the weekly wat

student in advocacy of greater economic equality | find me at facebook.com/akmalino

[akmalino-blog]

A blunt overview of neoliberal globalization and polyarchy--as well as US militarism

Founded in the aftermath of World War II, as institutions to regulate international monetary policy and trade, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization (formerly the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) now assume radical new positions in the current world-system, as purveyors of neoliberal globalization.

Globalization can manifest itself in many ways—through social media and the internet; or by global mass movements, such as the Occupy movement, to name a few—while the IMF and WTO seek to advance global interdependence and interconnectedness through neoliberal reform and economic intervention. Their goal: to create a global capitalist marketplace that favors Now Developed Countries, as Ha-Joon Chang would refer to them, over their Still Developing counterparts, by opening all borders to free trade and, most imperatively, free investment.

Neoliberalism is rooted in the pretext that economic development is best attained through open borders, free markets, and advocacy of the private sector. For example, an IMF Structural Adjustment Program—conditions that a country must fulfill to be granted an IMF loan—includes demands such as privatization of public services; deregulation of banking and finance; devaluation of currencies; lifting all trade restrictions; and overall cutting of government spending. These policies, Ha-Joon Chang (amongst others) argues, effectively “kick the ladder away” of development away from Still Developing Countries. Reductions in public investment in critical sectors of the economy, such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure greatly impede paths to development; as well as removing all trade restrictions—something the US and Britain certainly did not do in their protectionist periods of industrial development. These policies, while not only impeding SDC’s development, further the interests of Now Developed Countries; such as the United States, which benefits especially from open borders to foreign investment—advancing the hegemonic project the US undertook in the wake of WWII to control the global marketplace. Also, by impeding development, NDC’s can now effectively undermine potential SDC disruptions to the world market through non-violent economic intervention, akin to conditions brought about only by defeat in war—think Germany post-WWI.

The World Trade Organization also furthers subordination of SDC’s development and trading rights in favor of NDC’s. Take for example the structure of the WTO as indicative of this, being controlled primarily by the governance of the “Quad”, or, the US, EU, Japan, and Canada. In fact, SDC’s including Brazil, India, and China walked out of a 2003 meeting in Cancun in protest of subsidies to the world’s wealthiest farmers opposed to farmers in the global South—halting further ministerials since.

The policies of the WTO aim to erase all barriers to trade and free up capital mobility; as well as set regulations that inhibit economic independence of SDC’s, and favor not only NDC’s, but multinational corporations as well. For example, the WTO Operative Principles allow for the commodification of all public services, life forms, and indigenous knowledge—in other words—everything can be patented, even folklore; the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) allows for universal privatization of all public services; the Trade Related Aspects of International Property Rights (TRIMS) agreement states that foreign investors must be treated with the same privileges as domestic investors—all this in favor of multinational corporations, who are also represented by their home governments in WTO disputes; governments as public defenders of corporations? Lastly, and perhaps of paramount importance to developing nations—as evident by the 2003 walkout in Cancun—are the Agreements on Agriculture (AoA), which reduces all tariffs on foods; reduces subsidies given to producers in SDC’s; and allows for NDC’s “dumping” of food, or, selling surplus in markets abroad at lower prices—damaging those local markets.

To sum up the effects neoliberal globalization has on SDC’s, annual GDP growth can be assessed: from 1980-2000, when neoliberal institutions largely emerged, developing countries experienced 3.3% growth in annual GDP; while from 1960-1980, they experienced 4.9% annual growth (World Bank: World Development Indicators 2003).

The WTO has very serious implications for democratic governance abroad as well. Inherent in its very nature, as mentioned earlier, the WTO is non-transparent, as little is known about the inner-workings of its unelected leaders, and lacks any sort of public participation. It may be described as an institution that was designed to make rules that elected leaders may “not be able to make.” This being said, the WTO furthers the notion of polyarchy—faux-democracy, only in name, that is ran from above, disregarding the grassroots. The WTO emphasizes the post-Cold War shift from straight power concepts to “consensual control”, as it formally exists to help developing countries. It also, as William Robinson suggests, aims to achieve a single world political system that is synonymous with a single world economy—further subordinating the political will of weaker countries, as a functioning civil society has no place in the workings of the WTO. Structurally, the WTO, along with the IMF, aim to institutionalize their policies for all developing countries to follow; to set a standard upon which alternatives are deemed unacceptable, and to further subordinate developing countries hand in the process—all promoting polyarchy, or, governance from above, with the NDC’s and multinational corporations calling the shots.

US militarism, which manifests abroad most prominently in the form of our 800+ foreign bases, is a peculiar form of intervention that has serious consequences overseas; and, while not typically recognized, has serious consequences at home as well. Our ever expanding swath of military bases spans across the globe, and pose as significant breaches of sovereignty to the nations we set foot in, as those nations don’t have any choice but to say yes to the world’s most powerful military. Bases, literally planted on foreign soil, act as a type of US extraterritoriality. For example, their inhabitants are not subject to local jurisdiction—Status of forces agreements (SOFAs) prevent host governments from prosecuting any laws broken; so if say, a US soldier raped a foreign civilian, they may be shipped back home to avoid prosecution. Bases also act as a type of economic intervention; though they may not always be heavily armed, they act as a proxy defender of multinational corporations—for example, a host nation may think twice about nationalizing a certain industry to compete with a multinational if the US has a presence there, or threatens to withdraw support. They also act as epicenters of consumer culture, typically set up as mini (or, not so mini) towns that include everything from McDonald’s, car dealerships, and mobile homes—acting as beacons for capitalism, consumerism, and corporatism alike abroad where these ideals may want to be stressed.

The US’s omnipresence overseas arguably tarnishes our image abroad and may act as a force for blowback: see, the September 11th attacks as a prime example—Osama Bin Laden was publically vocal about his dissatisfaction with US military involvement in the Middle East. Domestically, US militarism manifests itself in numerous ways: it acts as an omnipresent military culture; take for example our students constantly being recruited to join an ever expanding standing army; militarized TV shows and video games; and even as simple as buying your child a BB-gun for Christmas. But, most importantly, US militarism affects every institution of the government. The military-industrial complex drives policy making, as it is our biggest expenditure at ~4% of GDP. To emphasize the omnipresence of the complex, virtually every congressional district is involved in some sort of defense contract, tying down legislatures to its needs. Taxpayer dollars are used to protect multinational corporations and drive profit overseas, while destroying our reputation abroad; as well as—and arguably most importantly—deeming basic social expenditures and public investment; such as infrastructure projects, education, and healthcare, as unattainable—the groundworks for a functioning, healthy society. 

[akmalino-blog]

A Brief History of American Imperialism

DISCLAIMER: there are literally vast amounts of information on this topic, so a good place to start may be William A. Williams' essay "Empire as a Way of Life" :-)

  An understanding of why American foreign policy, since the birth of the republic, has been consistently expansionist is one of a complex nature. We must start from, well, the birth of the republic itself: that American imperialism is rooted—by design—in the founding of the nation.

American exceptionalism must first be addressed; the idea that America is a nation founded under divine circumstances for a divine purpose. One of the earliest examples of this can be found in John Winthrop’s 1630 sermon, “A Model of Christian Charity”, where he declared that the colonist’s new home would be a “city upon a hill” and that “the eyes of all people are upon us.” This presumption of a divinely sanctioned land became especially embedded within the colonies after the Revolution, highlighted by Thomas Jefferson in his 1801 inaugural address that their government is the “world’s best hope.” The Founders were convinced that others would follow in the footsteps of the “perfect” revolution; but insecurity arose when few actually did. This led to, as Albert K. Weinberg states, a “hysterical apprehensiveness” bordering on a “progressive madness” about national security; which translated into expansion as security—take the conquest of the Floridas, the Louisiana Purchase, and Madison’s attempt to take Canada in the War of 1812 as early examples of continental imperialism.

But, preserving the “world’s best hope” isn’t the only justification for expansion; Madison, for example, had other ideas, which were rooted in political thought. The “minority of the opulent”—in other words, the wealthy few—is who Madison was most concerned about protecting. He states that, “In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place.” And that “They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.” And how does a country accomplish this? By extending the sphere. Madison states, in Federalist #10, that if you “Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.”

Perhaps the most compelling argument for expansion—this time not physical, but economic—is the need for a capitalist country to combat the problem of overproduction—the failure to sell surplus. In other words, if a total product isn’t sold, the rate of profit falls; it’s simple as that. Hence, it is imperative to have access to as many markets as possible. This results in Secretary of State John Hay’s 1899 Open Door Notes; initially an attempt at opening Chinese markets, it sets in place the “open door” policy for American advocacy of global free trade—essential to economic expansion. As William A. Williams states, “It equated such marketplace principles with freedom, liberty, and progress in all other areas of life.  And it committed the United States to deploy its power in behalf of those principles.” The United States was also not afraid to use force to uphold this policy; take Teddy Roosevelt’s 1904 State of the Union address for example: “Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power.” The open door policy of universal free trade, to expand American market dominance, and the willingness to uphold this via force, are paramount to understanding American imperialism—a non-traditional, economic empire.

In the aftermath of World War II, the United States became increasingly interventionist in the affairs of other nations—both economically and physically. With resources such as a booming post-war economy; a robust military; and the ability to rebuild Europe under its own conditionality, the U.S. undertook the hegemonic project: the quest to dominate the world market. The first step was to eradicate those damn Soviets; whose centrally-planned economy was not open to trade, or, which would later emerge as an area of great concern, foreign investment—and whose economic model could serve as an example for other developing nations to follow, proliferating borders closed to trade and investment. And the countries that did follow in the footsteps of the Soviets? Even if it was only to the slightest extent—such as nationalizing a certain industry perhaps, we intervened; typically with the use of the CIA, to overthrow so called “communist” governments—“proxies” of Moscow—and install leaders loyal to economic interdependence and American ideals, while showing the world there was no alternative to capitalism.

To further understand the significance of the Cold War, one must first understand the military-industrial complex. To save the domestic economy, Franklin D. Roosevelt contracted some of the nation’s largest corporations—General Electric, for example—to manufacture war materials. This special contract between the state and business acted as “military Keynesianism”, stimulating the economy through defense contracts. American policymakers saw this as an opportunity to wipe out the Soviet Union through increased military spending. National Security Council Document 68, from April 1950, highlighted this procedure by calling for military superiority, not diplomatic action, to destroy the Soviet Union. According to Gary B. Nash, et al., “NSC-68 required that the United States must increase defense spending to as much as $50 billion per year from the original $13 billion set for 1950.”

Ironically, this vast increase in military spending and R&D through defense contracting ultimately undermines the domestic manufacturing economy resulting in a lack of competitiveness abroad; highlighted by the partial collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, when the U.S. abandons its fixed gold standard due in part to a rising trade deficit abroad and inflationary deficit spending at home, proving that you cannot have both guns and butter. As a result, the U.S. lifts all capital flight controls in 1974, shifting to a financialized economy fueled by speculative investment and economic rent-seeking—the act of not creating, but simply acquiring a larger share of the “pie”—abroad. This shift furthers the necessity of intervention to open up foreign borders not only to trade, but most importantly to investment as well.

The methods of these so-called interventions are of great concern, as they place emphasis on the United States’ accordance with basic presumptions of universal human rights and highlight the nature of American imperialism/hegemony. The 1954 intervention in Guatemala can be used as a case study, as it exemplifies features that are consistent throughout most CIA interventions.

Let’s first start with the justifications for such activity; not what the real reason behind the intervention is, but what is asserted by officials—in a highly dishonest foreign policymaking process, which may not always include the media or the public. If one word could sum up justification for post-WWII interventions, it would be, of course, “communism”—or today, terrorism. In the case of Guatemala, President Eisenhower and Secretary of State Allen Dulles had decided that the “legally-elected government of Jacobo Arbenz was ‘communist’, therefore must go” and that “the Guatemalans were living under a ‘Communist type of terrorism’” (Blum, 73). In reality, president Arbenz—who “had no special contact or spiritual/ideological ties with the Soviet Union” (Blum, 73)—was elected on a populist platform; and once in office, enacted a program of land reform that expropriated land to “approximately 100,000 peasants”, in a country where “2.2% of landowners owned 70% of arable land” (Blum, 74). But the lynchpin for intervention was Arbenz’s competition with the largest corporation in the country, United Fruit Company; who “had close ties with the Dulles brothers, various State Dept. officials, congressmen, and the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.” (Blum, 75). To compete with UFC’s holdings—which included a monopoly on all banana exports, the only Atlantic port, and telephone and telegraph lines—Arbenz built a new port, highway, and hydro-electric dam, to limit the power of foreign companies. He stated in his inaugural address that “Foreign capital will always be welcome as long as it…cooperates with economic development of the country, and strictly abstains from intervening in the nation’s social and political life”—far from a communist’s worldview. But, quite frankly, these policies were deemed unacceptable by the United States, which favored the free flow of capital in and out of countries, and who didn’t want one nation to become an example of economic independence for others to follow.

To stage the intervention, the CIA first set up headquarters in Nicaragua, on a lease from Nicaraguan dictator, Somoza. They then proceeded to drop leaflets, a technique used time and time again by the CIA, over Guatemala, claiming Arbenz was going to disarm the military and form a people’s militia—along with the use of a “clandestine” CIA radio station to broadcast the same message (Blum, 76). The propaganda campaign was extensive; other methods used include: planting anti-Guatemala articles in newspapers and hoping they would proliferate, while appearing as an independent opinion; distributing “more than 100,000 copies of a pamphlet entitled “Chronology of Communism in Guatemala” (Blum, 77) throughout Latin America; producing three films on Guatemala, “with predictable content” and “newsreels favorable to the United States for showing free in cinemas” (Blum, 77); visiting anti-communist Cardinal, Francis Spellman, to formulate a pastoral letter that was read in Guatemalan churches bringing to attention “to the presence in the country of a devil called communism” (Blum, 77); and even sponsoring a “Congress Against Soviet Intervention in Latin America” in Mexico City (Blum, 77).

Utilizing radio stations of their own, while jamming the only government radio station, the CIA led an attack of psychological warfare directed at the peasants and Arbenz himself; “the CIA was able to answer real military messages with fake responses” (Blum, 78), by staging frightening broadcasts while dropping fragmentation bombs over the National Palace—even playing tape recordings of bomb attacks “over loudspeakers set up on the roof of the US Embassy” (Blum, 78). With the “belief of invincibility of the enemy”, Guatemalan military officers forced Arbenz to resign (Blum, 78). The CIA then put in power Col. Castillo Armas—a classic example of a “Third Force” leader; one who appears to be nationalistic, but in reality is a puppet chosen by the U.S., who will govern in accordance with economic interdependence. Not surprisingly, Armas’ regime returned all land expropriated back to United Fruit Company; banned banana workers’ unions; and arrested, tortured, and killed thousands on “suspicion of communist activity” (Blum, 81).

Consequences of this imperialistic, interventionist activity—in other words, America’s hegemonic project—are felt both abroad and at home. Subordination of human rights may be the most egregious aftereffect of American foreign policy; this not only includes basic human rights violations—that would produce outrage if practiced domestically—such as promoting torture or detention without due process, but also depriving a people of basic functions of government, such as perhaps a public healthcare or education system. Not to mention the blunt murder of civilians in order to sustain an economic empire. Also, after intervention, a country’s domestic economy may be so battered by the displacement of certain features of economic independence—such as tariffs, capital controls, and public expenditures—that it is in a much worse place than before, unlikely to recover due to the policies of a Third Force leader or that of institutions such as the IMF or World Bank.

Domestically, we have witnessed the decline of the civilian manufacturing economy—one that produces tangible goods; in favor of a military-rentier economy, that is fueled by speculative finance overseas and defense contracts. Again, this ironically has led to weakened competiveness in an ever more competitive global marketplace—with competition among strong manufacturing economies such as those in China and Germany—and a decentering of classic American hegemony. It has also proved the inability to have both guns and butter; an increase in military expenditures is always favored over an increase in social expenditures—comprehensive social programs like those in Western Europe are deemed incapable of affording. As stated by the Guatemalan foreign minister, Mr. Toriello, the United States categorizes “as ‘communism’ every manifestation of nationalism or economic independence, any desire for social progress, any intellectual curiosity, and any interest in progressive liberal reforms.”

Lastly, and perhaps of paramount importance, is the ability of the economic model in question to address pressing issues of global concern such as climate change and sustainability of the Earth’s finite resources. As long as the profits of a few are placed as a higher concern than our deteriorating planet, and their tremendous clout suppresses the voice of real people, then these issues will not be solved, and we will be doomed for destruction. 

[akmalino-blog]

A large splodge of Wonga

The Wonga coup: something you've probably never heard of before, which happened in a country that, well, you've probably never heard of before. The Wonga coup was an attempted overthrow of Obiang Nguema, the brutal dictator of Equatorial Guinea, a tiny country in the armpit of Africa overflowing with oil, by Western mercenaries, including the son of Margaret Thatcher. The Wonga coup is masterfully documented in journalist Adam Robert's account of the events The Wonga Coup.

But as entertaining (and sometimes hilarious) as as the story can be, it brought to light another topic of discussion: global north-south relations, especially those of American interest. You can see how, in many ways, directly and indirectly, the U.S. supports one of the worst violators of human rights on the the planet. This type of support is not uncommon in U.S. history: see El Salvador and Nicaragua in the '80's, for example.

The U.S. role in the story of Equatorial Guinea was much more ambiguous than the other countries involved. Lax banking regulations and an environment of people acting on special interests helped Obiang remain a very rich and powerful man. U.S. Senate investigations revealed that Obiang’s Rigg’s Bank accounts were being illegally funded with millions of dollars from U.S. oil revenues and being used for Obiang’s personal interests instead of being spent on the development of his country; one with one of the largest inequality gaps in the world. As this came to light, tighter control was placed on the Rigg’s accounts forcing Obiang to diversify his assets; although the corruption did not stop. A much more comprehensive account of the U.S. relationship with Equatorial Guinea, and the sheer level of corruption involved, can be found in this MotherJones article by Peter Maas: A Touch of Crude, which I urge you to read.

On another note, just to put America's actions in perspective; let's pretend the U.S. were a kakistocracy, or, a country run by the most corrupt, least competent, and most foolish people (do we really have to pretend?). Would the level of corruption be any worse? Probably not. Obiang would still be free to do whatever he wants with his money. The general concept remains; the United States, even with knowledge of Obiang’s personal use of the money, deteriorating Equatorial Guinean living conditions, and his well-documented human rights violations, fails to make any effort to stop the man in charge. Instead, Obiang still receives revenue from American oil firms such as ExxonMobil. Whether kakistocratic or not, the United States did not use its seemingly democratic institutions and legitimate international force to end the corrupt and inhumane actions of the Equatorial Guinean regime.

[akmalino-blog]

Race, Class Warfare, and the American Dream

The American Dream is an often understated and overlooked aspect of our lives as Americans in the 21st century. The freedom that every American has, to follow their dreams, is what has seemingly defined generations of the past. Common themes of the dream include abundant opportunities, the prospect of land ownership, and the freedom and liberty to do as you please. But what does the dream mean to us today? Is it still relevant to a globalized, 21st Century America? It is important for us as Americans to understand what we, as a nation, think of the dream in the 21st century to further our hopes of creating a more exceptional future for America.

Because of the diversity in this country it can be assumed that the American Dream means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. Therefore, all groups should be analyzed to provide a more comprehensive understanding of what the American Dream really is. So I embarked on a mission to discover what the American Dream really meant to Americans. To gather information on what real-live Americans thought of the American Dream I asked one simple question: “What does the American Dream mean to you?”

Although I amassed an eclectic mix of responses from the interviewees, the underlying theme centered around home or property ownership and having just "enough" money. This was especially true for people of an older generation, while the younger interviewees focused more on the monetary aspect of "unlimited" wealth and material possessions as well as the notion of freedom and the ability to "do whatever the fuck you want." Some other responses included having “liberal drugs laws”, “guaranteed healthcare”, and last but not least abolishing the "capitalist propaganda put forth by the corporations” (!) Moreover, I think the overall theme between both generations was best stated by one of my friends as “moving up from the class you are born into." Although the older generation seemed to be in touch more with meaningful American values than the seemingly superficial younger generation, neither gave the answer I was looking for. The closest that I came to was in an interview with a 50 year old who believed “guaranteed healthcare for everyone” is a vital aspect of the dream. 

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, and promote the general Welfare." To me, this part out of the preamble means to ensure the general well being of Americans. This can be interpreted in many different ways, but I believe that ensuring the general welfare of all citizens in the 21st Century means that America must accommodate not only all races and gender equally, but also classes. 

The now household term, made famous by the Occupy Wall Street movement, the 99%, is what I’m talking about: the American middle-class and poor, who are up against the vast and exploitative resources of the 1%. The power of the 1% can be seen in many sectors of American society. Whenever you buy gas, you are paying a portion of the cost into the pockets of oil futures speculators, who drive up the price at the expense of the consumer for their own profits. (see, "Oil Prices Spike Exacerbated By Wall Street Speculation, Federal Reserve Study Finds.") Another example is health insurance: before 'Obamacare', health insurance companies could deny you for having a pre-existing condition as simple as a heart murmur, and left ~44 million Americans without insurance at all. A reality that is thought of as barbaric by most Western European countries. But most importantly, and what is most often overlooked, is the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics. Our democracy was hijacked in 2010 by the Citizen's United decision, granting corporations the same rights as people under the 1st Amendment. This allows for unlimited donations to campaigns without any transparency. Candidates will now, more so than ever before, be chosen almost exclusively by corporations such as the Koch Brothers. 

It is undeniable that this division of classes is also fueled by race. This can’t be seen any clearer than where I'm from: Metro Detroit. The wealthy, who predominantly live in the white, northern suburbs border the impoverished, mostly black, inner-city, separated by a single mile road. For decades the situation in the city has worsened, with no hopes of people escaping the bowels of poverty. A failed school district, a corrupted mayor, and lack of municipal transportation have only made escaping harder and harder. The folks that made it out into the suburbs are much better-off as most jobs have migrated from out of the city into the suburbs, providing a base for families, good school districts, and expansion of the 'burbs, while leaving no hope for the people who can’t get out of the inner-city. The only dream the impoverished are dreaming is to escape their current situation and move up in class. 

America is a country built on opportunity; many consider this to be a defining factor of the dream. But, as evident by the class struggle; division of income equality; and race, equal opportunity is inherently inhibited. Enhanced welfare among classes is necessary. This could mean more effective social programs that would narrow the gap of inequality; such as single-payer universal healthcare and a highly regulated private industry; more affordable public education; a stronger labor movement; and regulation of the same guys on Wall Street who robbed American's of their homes in 2008. All of these practices would enhance American's quality of life and bring us into the modern world. 

Although it is up to the individual to have the drive and vision to obtain the dream, it is equally up to our government to provide the necessary means for achieving the dream. Let’s face it, everyone has their own version of the American Dream, but one thing is for certain: enhanced equality would pave the path in order for any American to turn their unique version of the American Dream into reality. Equality is synonymous with the American Dream.

[akmalino-blog]

Why Ron Paul (and Mitt Romney) are the most harmful to the 99%

After hours of putting off schoolwork and contemplating about what my first take at op-ed political journalism should be about, I just couldn't help but reminisce when I actually thought Ron Paul was cool. My history with Dr. Paul is a colorful one; just like every other teenager you'd find on /r/atheist I hopped on the Revolution band wagon early on in the election season. Frustrated with concessions from the Obama administration to the banks in 2009 and to PhRMA in the Patient and Protection Affordable Care Act--and the seemingly overall lack of a coherent third party in American politics, among other things--led me to believe Congressman Paul was the man for the job. His vehement opposition to the War on Drugs, the War in Afghanistan, and our imperialistic foreign policy resonated with me. As well as his defense of civil Libertarianism. 

But since then my views have been changed; I find the support of Ron Paul to be, in many ways, disconcerting. Let's start with his enthusiastic opposition to the social safety net. Cutting, or ending Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other welfare/government works programs would furthermore widen the gap of economic inequality we have been experiencing since the 1970's. The 99%, more commonly known as the American middle class, rose to prominence in the post-New Deal era, heralded as the "Great Compression." Since then, inequality has risen to pre-New Deal levels, accompanied by continuing cuts in social programs, union-busting, and the deregulation of the banks and speculative derivative markets. Paul supports a national Right to Work act (so much for States Rights, right?) that would abate the collective bargaining powers of unions, leading to lower wages and contributing to the regression of labor rights to those of a developing country. He also supports unfettered deregulation of Wall Street, and actually blames the mortgage crisis and succeeding '08 financial collapse on the regulation of the banks. This purely ideological stance was even refuted by Chairman of the Fed during the Reagan-Bush years, Alan Greenspan, after the collapse. Lastly, the Good Doctor would repeal 'Obamacare' and push for a rugged, free-market run healthcare industry; the same industry that rejected care to citizens with pre-existing conditions such as say, a heart murmur. 

So, if you believe in the destruction of the middle-class; destruction of the democratizing force that are unions; no regulation for the same industry that robbed thousands of Americans of their homes and  was responsible for the '08 recession; the repeal of healthcare for all Americans; and the overall broadening of the gap of inequality between us and the super-rich, then Ron Paul (or any of the other Republican candidates) is your man. I am now left wondering why I ever abandoned my support of Obama's reelection--and support of the 99%--in the first place.