Ron Paul: Covert Racist (?)
Filed under: 2008 elections, Ron Paul — Michael van der Galien on January 8, 2008 @ 1:18 pm CET
The New Republic will publish an article today in which it is alleged that Ron Paul has a racist past. The author of the article, James Kirchick, appeared on Tucker’s show to give us some information about what the article will contain, what proof they’ll have etc. (video below the fold).
Although I’d like to read the newsletters as collected by TNR and the article, it seems to me that the defense of the Ron Paul campaign is weak.
Here’s the issue: Ron Paul published a newsletter for years; 20 years actually. This newsletter is “filled with racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic infective.” The defense is that it was indeed his newsletter (that he published them), but that his friends abused his name and that he didn’t check what they wrote.
Right.
That’s a very weak defense indeed.
That defense becomes even weaker when one takes into account that the campaign first said that he wrote the newsletters, and the parts he didn’t write, he read, until they were confronted with some quotes (such as Paul calling MLK a “gay pedophile”).
This could derail Paul’s campaign. On the other hand, there are a lot of indicators that Paul’s supported by neo-Nazis, and the non-racist Paulites don’t seem to care much about that.
I’ll check TNR throughout the day. When they’ve got the pamphlets and the article up, I’ll link to it and quote from it.
Something else that was written in the newsletter: He called black people animals in the newsletter. He also urged his readers to move out of the country and to buy guns because “the animals are coming.” Aside from that he argued that New York shouldn’t be named after Martin Luther King Jr. but it should be renamed “zooville.”
Watch the video:
1 lulu2008
January 8, 2008 @ 1:49 pm CETThis man’s strict adherence to the constitution makes it impossible for him to be a racist.
Dr. Paul: "The true minority is the individual"
I expect better from europeans!
2 b.w
January 8, 2008 @ 1:58 pm CETPlease. This accuser has no credibility. This article sums it up nicely:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article1019.htmlSo someone with no credibility seeks to smear Dr. Paul with an unfortunate incident from the past. An employee of Dr. Paul did write articles with disgusting content. RP fired the person when he learned of it. The disgusting, hateful statements are completely inconsistent with any of Dr. Paul’s other statements or writings. Dr. Paul even stated that he was very hurt about statements made about Barbara Jordan because he thought of her with fondness.
The Republican establishment brought up this unfortunate smear attempt in one of Dr. Paul’s congressional campaigns. Paul fought back and won - against the help of heavyweights such as Gingrich and GW Bush (Texas Gov at the time).
3 JC
January 8, 2008 @ 1:59 pm CETThis is the same debunked garbage, recycled ad infinitum. Look at the votes, the speeches, the life and the man. One moment being sabotaged by an employee now running against him cannot tarnish that heroic career.
Start here:
http://causeoffreedom.blogspot.com/2007/12/63-ron-paul-honors-muhammad-ali.html
and work your way through 20 years of the same.
4 Dylan
January 8, 2008 @ 2:03 pm CETlulu2008: This man’s strict adherence to the constitution makes it impossible for him to be a racist.
Yep - because there is nothing in the Constitution that is racist, right? Nothing in, say, Article 1 Section 2 like:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
That "three fifths of all other Persons" referred to whom exactly? Wouldn’t be people of a certain race held as slaves, would it?
Get real: his support of the Constitution has got nothing to do with whether he is a racist or not. It’s also got nothing to do with whether the quotes in the newsletter are written by him, approved by him or nothing to do with him at all.
Paul has been pretty good at telling the truth so far. He should continue on that route, admit that he or someone else working on the newsletter made a mistake and take responsibility for it. End of story.
That would be smart politics. Blaming other people is not.
5 Anthony C Pants
January 8, 2008 @ 2:07 pm CETPlease. This issue has already been addressed by the campaign. The worst thing about Ron Paul is that he eats chocolate chip cookies. Pardoning a prisoner who goes on to rape and murder is much more of an election snafu.
6 Ken
January 8, 2008 @ 2:14 pm CETAs already mentioned he has done that already, been there done that. Identifying the problem staffer, firing them and stating that they are not his views is the truth, as he claims the truth to be. Either you accept it or yoou call him a liar. Which is it?
7 Jason
January 8, 2008 @ 2:15 pm CETThis is what happens when you mess with the neo-con movement. Ask Pat Buchanan. If you don’t support military expansion and Israel you are taken out. The easiest way to do so is to call someone a racist because once that is put out there, it is almost impossible to undo.
By this guys explaination, everyone who spoke to Strom Thurmond "supported a segrigationist" and everyone who uses "certain language" which is vague at best, is communicating in secret code… what a joke. The irony is the "Free Republic" is trying to take out the only guy who is actually for the US being a Free Republic.
8 Mike D.
January 8, 2008 @ 2:21 pm CET"He (Ron Paul) speaks in code"???? Umm….and some think us Paulites are kooks??
The Real Lincoln’s Thomas DiLorenzo a "neo-confederate" along with Dr. Paul?
Maybe the anti-Paul people are the conspiracy theorists!
9 Daivd
January 8, 2008 @ 2:22 pm CETDr. Paul has never reached anything but equallity and fairnes nder a free market system where inividuals, not groups are are treated fairly. This accusation is in drect opposition to what he’s talked about most of his adult life and would make no sense at all if it where true (wich it abvously is not), so "That?s a very weak defense indeed." -comment is tottally oncalled for, infact Dr. Pauls explonation is is the most logical one.
10 Todd Schuller
January 8, 2008 @ 2:23 pm CETJames Kirchick - when will people like this understand simple constitutional principles, pathetic. Freedom, liberty is far from being racist. If he can base his so called book from constitutional principles the truth will enlighten him.
The pot calling the kelltle black. Stir away james, stir away, your true colors are showing. It is people like you that insist we must have the racial divide, now that is racial.
11 Ken
January 8, 2008 @ 2:26 pm CETadmin: posting threats = banned
12 Lynx
January 8, 2008 @ 2:33 pm CETPffft, count me as not caring. Ron Paul is finished, as far as the campaign goes. He, at the most, has accomplished one thing, which is to clue in politicians that there is a very passionate group of Libertarians who can be a very loyal voting bloc if you know how to tap them.
The Paulites engage in a sort of hero-worship that puts the most passionate Obama supporter to shame. Especially hilarious is seeing them defend it with phrases like "It’s not that we worship Dr. Paul, it’s just that he’s perfect!". Ron Paul has been handicapped by his supporters insistence on his near-divinity, which has only served to sharpen the doubts of the non-believers.
13 Eric
January 8, 2008 @ 2:54 pm CETThis is just another rehashing of the racist smears against Ron Paul. The New York Times printed a retraction in their blog about the allegation that Ron regularly meets with neo-Nazi’s.
Of course the facts and truth don’t matter when it comes to opposing Ron’s agenda of liberty and peace. Spreading lies works well, people tend to believe them, and then you can correct your error later but the damage has already been done.
The Ron Paul Revolution will continue after November 4. Eventually Americans will have to choose between more freedom or less freedom.
14 anti-smear
January 8, 2008 @ 2:54 pm CETMan!!! They still trying to make this old BS stick!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#1996_campaign_controversy
Afer reading a whole heap of stuff that Doctor Paul has actually written you quickly realize how viable his defence is.
As a previous poster commented, start with his speach to congress honouring Muhammad Ali …
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-h20070117-38
(Note how he choses to focus on Ali’s courage and principles on the main issue that catapulted Ali into the Black Civil Rights movement at that time and incur the wrath of the establishment… resistance of the draft to Vietnam).
Then read a little of the vast amounts of articles and speeches penned/spoken by Doctor Paul. http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
The "body of evidence" weighs heavily in Doctor Pauls favour.
Ps. from an angry black guy of West Indian origin whose job just got outsourced to India.
15 Lynx
January 8, 2008 @ 2:56 pm CETKen, it’s good stuff, but yours seems to be even better, considering it warps you to some alternative future universe where Ron Paul is already president LOL.
While writing my comment I accidentally erased a disclaimer where I mentioned that I was reffering o most, but not all, Ron Paul supporters I’ve seen. The exceptions know who they are
16 JaBo
January 8, 2008 @ 3:33 pm CETOK, Paulites. The day has come when RP is being attacked by all. I’ve been waiting for months for this. The attacks mean that Dr. Paul’s message has gained enough traction for the people to take notice and fall in line behind our man. It’s good news.
By the way, why are we wasting our time on this rag anyway? I’d rather be reading Fox News.
17 J Bradford
January 8, 2008 @ 3:34 pm CETadmin: that’s it, you’re banned now
18 Tim
January 8, 2008 @ 3:41 pm CETWell, let’s see.
They can’t address the issues head on so they go back to attacking the messenger. Weak journalism that people now see right thru.
19 Robert E.
January 8, 2008 @ 3:52 pm CETMichael v. d. Galien, I am sad to see that you just can’t seem to resist what, to me at least, seem little more that an irresistably prurient factination with this topic to which you keep returning.
Sorry, but you finally lost me with this one.
20 asdf
January 8, 2008 @ 3:57 pm CETPoligazette: Why don’t you research the facts for yourself (like real journalists) instead of accepting whatever MSNBC decides to run?
You guys are going to lose a huge base of readership in America if you continue this practice of irresponsible tabloid journalism. A quick review of the facts will show that these allegations are the same rehash of a story debunked months ago.
Do you see this level of scrutiny applied to the other candidate? If so, we them might know that ALL of the ‘major’ candidates except Paul are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. What is their agenda? Who stands to benefit from economic chaos in 2008? Was the mortgage debt bubble on purpose?
Please, run some real stories or you will quickly become eclipsed by the new media.
21 joelfarm
January 8, 2008 @ 4:04 pm CETIt is very scary to know that the power elite will do whatever is necessary to stop anyone who opposes their rape of our Nation. If this blatantly false charge does not stick, I truly fear what their next recourse will be.
22 PatHMV
January 8, 2008 @ 4:14 pm CETSo why won’t Rep. Paul name the supposed "ghostwriter" who wrote those reprehensible things?
There’s no "code" in that stuff, it’s just vile. Coming on top of someone dead-set opposed to the Civil Rights Act, consider me still highly suspicious.
23 Tully
January 8, 2008 @ 4:38 pm CETmaybe Paul was talking about why the Civil War was actually fought and whether or not states have a right to succeed, which they do.
Of course states have a right to succeed! Oh, I think you mean “secede.” Well, no, they don’t have THAT right, and never have. Simply referring to the original Articles of Confederation clearly indicates that states do not leave the Union without the permission of the Union, the Constitution reflects that in the first sentence (if not as explicitly detailed as some demand), presidents since well before the Civil War have faced the issue, and the Supreme Court ruled on it long ago in Texas v. White.
24 Tully
January 8, 2008 @ 4:39 pm CETAs much slack as I’m willing to give Paul, he did let that be published under his name and for more than one issue. That certainly speaks to attention to detail, if nothing else.
25 Paulo
January 8, 2008 @ 4:43 pm CETadmin: name-calling and anti-semitism = instant banning
26 richard
January 8, 2008 @ 4:58 pm CETDylan,
How is the "3/5 of all other persons" thing racist? It was done to limit the power of slavery supporting states. If slaves had counted as full persons, the populations of those states would have been higher, giving them a larger number of Representatives. If you oppose slavery, it seems like you would want them to have been counted as 0/5, not 5/5.
27 Eryc
January 8, 2008 @ 4:58 pm CET"Dylan: Yep - because there is nothing in the Constitution that is racist, right?"
Dear Dylan, the constitution also says, NOONE WILL BE DENIED THEIR UNALIENABLE RIGHTES! AND LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS!
This story has already been discredited years ago. To suggest Ron Paul is a racist is a complete fallacy.
28 PatHMV
January 8, 2008 @ 4:59 pm CETWhen you’ve got as much baggage on racial issues as Paul does, when you oppose the law which requires no more than that no business discriminate against people based on their skin color, then you’ve got, I think, a special obligation to distance yourself strongly and vocally from the extremist elements among us. Paul has consistently refused to do that. He happily accepts contributions from neo-nazis and, when called on it, diverts attention to the "real evil" of the military-industrial complex.
We have plenty of internal enemies, and one of them is racist morons. A great many of them are supporting Paul. That doesn’t make him a racist, but it should lead him to forcibly and regularly disavow such hatred and bigotry. Instead, he treats them as legitimate participants in the political process.
29 PatHMV
January 8, 2008 @ 5:03 pm CETThe racist part of the original constitution was the part which guaranteed that the importation of slaves would be allowed at least until 1808. And yes, the 3/5 clause is also racist, because a non-racist clause would have guaranteed all men the right to vote regardless of race or "servitude," and would then have counted a slave as a full person no matter what. The 3/5 was an acceptance of the fact that the slaves could not and would never be allowed to vote.
P.S. Eryc, could you quote me the exact provision of the Constitution to which you refer?
30 Tully
January 8, 2008 @ 5:03 pm CETBingo. It was the slave states that wanted to count them as “whole” persons, to boost their power. The anti-slavery position was that if they couldn’t vote they shouldn’t count, and was meant to encourage abolishing slavery. The end result was still disproportionate power for the slave states, with southerners dominating the presidency and Supreme Court until the Civil War.
31 Joseph Zrnchik
January 8, 2008 @ 5:28 pm CETadmin: off-topic spam removed
32 Lynx
January 8, 2008 @ 5:36 pm CETYou know you’re in trouble when you’re trying to justify blacks counting as 3/5ths as a person as a non-racist provision. LOL
33 Lysander
January 8, 2008 @ 5:36 pm CETHeh.
I’ve met the Doctor in a NON-political setting, and I believe - that he at the very least has such abysmal tendencies. Sorry, but face-to-face trumps the Internet.
34 Andrew Taylor
January 8, 2008 @ 5:49 pm CETMichael,
I’ve always appreciated the fairness with which you have attempted to write about my preferred candidate, Rep. Ron Paul — and I have been disappointed and, frankly, disgusted, by many of my fellow supporters who viciously attack anyone who has the temerity to disagree with the good doctor.
However, as a former subscriber to the newsletter in question — admittedly, not during the entirety of its existence — I can write without fear of contradiction that it was a typical hard-money, right-wing newsletter, with constant predictions of the end of the world as we know it, and the like. It was comparable to many newsletters being published on the right during its day — such as Howard J. Ruff’s "The Ruff Times" and Gary "Y2K" North’s "Remnant Review." Most of these newsletters were marked to folks on the fringe who believed in stockpiling food and investing in gold in the face of the inevitable collapse of the United States economy. I subscribed because I liked Paul and appreciated his economic and political views; I found the newsletter itself pretty boring and silly.
I don’t recall reading any of the purported racist stuff at all. That’s not to say that it didn’t exist, as some obviously did, but it certainly wasn’t the main material presented in the newsletter. In addition — and I will be happily corrected if my recollection is faulty — I thought that, back when this issue was raised in 1996 in Paul’s congressional campaign, blogger Lew Rockwell (Paul’s former chief of staff) admitted that he was the ghostwriter of the newsletter. Rockwell was also at the helm of another newsletter, one featuring his name, along with that of libertarian gadfly Murray Rothbard — who just happened to be Jewish. (So much for the anti-Semitism argument).
Those who are jumping on this story — such as the expected glee over at Red State — might not want the "blowback" which is going to accompany it. As I’ve pointed out in the past, Red State is owned by Eagle Publishing, which owns both "Human Events" and Regnery Publishing. Regnery, in its "Politically Incorrect Guides," has published books by some of the very folks whose playing footsie with neo-confederates (like Clint Johnson and Thomas E. Woods, Jr.), is being used to shore up the "racist" case against Paul. Read Johnson’s "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the South and Why It Will Rise Again" or Woods’ "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" — both of which cite Thomas J. DiLorenzo’s controversial "The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War."
Unlike most of my fellow Paul supporters, I don’t think Paul has a chance to become the Republican nominee. Therefore, I’m not worried about that Kirchick’s article will doom his prospects as a candidate. What saddens me, however, is that Paul will be accused of being something he’s not, which is a racist, and that his name will forever be tarnished by that label. Has Paul done some stupid things in the past? Clearly. He allowed his name to be used on a newsletter and obviously trusted Lew Rockwell or whoever was writing it to not publish material that would sully his good name. He further compounded the problem when he didn’t clearly explain the issue when it first arose in 1996, allowing it to remain a weapon with which he could be bludgeoned by those who dislike him. But making stupid mistakes doesn’t make someone a racist. It may certainly disqualify him as a serious presidential candidate for lack of judgment, but it doesn’t mean he’s a secret Klansman or neo-Nazi.
The thing I find most ridiculous about Kirchick’s charge is that Paul "speaks in code" to the racists who support him. I like Paul and support him, but will be the first to admit that he is an ineffective and lousy communicator. I seriously doubt that he could pull off such a charade — the man gets tongue-tied trying to make the case for things in which he deeply believes. How could he possibly be so effective in concealing anti-Semitism and racism for so long? Kirchick is beyond straining credulity.
Thanks again for your thoughtful and respectful posts, and for your willingness to allow others to disagree.
35 richard
January 8, 2008 @ 6:19 pm CETPatHMV,
At best, you’re confusing different parts of the Constitution. The section Dylan mentioned has nothing to do with anyone’s right to vote. It simply defines how many Representatives each state will have.
So I agree that it would have been better if slavery had never taken place, and all people would have been guaranteed the right to vote from the very start, but that has nothing to do with this particular clause and whether or not it is "racist".
The bottom line is that this clause was drafted in such a way as to minimize, as much as was politically possible at the time, the power of slave states. That is an admirable thing.
Lynx,
That’s an intellectually empty comment.
Do you disagree that counting slaves as full people for the purposes of that clause would have _maximized_ the power of slave states? Do you think that would have been in the best interest of the slaves themselves?
36 Tully
January 8, 2008 @ 6:21 pm CETYou know you’re in trouble when you’re trying to justify blacks counting as 3/5ths as a person as a non-racist provision.
Oh no! You’ve got it backwards. Counting them as 3/5ths was a thoroughly racist provision. And counting them as whole persons would have been less “racist” in theory but more racist in reality, by giving the South even greater power to resist abolition.
As it was we paid for the three-fifths compromise in blood most of a century later, because of the political power it gave the South to continue resisting the abolition movement as long as it did. The trade-off was that we ended up with one nation rather than two, and/or avoided a civil war much sooner in our history, and/or prevented the slave South from becoming the permanently entrenched ruling faction. No telling how history would have played out on the road not taken.
Nothing is ever as simple as we would like.
37 Kevin Sullivan
January 8, 2008 @ 6:23 pm CETI’m going to miss the Paul supporters.
38 james
January 8, 2008 @ 6:26 pm CETThey fired that staffer for writing that nonsense.
Anyways, I am heartened to learn that no one is able to find any dirt so they resort to the same thing over and over and over.
Ron Paul is the cleanest candidate who follows the rule of law in the Constitution. I trust Ron Paul to follow the Constitution and to make America great.
39 Tully
January 8, 2008 @ 6:31 pm CETYeah, it will take some of the fun out of things, Kevin.
40 PatHMV
January 8, 2008 @ 6:33 pm CETI didn’t say whether it was or was not a good thing, though I will say that nothing about the compromise was "laudable" other than in the sense that it allowed to grow a Union which ultimately would abolish slavery. My point, and I am not confusing any different sections of the constitution, is that it is a provision of the constitution which was part and parcel of enshrining slavery as being protected by the Constitution. You can’t look at the 3/5 section in isolation from the rest of the document. It was the northern states saying: "we’re going to let you continue slavery, but we’re going to reduce your political advantage." A non-racist equivalent of the 3/5 would have counted slaves as 0 persons for electoral purposes, because they weren’t allowed to vote. As Tully notes, this would have substantially weakened the south’s political power, though it’s impossible to predict the path of the road not taken.
You are quite correct in the purpose of the provision. It may be an ultimate historical good because, as I said, it was necessary to allow the Constitution to pass, which ultimately helped to eliminate slavery. But that doesn’t make it non-racist. It, along with the other provision I cited (and the lack of any equivalent to the 13th and 14th Amendments), are extremely racist.
41 Dave
January 8, 2008 @ 6:33 pm CETadmin: name-calling and threats = ban
42 Darren D.
January 8, 2008 @ 6:36 pm CETlynx says,
"Pffft, count me as not caring. Ron Paul is finished, as far as the campaign goes. "
For someone who does not care, Lynx is always in the comment section of anti-Paul articles chiming away.
Apparently, you do care. Just admit it.
The author writes,
"On the other hand, there are a lot of indicators that Paul’s supported by neo-Nazis, and the non-racist Paulites don’t seem to care much about that."
Hmmm, why would neo-Nazis follow Dr. Paul?
Could it be that they like the message of Property Rights and Privacy?
Could it be that Dr. Paul speaks of getting government out of our lives?
The real question is, "Why isn’t EVERYONE supporting Dr. Paul?"
43 Jason Steck
January 8, 2008 @ 6:38 pm CETNo, Kevin, I don’t think you will miss them because they will never actually go away. Remember, many of these people are the same ones who have for two decades been passing out Lyndon LaRouche fliers outside every political event they can find. (I realized this after noticing that the writings are almost identical.) Losing doesn’t seem to faze them in the slightest.
Personally, I don’t need “dirt” as a reason to oppose Ron Paul. Reading his vague and naive ideas was enough.
44 Tully
January 8, 2008 @ 6:39 pm CETThe real question is, “Why isn’t EVERYONE supporting Dr. Paul?”
Because some of us find him less than compelling, and have disagreements with the specifics of his policies? Just a guess. The question boils down to “Why doesn’t everyone agree with me?”
45 Jason Steck
January 8, 2008 @ 6:43 pm CETYes, Tully. It is a wonder. I mean, since name-calling, threatening, and berating people who disagree is so persuasive as an advocacy strategy, it truly is a wonder that not everyone supports the soon-to-be-former Representative from Texas.
46 C Stanley
January 8, 2008 @ 6:43 pm CETOn the topic of the 3/5 personhood, I can’t recall if I’ve ever heard where that precise fraction came from. How did they arrive at that particular formulation as opposed to 1/3, 1/2, or 2/3- and was it negotiated between the northern states and southern? Just curious, because 3/5 seems to have had to come from somewhere, not out of the blue (though I’d also say, whoever even thought of designating a slave as a partial person to begin with is someone whose system of ethics I’d rather not contemplate too much.)
47 Tully
January 8, 2008 @ 6:57 pm CETIt originated as a compromise offered by James Madison for the Articles of Confederation as to how federal tax levies would be apportioned among the states, in balancing between state wealth (capital) and state population, so as to balance head tax basis against wealth tax basis and not punish poorer states. Interestingly, the South THEN wanted slaves to NOT be counted, as slaves were “capital goods” and would therefore boost the federal taxes of the Southern states on both wealth and population measures.
The compromise failed to pass, but they dusted it off four years latr when the argument came back up in a different context at the convention. Not surprisingly, in the new context of proportional representation based on census the South had reversed its stance to want to count slaves as whole persons.
48 C Stanley
January 8, 2008 @ 7:05 pm CETSo was it that the 3/5 proportion was proposed because it provided the monetary balance- this was the proportion needed to offset the difference between head tax basis and wealth basis?
49 Tully
January 8, 2008 @ 7:09 pm CETI don’t know that it represented “balance,” as that would take more serious analysis than I’m willing to attempt for free. But it was the agreement they reached, but two states refused to ratify it and it didn’t pass. The South wanted 1/2, New England wanted 3/4, New York and New Hampshire turned it down flat. The Articles required unanimous consent, so that killed it in 1783. But the number was handy in 1787….
50 richard
January 8, 2008 @ 7:30 pm CETPatHMV,
Ok, I’m with you. I was reading too much into your comment, assuming you meant that they should have been counted as whole persons, while leaving the rest of the Constitution unchanged. So I think we basically agree.
The thing that irks me about discussions of this compromise is that labelling it as "racist" assumes an "absolutist" worldview. In other words, in an imperfect, racist world any action that results in anything less than perfect equality is itself a racist action. I reject that.
The abolitionists viewed slavery as an evil institution, and were genuinely concerned with the plight of the human beings that were trapped in that system. That was noble. They took difficult, practical action that brought the world closer to their ideal. That was noble. Saying that they (or their actions) were racist because they failed to make some quantum jump to perfect equality denies the rightness of their efforts, and robs the word "racist" of any real meaning.
51 Brad
January 8, 2008 @ 7:31 pm CETThe Prattle Of Children And The Logic Of The Mentally Numb.
I find it fascinating that some would take words out of context and bend them to their own conclusion.
All topics and subjects of discourse must be tempered by proof of action and less on what is said/written.
I would put my money on the fact that Ron Paul is less of a racist than the author or some of the vehement commentators. they want so badly to believe that they exclude data that does not fit their paradigm.
I am not so easily led and question all, as well as myself, in matters of great import. I have reviewed much this election cycle and have concluded that Ron Paul is of Noble Core Character. He is not a shifty politician that blows in the political wind. He acts on principle with the constitution as a guide. He is not a phenomenal orator yet he understands and lives his convictions.
The racist conclusion is incongruent with his actions and the bulk of his discourse. Therefore, in my opinion, I must relegate the accusation as tripe.
Think For Your Self. Views Untested Are Worthless.
52 Lynx
January 8, 2008 @ 8:10 pm CETRichard, I’ll accept the criticism, it wasn’t really meant to be a dialog elevator. I stand by the statement that declaring a black person to be 3/5ths of a white person is RACIST to the core, even if it was done with other intentions (Thanks for the info Tully). My main objection is the insistence by many folks, not just Ron Paul supporters, that the Constitution is a Perfect Document at it’s foundation. It wasn’t, which is why we added so many amendments afterwards. The Constitution was at the time of it’s writing, racist and sexist. It was racist and sexist because that’s what society was like back then. I see nothing wrong with acknowledging that times have changed and the Constitution changed with them. Holding the Constitution up as some sort of alternative Bible that is untouchable in it’s perfection is silly and goes against the Founders intentions in any event. Incidentally I also find holding up the Bible (or any other document) as the epitome of perfection, to be similarly silly.
Darren D. you misunderstand my statement. By "I don’t care" I mean that the allegations against Ron Paul don’t worry me much because I know he has the same chance of winning the presidency as Kusinich, that is, none at all. As for me hanging around RP threads, that’s due to the fact that I hang around most threads on this blog, and also due to the fact that I find Paulites very entertaining, especially the insane ones. Some of them, like Robert E. or Andrew Taylor, even teach me new things sometimes.
53 PatHMV
January 8, 2008 @ 8:29 pm CETrichard, it’s a difficult question, whether something which is necessary can nevertheless be immoral. I’m a committed pragmatist, so I’m in favor of reasonable compromises, even where the compromise may violate one or more serious principles. I tend to believe that the 3/5 compromise, and the 1808 guarantee, were necessary in order for the greater good, the passage of the Constitution, to succeed. But they were necessary evils. As they were necessary evils based on race, I think it is accurate to call those provisions racist.
That’s not to say that the abolitionists and others who voted for those compromises were racist for doing so. They undoubtedly did support the compromise as a temporary loss in a larger war (a war they ultimately did win). But I don’t think that changes the fact that the provision itself is racist.
54 Ron Paul: Racist | scoffery.com
January 8, 2008 @ 8:30 pm CET[…] The commentary about Paul has been under the radar for a time, but it looks as if The New Republic will launch a report the definitively proves the charges. I agree with the assertion that the Paul people are not bothered by the support of the Neo-Nazis for their man. In fact many of these people are in complete denial about the facts of Paul. It will come to little surprise if this story fully develops and if true, Paul should be not only ashamed, but his supporters should be too. Kool-aid drinkers that they are, do not hold your breath. Here is the New Republic Link. […]
55 mike
January 8, 2008 @ 8:48 pm CETDoes anyone know the polling numbers among black people for Ron Paul? Would be interesting…
56 Kevin Sullivan
January 8, 2008 @ 9:29 pm CETJason, Agreed, and it’s less likely that these folks will simply be absorbed into the Party. I actually think they’re probably a more diverse bunch than simply a collection of neo-Larouchites though. That being said, my guess is they’ll disappear with every day and week that follows New Hampshire. With no promise of a third party run (which is disappointing), they’ll tucker out.
57 Andrew Taylor
January 8, 2008 @ 9:32 pm CETI’ve now read James Kirchick’s piece, and it contains these interesting bits of information:
"Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute’s senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro-Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004." (As I noted in my comment above, this book that Kirchick describes as a "pro-Confederate, revisionist tract" was published by Regnery, which is owned by Eagle Publishing, which also owns "Human Events" and RedState — the latter, of course, being one of the main platforms for attacking Paul and decrying his "racism").
The gist of the article is already known to persons who have been following the Paul campaign, as excerpts of some of the most asinine and repugnant material in the newsletters has already been widely published. There’s not a whole lot of new material in Kirchick’s article, but those on the right who are jumping on the "Ron Paul is a Racist" bandwagon need to be careful — Kirchick’s arguments cite as evidence books published by a leading conservative publishing house, promoted by its Conservative Book Club, offered as a premium by "Human Events" to new subscribers, and favorably reviewed by mainstream conservative figures:
"Written to counterbalance revisionist history texts, Woods’ book has turned into a surprise best seller, soaring to #2 on the Amazon.com list after debuting on FOX’s Hannity & Colmes last Monday and ranking #14 on The New York Times bestsellers list for non-fiction paperbacks the week of December 26."
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=6087
Will those attacking Paul now aim at Sean Hannity for promoting what Kirchick describes as a "pro-Confederate, revisionist tract"? How about the fact that a writer at Michael Medved’s Townhall site also promotes the book to his readers?
http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/Columnists/Column.aspx?ContentGuid=d313d3c3-057d-4444-89c8-0ce4160bdcbb
It would seem that those conservatives who are so worried about Paul’s alleged racism would do right to shine the bright light of their analysis on some of these folks who are more prominent and therefore likely more influential as well. Unless they really don’t give a damn about racism (as I suspect), and it’s really about discrediting someone who is a Republican who has the temerity to oppose the Iraq War.
I agree with Kirchick on one point: Ron Paul won’t be president.
58 James
January 8, 2008 @ 10:30 pm CETI am going to donate more money to the Ron Paul 2008 web site now….nice try but it didn’t work.
59 Jason Steck
January 8, 2008 @ 10:32 pm CETIt seems that many of Paul’s supporters have fixated on the portions of these newsletters that can be waved away as the misguided ramblings of one staffer who was fired anyway. Could that be because no similarly convenient defense can be found for the "paranoid and rambling" stuff about conspiracies, the Trilateral Commission and other tin-foil-hat stuff that we have also seen many examples of from Paul supporters around here?
Hmmmm.
As Forbes, Perot, and many others have learned long ago, having a big campaign bank account can’t make up for fundamental weaknesses in the candidate and his platform. The more that people who were NOT already converts to the complementary worlds of conspiracy-based fringe politics and obstreperous crankiness are exposed to Ron Paul, his past, and most importantly the behavior of so many of his current supporters, the less many of them are inclined to consider him as even remotely worthy of serious consideration for President. (The fact is that we have had to ban more Ron Paul supporters for their repeated name-calling and even the making of outright threats than all other types of bans combined.) There are even some signs that he may not be able to hold on to his Congressional seat after the national attention has wound up highlighting so many of Paul’s rather bizarre views and associations.
And that is at least something good coming about as a result of his campaign.
60 PatHMV
January 8, 2008 @ 10:49 pm CETJason, it’s been fascinating to wander the blogosphere and read the rapid-fire Paulista response to this stuff. Half claim that this a BS issue, already resolved, he didn’t write it, etc. The OTHER half claim that truth is a defense, and the articles just say what most white folks think anyway. Almost all of them have clearly already raised Paul up to deity levels in their own minds, such that they cannot even contemplate that he may have flaws, and serious ones.
61 Jason Steck
January 8, 2008 @ 10:59 pm CETIt is really fascinating to look at this in historical context. Think about how extremists see THEMSELVES. Evil rarely comes about because some group decides that they are going to be evil. They usually act only because they believe they are SAVING the nation from corruption and decadence.
In short, the rhetoric of returning to a purer time and countering the influence of shadowy conspiracies that dominates the Ron Paul "movement" has been seen before many times. The names of the groups that have used that rhetoric, however, are the names of groups that hold the titles of the worst and most violent and repressive movements in world history.
And they ALL claimed to be acting in the name of "liberty".
So it is ultimately unsurprising to see these passages from Ron Paul’s past. I already figured it was out there after I saw all the red flags in the comment threads over the past several months from Ron Paul supporters. Seventy years ago, the rhetoric would have been EXACTLY the same, just the name (repeated as often as humanly possible) at core of their blind adulation would have been different. This becomes apparent when we notice how frequently Ron Paul’s use demonization, name-calling, allegations of treason, suggestions that the FCC be used, or other veiled and not-so-veiled threats in response to their many political disagreements with others. These are again essentially the same rhetorical tools we have seen before in the early days of what later turned out to be the most repressive movements in the history of the world.
This is not, I would emphasize, just another version of Godwin’s Law. As a political scientist and a moderate conservative, I am more than usually aware of how this kind of comparison has been overused and cheapened by its irresponsible use. But I think this is one of the rare, once-in-a-generation situations where the comparison I am making is actually legitimate.
62 ChrisWWW
January 8, 2008 @ 11:17 pm CETHeh heh… Jason’s opened the floodgates now…
I personally don’t believe he really wrote that stuff, but if he did, it doesn’t really matter as long as it’s more than clear that he’s changed his mind.
Robert Byrd was someone who was in the KKK but then saw the light. I’m not going to hold what he did years ago against him if with his actions he’s actually shown that he’s changed.
63 Jason Steck
January 8, 2008 @ 11:22 pm CETUnlike many (especially among Democrats), I actually agree with you, Chris, that people have a right to change their minds and overcome a racist past.
What I don’t see is the actual evidence that Ron Paul has done so. Overcoming one’s past requires admitting to it, first. Ron Paul’s campaign is furiously spinning out denials and evasions. Second, many of Ron Paul’s current supporters continue to display the exact same racist rhetoric and bizarre conspiracy theories, without any objection from him or his campaign. Third, Ron Paul himself continues to appear with and accept money from racist and conspiracy-oriented groups, most notably David Duke’s Stormfront and Alex Jones’ 9/11 twoofer radio show.
So no sale, I’m sorry.
64 rick cain
January 9, 2008 @ 12:12 am CETWhy do these libelous articles always ask the reader. Ron paul: racist? ….okay why are you asking ME, I thought you had the info. There’s only one Fox news, we don’t need two.
What’s next, the "secret documents revealed" that Obama is a muslim?
65 Jason Steck
January 9, 2008 @ 12:18 am CETUnfortunately, due to a deluge of name-calling, abuse, and even several outright threats from Ron Paul supporters, this comment thread has had to be closed.