Some of us are illegal, and some are not wanted ….

His guitar has a sticker on it that says “This machine shills for fascists.”

I hear Pete Seeger can still swing a pretty mean banjo…

this land is my land, this land ain’t your land, I got a shotgun, and you don’t got one…

Chris,
Do you count smoking dope as political consciousness?

Sound like he came into Los Angeles bringing more than just a couple of keys . . .

Let’s look at what Arlo Guthrie actually said:

“I love this guy,” Guthrie says in a statement released by the Paul campaign. “Dr. Paul is the only candidate I know of who would have signed the Constitution of the United States had he been there. I’m with him, because he seems to be the only candidate who actually believes it has as much relevance today as it did a couple of hundred years ago. I look forward to the day when we can work out the differences we have with the same revolutionary vision and enthusiasm that is our American legacy.”

There is a lot of room for Guthrie to distance himself from Paul’s racism and immigration positions — his quote makes it clear that he is aware of significant differences in position.

Whatever one thinks of Paul regarding his overall political views, he is the only Republican campaigning explicitly on a platform plank of ending the war and pulling out of Iraq. It is the centerpiece of his appeal to anyone who isn’t a hardcore libertarian. Paul is more definitive in his anti-war position than either Clinton or Obama on the Democratic side.

I can respect the political calculation that says the war as an issue outweighs other odious positions a candidate might hold. Would I have done what Guthrie did? No. Am I in favor of giving electoral voice anti-war Republicans and Republicans who believe in the rule of law? Yes.

Nobody has gotten Obama or Clinton to take firm stands on the rule of law, by the way.

I think it’s more likely that he just hasn’t even aknowledged Ron Paul’s stance on immigration. All that dazzling talk about reforming the Federal Reserve and respecting the constitution was enough for him.

Seriously, I think most Libertarians don’t care a lick about immigration, they just want a government that will leave them alone as much as possible.

And what’s up with that ‘This Machine Kills Paleolibertarians’ on the linked site? Death threats against a group for their political beliefs? Sounds Stalinesque to me.

Paul’s chance of actually being able to do anything about stopping the war: negligible.

His ability to show that any libertarian candidate with a hope of getting even 10% support has to be a racist: priceless.

(Actually, his effect on anti-war organizing is probably negative. If you view support for Paul as indicating anti-war views, then you’re tempted to say that anti-war views top out at the level of Paul’s support, and can safely be ignored.)

And, by the way, there’s no such thing as “a government that leaves you alone as much as possible.” If you believe in that value system and are honest, you’re an anarchist — I have no trouble with anarchism, which has a long and distinguished history. Libertarians want a government that leaves white middle-class people alone as much as possible, which is not at all the same thing. Rich and poor are alike prohibited by a minarchist government from sleeping under bridges, organizing strikes for better wages, etc.

Am I missing something here? I thought by convention we (democrats, leftists, etc) did not believe in the “sins of the father” being visite on subsequent generations. Should we not also believe that if the father is a good person (by our standards) we still judge the sons or daughters on their own merits? As I understand it, the folk tradition of singer sings other person’s song, does not mean that they agree with said song. Bob Dylan can sing his own repertoire and he’s fallen out with himself a few times.

Shorter me: so you like Woody Guthrie. Who cares what his son thinks?

Am I missing something here?

Yes. Arlo is a lefty folkie endorsing Ron Paul.

I wonder if Arlo Guthrie has even a clue about Ron Paul’s racial views. When you blog, especially when you go to political blogs, after a while you become hyper attuned to what the politicians do. But there’s good evidence that most people vote on a general impression. For instance, polls in Florida and elsewhere have shown that the Republicans – or those voting in the Republican primary – who are most opposed to the Iraq war are most likely to vote for McCain. Matt Yglesias had a post on this. That makes sense in terms of the impression that is given of the candidates by the press – McCain, who is considered more liberal, more mainstream, would logically be the one who was less gung ho about Iraq. Well, it doesn’t turn out to be like that in reality. I would not at all be surprised if Arlo G. saw Ron Paul say various anti-imperialist things in one of the debates and said, hell, that’s the ticket.

Of course, he’s older now, too, than when he penned his great anti-Nixon song, presidential rag.

So maybe Guthrie compromised. With the set of candidates we have left that is inevitable.

There’s compromising with candidates and there’s compromising with nuts.

By all means condemn Guthrie

I think you’re giving this far more thought than Arlo did, but fortunately we both agree that Ron Paul is a fool.

Nobody said that anyone should actually *like* the Democrats. I’m just glad that I will likely never again have to read a lecture about how there is no difference between the two parties, and that the Democrats are hopelessly corrupted, and that all of the mathematics of the existing U.S. electoral system that essentially guarantees that there will be two major parties who win almost all elections has to be ignored for reasons of morality, etc.

I’ve never understood the uncritical sympathy for illegal immigration on the left either. Yes, a lot of nasty racists are opposed to immigration, but that doesn’t ipso facto mean that uncontrolled immigration is a good thing. And nativists aren’t always wrong – it is fairly easy to find historical examples of immigrants taking over and uprooting the original inhabitants. America and Australia being first on the list, Palestine is a more recent example.

Clearly most opposition to immigration is driven at its root by fear – fear of losing one’s job, fear of losing one’s place in society, fear of seeing one’s children adopt an alien culture and values or, worse, seeing one’s children be unable to compete in a culture with new and different values. The lack of sympathy that affluent well educated liberals have for the fears of working class white and black Americans is disappointing. Rather than simply lecturing people not to be racist, it would probably make more sense to work towards a society where ordinary people don’t feel like they’re living on a razor’s edge and consequently look for scapegoats.

And as always one has to wonder cui bono? When both the right-wing Mexican political elites and the US business elites are united in full-throated support of immigration, don’t you have to look a little more closely at what’s really going on? I know a lot of leftists simply take the position that “if some red neck Texan is against it, than I’m for it!” but I feel the same way about any position the WSJ editorial board takes.

I think that’s right about Neil Young, and I certainly find it forgivable. This too, if Arlo repents appropriately (as Young did). Smoking dope counts as political unconsciousness, surely.