells us can do without taxpayer-funded “welfare-state” provisions like public schools and hospitals. He wants to restore America to its purer, more noble past, a throwback utopia that emerged historically straight out of the heads of Jefferson, Madison, and the rest of the crew. If he is unreasonable, it is only because he is incorruptible.

We are living in a time of universal corruption in government and in private commercial life. Indeed, as the two grow ever more corrupt, they appear ever more inseparable. Obama and the “serious” GOP candidates this time around don’t even seem all that interested in engaging with that teeming mass of unwashed known as their constituents. They know the jig is up. They know that American politics has at long last declared independence from the stultifying, deceptive analytical paradigm peddled incessantly by the Wolf Blitzers and David Gergens of society. These official gatekeepers would have us believe that Barack Hoo-sane Obama is the best the working class could ever hope for and that Ron Paul is the worst it has to fear. History has not yet come back from the dead for these reasonable, pragmatic adults in the room. They are clinging desperately to Fukuyama’s opium dream of a world where each of the billions of exploited wretches on the planet wants to be like Michael Jordan or Bono or Bill Clinton eating a Big Mac while getting his dick sucked. If Mitt Romney can be said to have any base at all, it is these Bourbons of the Beltway who have recently stepped down from their lofty political perches in order to smear Mr. Paul as a “racist” or worse.

Because mainstream debate has never taken seriously even the remote possibility of a Ron Paul presidency, nobody it seems has given any real thought to how a Ron Paul administration might actually govern. American history is filled with presidents who built their political careers advocating one thing only to do a complete 180 when they got to the White House. Jefferson started out as a fierce opponent of American territorial expansion but his greatest legacy as president was the Louisiana Purchase. Lincoln opposed the further expansion of slavery as a candidate in 1860 but went out of his way to disavow abolitionism during the campaign. Wilson kept us out of World War I until he didn’t. Reagan told us government is the problem and then presided over the most astronomical deficit expansion to date at the time. Obama . . . nuff said.

But no candidate for president other than Ron Paul has ever been so committed to an idea as to be seemingly indifferent to who his base is. Like some silver-tongued Roman orator, Paul speaks of a republic lost and an empire in decay and promises to return us to our former Ciceronian virtue by demolishing both the “warfare state” that the left so despises and the “welfare state” that the right professionally loves to hate. In doing so, he has made the strangest of bedfellows out of a remarkably diverse coalition of white boys, from young college kids, to rural armed survivalists. To publicly support Ron Paul is to be personally at least tolerated by all of the politicized sections of the 99 percent, from the Tea Party to the Occupations and everywhere in between. Put this guy in the oval office, and there’s no telling, it seems, what he would try to get away with, much less accomplish.

America (more specifically, the United States thereof) has for most of its young history been exceptional in following ways: it is a country that began just as the industrial revolution was accelerating in Europe and the capitalist system was consolidating itself as the dominant mode of production around the globe, but its vast, “uninhabited” lands enabled its people to postpone the social reckoning that the contradictions of that system caused in Europe for over a century. For nearly a century after the closing of the frontier, the United States further postponed this reckoning by being the economic beneficiary of two world wars that obliterated the productive capacity of the rest of the industrialized world while leaving American capital untouched. When the rest of the world finally caught up economically beginning on the 1970s, and American wages began to stagnate (they still are!), the U.S. ruling class postponed the reckoning even further by extending easy credit to working class households so that the same extraordinary consumption patterns could continue. A little over three years ago, the party ended, and the reckoning is right now upon us.

When people say that “socialism never took hold” in the U.S. because of some essential cultural attribute of its people, or that Americans are distinguished by their tendency to value “pragmatism” over “ideology,” they obscure–whether inadvertently or willfully–the exceptional material circumstances that have historically allowed Americans to put off the inevitable confrontation between labor and capital. This kicking of the can down the road has occurred with little interruption for so long that we have fallen accustomed to believing that we really are different, that we really are immune from the laws of history that govern other countries, that we can work it out, just like John Lennon promised.

Ron Paul’s capital crime as a candidate, for which the media will now lynch him, is not his advocacy of a radical “left wing” foreign policy platform or a radical “right wing” approach to domestic spending. It is the more general ideological narrative he is promoting on the campaign trail, a narrative that portrays the actually-existing United States as just another imperialist welfare-warfare state instead of the liberal-democratic “city on a hill” that the 1-percentrists on CNN have told us it is all throughout our lives. By forcing us to critically confront the actual words and thoughts of the same founding fathers that our rulers so incessantly fetishize, and by forcing us to compare those ideals to the endless wars, mounting police state, and exploding social crisis this country now suffers from, Paul invites ordinary Americans to fantasize that we can continue to be exceptional, that we can continue to prosper without resorting to class struggle like they do in other countries–at the expense of their “liberty.” That we need not concern ourselves with what socialism is really all about.

The problem is that the material circumstances that have made America so exceptional for over two centuries have now been exhausted, and like fossil fuels, they can never be replaced. A Ron Paul presidency (or even merely an Obama-Paul general election) would force this realization into the forefront of the American political debate because the litany of government evils Paul has spent his career railing against are, as a material historical fact, absolutely vital to the survival of the very capitalist system Paul has spent his career defending.

Ron Paul’s platform, taken as a whole, does not, indeed cannot, consistently represent any one person or constituency’s interests. At best, it represents our aspirations as a people. But these aspirations are informed not by our future but by our past, and as such, they can never be realized in our present. The sooner these anachronistic aspirations are put to the test and exposed for the fantasies they are, the sooner the more culturally conservative layers of the American 99 percent will get serious about the historical duty they share with the rest of us in the coming global confrontation with capital.