“For better or worse, Paul — alone among the national figures in both parties — is able and willing to advocate views that Americans urgently need to hear. That he is doing so within the Republican Party makes it all the more significant. This is why Paul has been the chosen ally of key liberal House members such as Alan Grayson (on Fed transparency and corruption), Barney Frank (to arrest the excesses of the Drug War) and Dennis Kucinich (on a wide array of foreign policy and civil liberties issues)…

… if you’re someone who believes that things like Endless War, the Surveillance State, the Drug War, the sprawling secrecy regime, and the vast power of the Fed are merely minor, side issues that don’t merit much concern… then lock-step marching behind Barack Obama for the next full year makes sense. But if you don’t believe those things, then you’re going to be searching for ways to change mainstream political discourse and to disrupt the bipartisan consensus which shields these policies from all debate, let alone challenge.”

Across America, progressives have expressed disappointment with Obama’s failure to follow through on campaign promises like ending Bush-era tax breaks. As Greenwald notes, the lack of truly progressive policy implemented in the last three years comes as a result not only of a divided and obstinate Congress, but from Obama’s own moves to consolidate power in the executive branch and extend problematic Bush-era domestic and foreign policy. The promise of a viable candidate who might endorse an end to an unnecessary and unjustified foreign war that has killed hundreds of thousands, who might end the racist and expensive “War on Drugs,” and who might actually check corporate influence in government seems promising.

However, Ron Paul is not that candidate. Although he may support legislation introduced by progressives, he comes to his decisions from a single-minded desire to decrease the size of the federal government. Paul’s anarchist-leaning political thought dictates his policy decisions (with the single exception of abortion, which he incomprehensibly thinks should be illegal).

Libertarian reasoning leads Ron Paul to endorse policies that no progressive could support. Although Paul opposes the War on Drugs, which many cite as a racist policy that predominantly incarcerates African-American and Latino men, he also opposes policies like birthright citizenship and welfare that benefit American communities of color. (Paul also opposes any form of legal amnesty for undocumented immigrants, such as the DREAM Act, and has even spoken out against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and opposed other civil rights legislation.) He even opposes the very existence of an income tax in favor of a Flat Tax, which progressives know would place America’s tax burden disproportionately on the poor.

Vote-mongering and corporate lobbying may compromise Obama’s progressivism. But his background and campaign platform suggest that he at least cares about rectifying race- and class-based oppression. On the contrary, Ron Paul’s concern about the free market and individual liberty comes at the expense of the equality, social justice, and basic right to economic insecurity valued by progressives.

When Ron Paul’s libertarian interests align with progressive interests, he can certainly provide valuable support for liberal House members, as Greenwald referenced. In fact, Paul has effectively and admirably brought many often-controversial policies to mainstream political discussion. His opinions have sparked constructive and interesting discussion, both on this website and across America, about issues ranging from the War on Drugs to American intervention in Israel to war.

However, for every Paul position countering existing economic inequality in America, another ten would perpetuate or worsen existing wealth disparities. Ron Paul may be an interesting, controversial, and perhaps even viable candidate for the 2012 presidency—but he is certainly not a progressive one.