I can’t endorse Ron Paul
By Thoreau
At this point, I just cannot see how I can endorse Ron Paul any further. For those who don’t know, in the 1980’s and 1990’s, Ron Paul published a political newsletter, or at least a political newsletter was published under this name with his consent. It is now coming out that some pretty vile racist material was published in that newsletter in that time.
We had heard about these things before. It was supposed to be one or two anomalous articles that slipped through due to staff acting without the boss’s knowledge. Hey, it happens. Now it appears that there was more of it than we were led to believe, a pattern over a decade or more. Ron Paul says that these statements do not reflect his views, and I believe him. I don’t just say this on the grounds that most of these things inconsistent with what he’s been saying since I’ve paid attention to him. Politicians are renowned for changing statements, lying, hiding their true opinions, etc. However, he seems to lack a lot of the polish and deception skills for which politicians are renowned. That isn’t meant as a compliment, because he also exhibits the common libertarian trait of not knowing when to keep his views to himself. (e.g. If you think a highway from one border to another is part of a dark conspiracy, it might be a good idea to keep that to yourself in a televised debate.) If he was really a bigot I think he’d let a few things slip. He lets everything else slip, why wouldn’t he let bigotry slip, at least a bit?
But so what if they weren’t his views? He let people publish these things under his name, and he didn’t keep tabs on what was going on. Saying that he was repeatedly misled by staffers whom he failed to supervise is not acceptable from somebody who claims that if elected he’ll keep the executive branch on a tight leash.
Now, some might say that since his campaign is really about his message, since there’s no conceivable victory scenario, we should focus on the message and ignore the managerial skills. Fair point, except that he allowed himself to be used as a spokesman in that newsletter. If you want to be a spokesman for a message, you don’t get to turn around and say “Hey, remember the last time I was a spokesman? Yeah, well, not such a good idea. That wasn’t me. But this time I’m serious! Pay attention to me!”
It might not be entirely fair to him, but I’m a libertarian: I don’t care about fairness. If I did, I’d be a liberal! 
If he wants to claim that he’s seeking to run (and restrain) a massive bureaucracy then he should be able to restrain some guys publishing under his name. OTOH, if he wants to claim that he’s a spokesman spreading a message, then we can’t discount his newsletters.
I have no clue whom to vote for now. Kucinich would be my next pick, but I already registered for the GOP primary. I need to see if there’s time to change.
Comment by Noumenon —
January 8, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
To me this seems like saying you won’t vote for him because he has a messy bathroom, and “how can he clean up the government if he can’t even clean up his bathroom?” It’s like not voting for Jesus because he didn’t keep Simon Peter from cutting off somebody’s ear.
Comment by Avram —
January 8, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
Noumenon, Paul’s been involved in politics since the early ’70s. He won his first Congressional seat in 1976, ran for the Senate in ‘84, and ran for the presidency in ‘88 before reentering Congress in ‘96. One of the things politicians learn is that what they say can get turned against them.
If Paul allowed politically-charged statements that he disagrees with to be published under his name, that shows tremendously poor political judgment. If he doesn’t disagree with those things, well….
Comment by Thoreau —
January 8, 2008 @ 10:07 pm
I wanted to send a message by voting for an anti-war Republican. Now I learned some new things about the messenger I’d be endorsing. This isn’t just a private matter, this is a newsletter, i.e. a place where he acted as a messenger. That has to factor in.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
January 8, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
I’m sorry to hear this. I’m a lefty anyway, but I’d love for Republicans to have an anti-imperialist pro-Constitution conservative to support. We need people like that (anti-Imperialist, pro-civil rights) in both parties.
Comment by Jonathan Goff —
January 8, 2008 @ 11:22 pm
One thing I’m confused about (which may be due to just briefly skimming the sources that TNR provided) is that the actual disgusting racist stuff was entirely contained in two or three newsletters all during the 1990-1994 timeframe. All the stuff I saw that was older than 1990 was mostly conspiracy theory stuff, things questioning our support of Israel, etc. Ie things that are not on the same level as the racist garbage. Did I miss something in my skimming, or is the claim that his newsletters were spewing racist stuff over the course of three decades actually not supported by the evidence provided?
Now, even a couple of racist articles still is a pretty serious issue, and one that I would like more clarification on. I think he owes it to his supporters to be open and honest on this one. I trust him, but I’d like to know more about the circumstance of what happened. Even if the actual racist offensive stuff was mostly concentrated in a brief timeframe, there’s still a wide range of explanations for what happened ranging from insufficient oversight all the way to much more serious issues.
I still plan on voting for him in the primaries, but I am disappointed. If there were actually another candidate anywhere near as close to my views on most issues (other than immigration) as Ron Paul, I might think of voting for them instead. But as it is, even with this fairly significant example of past bad judgement, depressingly enough, he’s still a better choice than any of the other candidates.
~Jon
Comment by Mark —
January 8, 2008 @ 11:33 pm
Thoreau- I’m up a four-letter creek, too. I kept my registration Republican figuring I’d be able to make a strong Paul protest vote. Now it’s too late for me to switch my registration to stop Hillary on the Dems side.
Actually, I kind of like Obama, who I think would do a lot of good in the same way Reagan did a lot of good- by getting people to feel optimistic again (and in the process feel less of a need to rely on government to solve their problems).
But I digress. I have no choice- I have to vote for a Republican. But which one? At least McCain is honest enough to acknowledge waterboarding is torture, that Guanatanamo Bay is a stain on the US, as is the absence of due process there. I also like the idea of a President who will veto pretty much every spending bill that comes across his desk until it lacks earmarks. But who else is even an option? Populist Huckabee? No. Old school Fred? Maybe, if I really had to. And Romney and Giuliani are still more unpalatable than Paul.
Comment by Leonard —
January 8, 2008 @ 11:45 pm
Fair weather libertarian.
You’re suggesting that a man who pays little attention to a newsletter will therefore pay little attention to being President of the United States of America. I don’t think that follows. Some might claim that being President is more important than overseeing a newsletter.
Comment by Anonymo —
January 8, 2008 @ 11:47 pm
Fair weather libertarian.
Interesting epithet for a defender of Ron Paul to use.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 9, 2008 @ 12:04 am
I’m suggesting that a man with ambitions ought to pay attention to a publication with his name on it.
And that a man who wants to be a spokesman for ideas ought to pay attention to the ideas he’s attaching himself to.
I’m not a fair weather libertarian. Maybe I’m a fair weather Ron Paul fan. But there is a difference.
Comment by Happy Jack —
January 9, 2008 @ 12:07 am
I would have thought that the answer to the kind of company Paul keeps was provided by that “big, shiny, red fire truck with lights and siren” clue called DonderooO!!
Comment by Rafe —
January 9, 2008 @ 12:10 am
I think the idea that he had no idea what was printed in his newsletter is absurd. Nobody ever brought it up? Ron Paul is a politician with professional staffers. That stuff was printed under Paul’s name. If any staffers thought he didn’t agree with it, you don’t think they would have let him know he may want to check it out? Who are the mystery staffers who were supposed to be putting out this dreck without Paul’s permission?
Accepting that Paul was ignorant of these articles is truly a faith-based approach.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 9, 2008 @ 12:17 am
I would have thought that the answer to the kind of company Paul keeps was provided by that “big, shiny, red fire truck with lights and siren†clue called DonderooO!!
Bad apple. Isolated incident. Frat pranks. All they’re doing is pouring water on bad guys. It’s the rotten 1% that gives the rest a bad name.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Comment by Leonard —
January 9, 2008 @ 1:39 am
Thoreau, if you are honestly thinking of voting for a candidate other than Paul, then you’re compromising the libertarian principles you may think you have, at least by my lights. Thus my comment. Let me explain why.
To vote for someone is to endorse what you think they will do. (If you care to argue that point, by all means, let’s lay it out.) Libertarians abjure initiating coercion, which is what the state does. Thus, some never vote on principle. IMO, given that so much coercion is already ongoing as state policy, voting as a means to appeal to the state to abolish its coercive practices is morally permissible (it’s a defensive move). (This is akin to begging a terrorist to let the kids out before he blows up a building full of people.) However, voting is still only permissible if you authentically believe that the person voted for would, on net, reduce the total amount of coercion that the state is engaging in. How about voting for (thus, endorsing the actions of) the lesser of two evils? No. You should not affirm evil except possibly if under duress. Nobody is forcing you to vote. Therefore if you can find nobody who you believe would increase liberty, you should vote for no one. Voting for ‘none of the above’ is always possible, so far as I know, and it is then the best remaining choice. However, not going to the polls at all is also morally acceptable.
How about voting for someone who you do not think would make much difference, or a person who you cannot predict? In libertarian thought, imposing significant risks on others without their consent is also not kosher. Thus, I would argue that you should not vote for a politician who were not pretty sure would do something significant for liberty. If you are not sure what a politician really stands for (specifically what he will do in the future), or if you think he’d only slightly advance liberty, then there’s a good chance that he would not advance liberty — that he would, instead, advance the state’s power. That’s a risk, and you should not impose significant risks on others without real benefits. So you should only vote when the benefit is clear and you’re fairly sure of it.
So what of Ron Paul? Clearly he would be a great benefit to liberty as President. Do you doubt it? I don’t think you do.
By comparison, if you vote for Kucinich, for example, you are positively endorsing what you think he would do. Well, what do you think that is? Go read his site.
http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/
He proposes to expand the state. Yes, he wants peace — good on him. Hopefully he would shrink the military; at the least he would stop killing people, and that is important. But he will also try to implement “a plan for a Universal, Single-Payer, Not-for-Profit health care system.” He wants to “produce millions of middle class jobs with a new public works program combining the infrastructure and energy needs of our country. A Works Green Administration (WGA) will come from joining a Works Program Administration with the Environmental Protection Agency.” And yes, if that’s not enough, he “will make it a national priority to fight poverty worldwide.” How do you think he will pay for these things? Do you think that with this man as President the Democratic Congress would shrink, or expand, the state?
Do you think this man is a friend of liberty? No, he is most definitely not. Even though he will not say anything in his entire life that is as hateful as a single Ron Paul newsletter.
So what of racism? Yes, I know, I know, racism is not politically correct. (Not to mention the other politically incorrect things Paul stands accused of: pro-Confederacyism, anti-Lincolnism, homophobia, anti-Israelism, and last but not least, anti-government paranoia. Shocking!) But what of it? Racism is ideologically independent of libertarianism. It is possible to hate blacks and want to expand the state. It is also possible to hate blacks and want to shrink the state.
Now, perhaps for you identity politics, of considering yourself a good anti-racist trumps libertarianism. If that is the case, then you are, in fact, a fair weather libertarian. No big shame in that — plenty of libertarian-leaning people have other commitments much higher than liberty. Thus for example, I’ll admit as allies (on at least some issues) people often decried here as schmibs. Glenn Reynolds, for example, has libertarian instincts on many issues but clearly rates some other values higher than liberty, not to mention a shallow understanding of the interconnectedness of liberty.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 9, 2008 @ 2:01 am
Leonard,
You make a fair point, in contrasting my support for Kucinich with my renunciation of Ron Paul. A lot of it has to do with the fact that I have a higher standard for libertarian (small l, big L, self-described, whatever) candidates. Perhaps this is not fair. It’s a matter to ponder.
I feel that in supporting a candidate associated with libertarianism I’m making a different type of statement and sending a different type of message than if I support somebody else.
You could argue that the only statement that matters is my endorsement (via a vote) of what that candidate will do in office. However, when supporting a candidate with no chance to win I think the message is a bit more complicated than that.
Still, however complicated that may be, you could argue that my standards for Paul are different from my standards for Kucinich. I have to think more about that, and whether it’s justifiable or not.
Comment by MFB —
January 9, 2008 @ 2:02 am
Thank you, Leonard, for your articulate explanation of just what a loathesome and inhuman doctrine libertarianism is, which accepts hate gleefully but rejects love and comradeship. Please post every time anyone mentions this doctrine.
Comment by CosmoReaxer —
January 9, 2008 @ 2:27 am
Funny then that “pasages” was listed as his key weakness here
Comment by Akhbar Goldberg —
January 9, 2008 @ 2:34 am
Couldn’t have said it any better Leonard. Kucinich has a decent stand on foreign policy but I find most of his other positions rather noxious. I’ve been doing some reading up on him of late and he comes across as quite the opportunist.
Comment by Akhbar Goldberg —
January 9, 2008 @ 2:54 am
MFB: I’m not trying to stir anything up because I think online jousting is pointless but I’m genuinly perplexed by your post. Maybe you’re being facetious and it is late, I’ve had a few beers and I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer but how in god’s name did you come up with that. One of the many things that attracted me to libertarianism is the humaneness inherent in the philosophy. Ok, maybe not in the variety espoused by Hermann Hoppe Hesse but you get the idea. If you were really being facetious and Imissed it, I apologize.
Comment by abb1 —
January 9, 2008 @ 6:08 am
I agree with #5 above.
First you have to separate the actual racism/homophobia stuff from all the exaggerated rhetoric apropos of trilateral-commission, gold-standard, civil-war, big-business, Israel, welfare, race-based-preferences stuff.
Then you have to find out whether the actual racism/homophobia stuff is spread all over the place or can only be found in one or two publications.
And if it’s the latter, then you might find that your original “…one or two anomalous articles that slipped through due to staff acting without the boss’s knowledge” explanation is still valid.
Comment by Glaivester —
January 9, 2008 @ 8:43 am
Thank you, Leonard, for your articulate explanation of just what a loathesome and inhuman doctrine libertarianism is, which accepts hate gleefully but rejects love and comradeship.
It does not reject love and compassion, unless stealing other people’s money to accomplish charity is compassion.
Thoreau, if you don’t support Paul, support no one. Supporting Kucinich is supporting socialism, and would show that you are really no libertarian, as equality would be more of an important issue to you than non-coercion.
Comment by Nancy Lebovitz —
January 9, 2008 @ 8:56 am
I believe Ron Paul almost certainly knew what was in his newsletter. Wouldn’t some of his supporters come up to him and either criticized or supported the racist articles?
Comment by Noumenon —
January 9, 2008 @ 9:21 am
If I had a choice among ten awesome, anti-war, Constitution-loving libertarian candidates, I’d easily strike Paul off for being poor at message control. If I had a choice among two I’d strike him off for being associated with racists. But when there are about thirty different factors (taxes, war, abortion, immigration, character, logrolling ability, etc) I’m not going to strike down a candidate who’s 24/30 and go with a 15/30 just because of something like bad image management.
I think what you don’t like about Paul being associated with racists is that it makes you look bad for supporting him. It doesn’t make him significantly less electable because he was a long shot anyway. It wouldn’t have a big effect on his Presidency because even an open racist would be constrained by public opinion so that he couldn’t do much more than Bush has managed, appointing some racist judges as recess appointments and quietly tearing down some welfare programs.
Comment by The other Jim —
January 9, 2008 @ 9:45 am
The question of racism has a libertarian angle, at least to me. That angle is: will a candidate’s racism trump his libertarianism when it comes to the hated group? Would a racist politician who was otherwise libertarian take actions that infringe on the liberties of the hated race?
If such actions can be justified for the hated race, who is next? Et cetera.
It’s plausible enough to me, and would give me pause on completely libertarian grounds.
What matters, like Leonard said, is one’s hierarchy of values. For the racist, which comes first, liberty or racism?
That said, it becomes important to check the facts and determine if the candidate really is a racist, and make a judgment as to what that implies for policy.
In Paul’s case, he has at least publicly denounced the remarks, and spoken openly in praise of people like Rosa Parks and MLK.
Comment by VikingMoose —
January 9, 2008 @ 9:57 am
Doktor T:
well spake. And you draw a distinction between the idealist view and the practical view.
As someone who hasn’t felt that RP was a libertarian (I share Kip Esquire’s view) nor THE DEFENDER OF THE CONSTITUTION (perhaps he is, but only in a relative sense), I am nonetheless disappointed in how his campaign handled things.
What is “old news” in our tiny space of the intertubes is brand new for the masses who until recently had never heard of RP.
This is a campaign for PotUS. It is a chance to get his radical anti-federalist message out there. However, it is about personality, too. His and his campaign’s reactions (and supporters’, too) were not directed outwards. They were not directed at the exact group that can deliver victory, receive the message, or, at least, understand how the debate was changed.
Instead, it was inwards-focused, blinded by its internal zeal.
RP represents all things to all people in our little circle. He does not threaten those with socially (christian) conservative values; he has support of protectionists; but free marketeers flock to him too. Then there’s the goldbugs and other, assorted groups who feel that somehow he is a Genius of Economics (!!).
Some over at H&R indicate that his is the campaign of the most educated – the group self-identifies as “better-unique”.
Then he’s anti war, and has a constrained FP view – “get our boys home!” – this point is what several GOP active people I know have focused on with RP.
One aspect I’ve not grasped is his stance on the WoD. Is he for transferring it to the states, as he is with seemingly everything else?
Instead of facing this affair in the context of a national campaign with implications for the future of the debate, RP, his supporters, his campaign, etc. have focused this inwards into groupthink and self-affirmation.
To grow, one needs to be able to undergo the painful process of self criticism, self reflection, and challenging one’s worldview. This is the time.
Comment by Jim Henley —
January 9, 2008 @ 10:11 am
Which is actually a valid and even necessary reaction, as Tom Knapp argues.
Comment by Leonard —
January 9, 2008 @ 10:49 am
Yes, I could. Apparently they are, if you are even considering voting for the latter. Certainly the standards, whatever they are, do not appear to be focused on “what he would actually do if by some miracle elected”.
I get the feeling that you expect any candidate you endorse as a libertarian to be perfect. Far more perfect that most human beings are. Ron Paul is a 72 year old white man in the USA: he came of age in the segregationist 50s. You think he’s never had a racist thought?
Perhaps it would help if you thought of Paul as a Republican. Then you could endorse him based on the lower standard that you apply to them and Democrats.
You made a good distinction: between voting for someone and endorsing em. Presumably endorsement is a stronger action: it comprises planning to vote for, but also adds on “talks up”, or “tells others about”, the intent to vote for. So it is possible, in theory at least, to vote for a candidate you will not endorse. For example, you may believe that Ron Paul is the best candidate out there (and more importantly, that he surmounts the high bar of “would shrink the state”), and thus secretly plan to vote for him, while believing that “endorsing” him publicly in some sense also endorses racism and/or auteurial negligence, which are not acceptable to you.
Here’s what I don’t get about this, though. An endorsement can be as complicated as you like. It’s a written piece. You can endorse guardedly, limitedly, grudgingly, in 5000 words if you want to. So, why not endorse Ron Paul for what he says he stands for, given that you believe he stands for it, while making it clear that to the extent he stands for racism and/or auteurial negligence, he is an unacceptable and should be shunned by polite society? You might make it clear that a politician is not supposed to be your best friend or marriage partner; he’s supposed to do a job for you. As such, and given the extremely limited set of choices, you have to compromise. Etc. etc.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
January 9, 2008 @ 11:22 am
Thoreau, that’s a fucking ridiculous equivalence to make.
Comment by First Little Pig —
January 9, 2008 @ 11:24 am
Libertarianism has always suffered from its association with unsavory fellow travelers such as “State’s Rights” types whose links to segregation and racism are long-standing. That some portion of this clings to Ron Paul is of no surprise. I too was disappointed with the whole newsletter affair, though hardly surprised by it.
Does it make me want to put my “I Support Ron Paul” button in a desk drawer for fear that others will think me a racist? Actually, yes. I have an arch-Republican neighbor who on learning that I am a libertarian now gleefully colors his language with racist epithets (”sand-n*gger” being a favorite) and stated to my face that he feels free to do so bcse of my “libertarianism”.
I will continue to support Paul’s message, but will only excuse the man because he is really from another time. Do I think he is a racist? No. No more than 19th century types were when the majority took as matter of fact that blacks and women were inferior. I could say the same about most of our Founding Fathers whose casual racism is today explained away similarly. It does not mean their basic message was wrong.
Comment by Mark —
January 9, 2008 @ 11:34 am
The argument against supporting Paul is quite simple, really- and applies even if he was a consistent representative of libertarianism to begin with (which he was and is not, IMHO).
1. Paul has no chance of winning the GOP nomination or becoming President even if every potential supporter of his backed him. This is even more true today than it was before the story broke.
2. As such, supporting Paul can only serve on of two purposes: as a protest vote, or as a way of advancing the philosophy most associated with him (ie, libertarianism).
3. He is only a valid protest vote if he is most associated with things that you wish to protest (ie, the GWOT); if he is primarily associated with other things, then your protest vote will have zero effect since it will be viewed as an endorsement of those other things rather than his position on the GWOT.
4. He is only worth supporting as a means of growing libertarianism if supporting him will actually help the libertarian cause. Such a vote essentially tells the world that this man is a good representative of libertarianism. Since these newsletters are now a major part of how the public views Ron Paul, a vote for Paul on these grounds amounts to a libertarian endorsement (or at least acceptance) of the material in the newsletters. That is not a good way to advance libertarianism, unless of course you agree with the content of the letters.
Comment by Jim Henley —
January 9, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
And it’s Mark for the win.
Another way of looking at it. In the 1990s, Jesse Walker wrote a lot of stuff that could be construed as sympathetic to the so-called militia movement. At a minimum, Jesse advocated “leaving them alone,” as in, not killing them all in SWAT raids. Jesse did not write a lot of stuff assigning collective responsibility to “black people” for crime, blur the distinctions between actual rioters and racial protesters, brag about voting against a Martin Luther King holiday and otherwise write with flipping evident animus against African-Americans as a group.
Meanwhile, there’s a newsletter author-persona we’ll call “Ron Paul” – a construct of a ghost writer working for a man named Ron Paul. This writer also writes sympathetically – indeed, far more fulsomely – about the militia movemnet. Instead of writing “These people aren’t so bad and the ‘threat’ they pose is overblown,” the newsletter author writes, militias are awesome. This author also declares that the 1990s will be the decade of race war, urges his readers to buy guns and move out of the city, and does, in his writing, all the things I point out that Jesse Walker didn’t do in the paragraph above.
In these two scenarios, the totality of “Ron Paul’s” writing can reasonably be seen as flirting with fascism in a way that Jesse Walker’s writing cannot. “Ron Paul” propounds a specifically racial threat while endorsing a paramilitary political response. Jesse Walker simply says that a militarized law enforcement bureaucracy is a bigger threat to the well-being of the country than some scattered, largely indolent, jumped-up gun clubs.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
January 9, 2008 @ 12:08 pm
Mind you, the people most rushing to associate him with anything but the GWOT are…us.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 9, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
It was mostly facetious, because it was in regard to DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOO, but since this thread has been serious I was remiss in not making the facetiousness more clear. Smileys, DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO mentions, etc. should have been necessary.
Sorry.
Comment by abb1 —
January 9, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
…a vote for Paul on these grounds amounts to a libertarian endorsement (or at least acceptance) of the material in the newsletters.
No, not if he publicly repudiates the views expressed in the newsletters and this repudiation also becomes a part of the public view of him.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 9, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
abb1-
He needs to explain why stuff that he denounces came out under his name, and explain how he dealt with it when he learned of it. If he doesn’t do that, then his denunciations in the present seem more like denunciations of convenience than sincerity.
One could argue that I shouldn’t try to read his mind, but if he wants to be a spokesman for ideas then he needs to sound credible on his ideas.
Comment by Mark —
January 9, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
Jim wrote:
“And it’s Mark for the win.”
Thanks! I’ve always wanted to win a thread!
abb1:
You are correct that libertarians would not be endorsing or accepting the views in the newsletters if Paul repudiates them explicitly and that repudiation becomes part of the public view of him.
There’s a chance (though depressingly unlikely) that Paul will thoroughly and explicitly repudiate the views in the newsletters. But I have a difficult time seeing how he will be able to repudiate the newsletters in such a way that his repudiation is accepted by the public at large.
Comment by Rocky Frisco —
January 9, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
Be proud of your scruples in not supporting Ron Paul when they drag you away to the camps and shoot your kids and neighbors. You can be sure you were right. Hope that makes you feel good.
Comment by Jim Henley —
January 9, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
Rocky: K.
Comment by Leonard —
January 9, 2008 @ 2:00 pm
He has already repudiated them: “The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.” Of course, you can always demand more thoroughness and explicitness than that. What will it take?
Comment by Hypatia —
January 9, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
some moron upthread wrote: which comes first, liberty or racism?
would this be the same liberty and racism we had prior to 1865? jeez
Comment by Leonard —
January 9, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
Actually I’d suggest that few people know who Ron Paul is, beyond the most basic facts. And most of those who do know anything about Paul should be satisfied with a blanket repudiation of the newsletters — which is what he did. Your view of Paul is by no means typical.
Further, I’d suggest that if you want to know what a Ron Paul supporter thinks about the material in the newsletters, you ask. You can read around the libertarian blogosphere easily enough: is there any libertarian who is defending it? (I doubt even Lew Rockwell is.) Since Paul has repudiated the material, it is entirely unfair to assert without any proof that his voters are voting for it or even accepting it. Occam’s razor suggests that Paul voters are voting for the positions he most differs from the other Republicans on: against the war, against the surveillance state, for smaller government.
As for how Paul votes will be viewed by the establishment, well, do you really think the political establishment looks at the returns and says, OMG! 10% of Iowans are racist Confederate anti-government militia lovers! Or do they say to themselves, OMG! 10% of Iowans are voting for a crazy goldbug only because he has repudiated the War! I think it’s the latter. And that will be true regardless of how racist it turns out Paul is, because the establishment does not fear racism. They know that racists are easily marginalized and silenced, via just this sort of exercise. They do fear peaceful coexistence, and Constitutionalism, both being ideas that threaten their power.
Comment by Akhbar Goldberg —
January 9, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
I’m not one to play the “more libertarian than thou card,” and feel ideological purity is best suited for the Randian set but I think if you pull the lever for Kucinich with enthusiasm you’ve officially bid adieu to the libertarian movement. That being said I’d probably hold my nose and vote for the little guy with the hot wife who’s not nearly the straight shooter he tries to come across as opposed to Rudy. Hey, if you honestly like the guy, that’s cool, do what your heart tells you. You like to laugh at racist jokes, that’s cool too. The one thing I’m not cool with is the ever increasing surveilance/warfare state we have on our hands.
Comment by Avram —
January 9, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
Here’s the full text of Ron Paul’s statement on the matter under discussion.
I notice that he closes by saying “For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.” I’m not sure what this means; I think it’s “I’ve been taking shit for those columns for over a decade now,” and not “I now, and always have, accept full responsibility for those columns.”
Comment by notme —
January 9, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
I supported him in 1988 but stopped. The fact is that the bigots who wrote that material are still actively involved with Paul. He works with them all the time and they are his closest friends and allies. One of them runs a web site that is a top Paul cheerleading forum (and which has published material by known racists and antiSemites as well). This was not merely some underling who did this without Paul’s knowledge. It was done for years with his full knowledge and to this day is very closely connected with the author. Just ask Lew.
Comment by Happy Jack —
January 9, 2008 @ 5:28 pm
It’s the rotten 1% that gives the rest a bad name.
I’ll admit, my statement was semi-glib, but in the realm of politics, perception is reality. I seem to remember an All-American athlete who will forevermore be known as a klutz because of a stumble.
I could have used another former staffer, North, to make the same point. It’s the 1% that usually defines the narrative. For all his anti-war talk, or whatever, Kucinich will be known as the UFO guy. He could explain that he didn’t say he met aliens, and that U stands for unidentified and not a spaceship, but most people don’t listen to lengthy explanations so he will always be known as a kook.
Tying a political philosophy to the personality of a politician will always be fraught with hazards. I don’t think a Burkean would be too happy having Bush as a standard bearer, but Bush is the face of conservatism, like it or not.
Paul might be an amusing finger in the eye of the establishment, but personally, I think issue advocacy ala Balko moves the ball forward better than politics ever will.
Comment by Watts —
January 9, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
Okay, I know I’m not a libertarian, but rather a liberal who finds libertarian ideas interesting. (Some might shorten that political view to “muddled,” I realize.) I’ve been both intrigued by Paul and concerned with some aspects of Paul-ism; in a post on my own journal I didn’t manage to finish before this all came out, I was making the prediction that if Paul did better than expected in early primaries, he’d start getting some serious ugly thrown at him from the way he’s dallied with white nationalists and other unsavory types. It happened a week or two earlier than I expected, but let’s face it, I didn’t exactly have to be Nostradamus here.
These new, or at least in-depth explorations of old, revelations closely follow discussion about the way, during this current campaign, Paul has kept money from Stormfront leaders and kept quiet on fairly widely-reported (at least in the blogosphere) endorsements from fine fellows like David Duke. In those cases, the responses from Paul and/or supporters were “well, if Paul keeps the money, he’s putting it to better use!” and “c’mon, just because A endorses B doesn’t mean B endorses A!” — both logical responses that nonetheless came across, at least to me, as politically naive.
But taken together we have, well, a pattern. Paul’s newsletter was, bluntly, explicitly courting racist wackos, and darned if those racist wackos didn’t show up during his presidential campaign to offer money and wave banners. Call me cynical, but one has to at least ask if the reason we never saw a strong a repudiation of this has less to do with libertarian ideals and more to do with a desire to avoid alienating a known support base. Paul may indeed not support them, but he’s apparently been willing to use them, and that opens up a lot of other uncomfortable questions. As I said, serious ugly.
The biggest underreported story of this election cycle is, I’d argue, the huge internet-based support for Paul. I never figured he had a real chance at the Republican nomination, let alone a general election win, but I figured there was a non-zero chance that he could lose the way Barry Goldwater did — his campaign would be survived by a radicalized, motivated base that would bring serious political change in future political cycles. The question is: what happens to them now? Do they fall apart? Do they continue on, fighting for the politics they believe Paul represents? Do they continue on but become something else? (My only-slightly facetious prediction is that they become an independent political movement that mirrors the trajectory of the Reform Party.)
Comment by Jim Henley —
January 10, 2008 @ 12:42 am
I, Jim Henley, swear I had not read Watts’s comment when I wrote tonight’s entry.
Comment by Thoreau —
January 10, 2008 @ 1:16 am
Or you could just admit that tonight’s entry was plagiarized, but insist that Lew Rockwell did the plagiarism.