WaPo: Ron Paul approved racist newsletters
Ron Paul, well known as a physician, congressman and libertarian , has also been a businessman who pursued a marketing strategy that included publishing provocative, racially charged newsletters to make money and spread his ideas, according to three people with direct knowledge of Paul’s businesses.
The Republican presidential candidate has denied writing inflammatory passages in the pamphlets from the 1990s and said recently that he did not read them at the time or for years afterward. Numerous colleagues said he does not hold racist views.
But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.
“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.
If this is true, then Ron Paul is a liar. If this is true, the best thing that can be said about him is that he’s a terrible cynic, because he profited off of the propagation of rancid views that he didn’t personally share.
Andrew Sullivan’s reaction includes this:
I cannot and will not defend the newsletters. And Paul’s apparent lies about his involvement make the matter worse. And I don’t think Paul is the “best vehicle” for advancing the ideas TNC cites. He’s a very flawed vehicle, like most politicians and human beings. And I corrected immediately the record on the MLK holiday.
But when Paul has said what he has said in these debates, when he has walked into the lion’s den of a GOP primary and attacked the criminal justice system for racial bias, lacerated the war on drugs, and cut to the core of the delusions behind American global aggression, he deserves to be judged on his recent history as well as his increasingly distant past. His message that more liberty makes diversity more possible is a vital one.
I would ask readers to think before rushing to comment about how this or that group is trying to destroy Ron Paul by publicizing this. Attacking the messenger, or argumentum ad hominem, constitutes evading the truth, not dealing honestly with it, and its implications.
UPDATE: Well, that was pointless, at least for some readers, to judge by the comments section. The Paultard instinct, it would seem, is to denounce any criticism of Paul as either a) generated from disreputable motives, or b) minor, given the context. You will note that I did not express a view about the Paul newsletters, other than to describe their content as “rancid.” Simply to have brought them up here is, for many readers, a sign that I am a Dalek (= mortal enemy of the Doctor). This is what living in a political bubble will do to you: make it impossible to imagine that any reasonable person could have views contrary to your own.
Personally, my view on the Paul stuff corresponds somewhat with Andrew Sullivan’s, though I have always been less enthusiastic than he (and some of my TAC colleagues) about Paul’s candidacy. I disagree with Paul philosophically on several points; I am not a libertarian, but he is. But I continue to be pleased by his candidacy because he serves as a much-needed dissenting voice among Republicans on foreign and defense policy. Any enthusiasm I have for Paul is for him as a protest candidate who is giving voice to a more rational foreign policy on the Right, and who is therefore building a constituency for a more realist foreign policy among American conservatives. I have no enthusiasm for him as a potential president of the United States. I think he would be a disastrous chief executive.
The point is, I don’t automatically dismiss a candidate because he has taken an immoral, or at least profoundly mistaken, position in the past. I know from personal experience that good and capable men and women can have moral blind spots, and that they deserve to be judged in a broader context. If the moral blind spot indicates something pervasive about their character — as I think Gingrich’s various episodes of grandiose self-absorption most definitely do — then that may determine our judgment. It could also be that the circumstances of the times compel a prudent voter to support a particular candidate in spite of their moral flaws, because that candidate holds the positions or has the skills that the polity needs. If we dismiss politicians, essayists, and other public voices because of their heretical views on particular issues, we may deprive ourselves of much-needed wisdom, and allies in causes that are, or may be, important to us. As contemptible as the late Christopher Hitchens’s views on Mother Teresa (for example) were, I kept reading him because he was intelligent and at times insightful. In public life, we rarely have the opportunity to caucus with saints. Not even in the Church!
I am most sympathetic to arguments from Paul supporters who say that whatever Ron Paul’s sins with these newsletters, they are mere peccadilloes compared to the great and unrepented-of sins of his opponents in supporting overseas wars. This makes sense to me: defending Paul’s disreputable actions within a particular context.
What I am unsympathetic to are those who say that Paul’s involvement in this affair, and his shifty defense of it, isn’t a problem in the first place. This represents a failure of moral imagination. Ta-Nehisi Coates has taken a highly critical view of Ron Paul in light of the newsletter mess. He writes, sarcastically:
All parties agree that Ron Paul is not, personally, racist and that he didn’t write the passages. This is comforting. I am not an anti-Semite. But give me a check to tell Harlem the Jews invented AIDS, and I’ll do it.
As I’ve said before, we all must make our calculus in supporting a candidate or even claiming he is “good” for the debate. But it must be an honest calculus.
If you believe that a character who would conspire to profit off of white supremacy, anti-gay bigotry, and anti-Semitism is the best vehicle for convincing the country to end the drug war, to end our romance with interventionism, to encourage serious scrutiny of state violence, at every level, then you should be honest enough to defend that proposition.
What you should not do is claim that Ron Paul “legislated” for Martin Luther King Day, or claim to have intricate knowledge of Ron Paul’s heart, and thus by the harsh accumulation of evidence, be made to look ridiculous.
If you read the original WaPo story, you’ll see that Ed Crane, head of the CATO Institute, and hardly a wild-eyed bomb thrower, recalled a meeting with Paul that, if true, shows a grave flaw in Paul’s character:
Ed Crane, the longtime president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said he met Paul for lunch during this period and the two discussed direct-mail solicitations, which Paul was sending out to interest people in his newsletters. They agreed that “people who have extreme views” were more likely than others to respond.
Crane said Paul reported getting his best response when he used a mailing list from the now-defunct newspaper Spotlight, which was widely considered anti-Semitic and racist.
Benton, Paul’s spokesman, said that Crane’s account “sounds odd” and that Paul did not recall the conversation.
At the time, Paul’s investment letter was languishing. According to the person involved with his businesses, Paul and others hit upon a solution: to “morph” the content to capitalize on a growing fear among some on the political right about the nation’s changing demographics and threats to economic liberty.
The investment letter became the Ron Paul Survival Report — a name designed to intrigue readers, the company secretary said. It cost subscribers about $100 a year. The tone of that and other Paul publications changed, becoming increasingly controversial. In 1992, for example, the Ron Paul Political Report defended chess champion Bobby Fischer, who had become known as an anti-Semitic Holocaust denier, for his stance on “Jewish questions.’’
Hitler’s defeat was the defeat of Europe. And of America. How could we have been so blind? The blame, it seems, must be laid at the door of the international Jews. It was their propaganda, lies and demands which blinded the West to what Germany was doing. . . . If Satan himself, with all of the superhuman genius and diabolical ingenuity at his command, had tried to create a permanent disintegration and force for the destruction of the nations, he could have done no better than to invent the Jews.
RD: “rancid views”
Thanks for the gratuitous Cultural Marxism. You know, Rod, racism is an adaptive trait because by showing favored altruism toward co-ethnics you’re increasing your inclusive fitness. But I see you’re drinking the PC punch.
Rod, I’m open to evidence about Ron Paul one way or the other. But one thing that really matters to me is consistency. People maintain consistent beliefs and behaviors over time. That’s why I thought Clarance Thomas got railroaded in his confirmation hearings. A sexual harasser doesn’t limit himself to one opportunity. How Thomas could have grossly harassed Anita Hill yet have not murmured an objective peep to any other woman made no sense.
So the same thing with Ron Paul. Is there any corroborating evidence over all these years that he has racist views?
Just. Don’t. Care.
You know these accusation have been around for a while, and while I don’t know whether Paul is lying or not. This is now a he said/she said. Also I do not know whether this women is really a supporter or has some ax to grind (I am sure we will learn more about this in the next few days).
I think it should be noted she is not saying he wrote the statements being called racist, and while he may have reviewed them or given his blessing to publishing them, again we do not know if that is true.
Further, after hearing him speak and reading his other publications I do not believe Paul to be a racist, nor to I think allowing the publication of some poorly written articles condemning the dependency society we have become make him a racist.
If he has misspoken on his knowledge of the content of these newsletters, then he will need to account for that, but I would also advise you to hold of on calling someone a liar on the word of one person and the Washington Post.
This is something I’ve noticed about Ron Paul, which is that conservatives will rush to examine him down to the deepest level to find something, anything, to keep from having to admit that he is far and away the closest thing to a conservative in this race and the only one who will make any progress at all on the things conservatives say they want. I can only conclude that Paul is either the most unlikeable person on Earth, or most conservatives really don’t want what they say they want.
I’ve been wondering when this would finally surface in a big way. I’ve lived in and outside of the Austin/Hill Country area for over 30 years. There’s a reason why extremist-militia, pirate-radio, alt-lifestyle commune, and the drug and alcohol addled in this area of the country has long been behind Paul. He’s always been a part of–whether cynically or naively or carelessly–the Alex Jones crowd (see Paul’s Truther narrative for an obvious connection to such people). While I’m accusing neither Jones nor Paul of being racist, I can say with confidence that there are those who follow them in these parts (where the newsletters originate) who are. Does this mean that Paul read and-or approved of these newsletters? Of course not. But anyone down in these parts who knows of the real fringe element also knows about the groups that published the newsletters in question. And many of us have been wondering when the media, fairly or not-rightly or wrongly, would dive deeper. I’m no fan of Paul, but I sure hope that he was telling the truth. Until we find out for sure, I’ll take him at his word. The one thing that does trouble me is when Paul claims he can’t see himself in the White House. Such a claim could be seen as coming from a candidate who knows he can’t win and doesn’t care about winning. Instead he cares about spreading an ideology and self-aggrandization. Which would fit into the cynicism-newsletter narrative Again, I hope this is not the case.
I’m far from a Paultard who rushes to defend him from the establishment conspirators plotting to destroy him.
But I don’t see anything in this article that constitutes damning evidence of anything. All I see are intimations by former staff members–who may or may not be disgruntled–that he was “deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters,” whatever that means, and may even have “signed off on articles” and “spoken to staff members.” Ok, well, show me the proof that he either wrote or read and personally approved the words of the articles in question.
Maybe I’m extending charity to Paul that I don’t extend to, say, Romney, But that’s my mistake in limiting my charity, not in seeing Paul through glasses that are too rosy.
Those types of letters were commonplace in the 80s from right wing fundraising groups. If you read letters from the Moral Majority or any number of groups you might find much the same rhetoric. I’m not surprised, and the letters are almost comical they’re so outlandish, but they are indefensible for someone aspiring to the Presidency. I never believed he didn’t know the contents. It was a different time.
Conservatives making off-color jokes and remarks about black rioters and the AIDS epidemic in the early ’90s? You don’t say? I’m chagrined.
oh and i see we have Sullivan waxing poetic on diversity. another one of his vaunted “Burkean conservative” virtues i suppose
Am I or others supposed to be more outraged by what Ron Paul might or might not have approved for these newsletters than by the current president claiming the right to kill American citizens without a trial? Or by all the other Republican candidates wanting to go to war with Iran for no good reason? Whether or not I’m offended by anything from those newsletters — and frankly, a lot of the quotes I’ve read seem to be considered hand-wringingly horrible merely because they draw attention to the baleful influence of Israeli hardliners on American politics — at least none of the positions in them happily contemplate my death or the death of innocent civilians in other countries.
Well, how different is what he did from what Rush Limbaugh does?
This suggests to me that Ron Paul has qualities I would not want to see in a President, but since he wasn’t going to win the Presidency anyway, meh.
I think that while his past should be given due consideration, I also agree that his dogged presentation of non-mainstream ideas is something to be admired.
also, this is a little older, but you think that as someone who initially supported the Iraq War Sullivan might show a little more, I dunno, understanding toward those who disagree with his current position on foreign policy. People who’ve held past positions they now repudiate tend to be more charitable, as opposed to viewing everything from economics to national security under the lens of “Christianism” (similar to how feminists view even distantly-related phenomena as connected to “The Patriarchy”) and raving about his political opponents.
You seem to be under the impression that people voting for Paul think he can win, and that these allegations might affect their opinion about Paul’s moral qualifications to be the next president.
But I don’t think you understand Paul voters.
From wikipedia:
A protest vote (also known as blank vote or white vote) is a vote cast in an election to demonstrate the caster’s dissatisfaction with the choice of candidates or refusal of the current political system. In this latter case, protest vote may take the form of a valid vote, but instead of voting for the mainstream candidates, it is a vote in favor of a minority or fringe candidate, either from the far-left, far-right or self-presenting as a candidate foreign to the political system.
I don’t care. I’m done with racial politics, I’m done with “sensitivity.” Unless someone commits bigotry in action, with malice aforethought, I just don’t care anymore. In my mind, the “race card” has become the joker, when I hear a charge of racism, my immediate thought is to question the intelligence of the speaker, not the person charged. For the latest example, see the attacks on Jay Leno because he made a crack about Romney’s “house.”
The mistake, of course, is to think that Ron Paul is not a politician or that he is some kind of different politician. Back then, he did what was expedient. Now, he does what is expedient. That kind of approach always results in lies coming out of the mouth.
OK, accept the worst case: Paul is a racist and a cynic. I don’t defend that, no one should. Paul also stands alone in not wanting to put nonviolent drug users in prison, and he stands alone in not wanting to kill tens of thousands of people by bombing in our various pro-active wars. Really now, when you add it all up, which is better or worse? When President Romney or President Obama starts bombing Iran or Syria or where the H*** else, should we congratulate ourselves that the President is not a racist or cynic? People are very messy, with mixed motives all over the place; I say look at the bottom line — how many innocent people will be helped, how many innocent people will be killed? From that perspective, Paul doesn’t look too bad, newsletters or not.
Well we’ll see. I don’t think we have Woodward and Bernstein here.
The headline looks a “grabber.” Not an honest attempt to describe news.
The third paragraph, at least it’s placement, is not professional. The writers tell you their conclusions, using phrases like “closely monitored” and “deeply involved”, then they present quotes from people they say back it up.
I don’t think much of that. You are now reading the quotes within the framework of the third paragraph. That’s not proper. But that’s Washington “journalism” nowadays.
One of the sources, Mark Elam, whose company printed the newsletters, refutes the headline. The secretary’s statements are interesting, but I don’t think they mean Ron Paul read every article in every newsletter that went out every week for 20 years.
I believe Ed Crane’s statement. To be fair to Ron Paul, he merely says he “didn’t recall” their conversation. But with all due respect, the operators of both major political parties will tell you that people with more extreme views tend to send them more money. And they take that into account in their strategies. So I’m not sure exactly what the Crane quote means.
If it’s not true, Ron Paul isn’t a liar. I know it’s tempting to revel in the fall of a righteous man, but you’re jumping the gun. You’ve pointed out the emptiness of the Romney criticism, and this is (probably – hopefully) just more of the same.
I’m still skeptical. Regardless of my political bias, Ron Paul is the most consistent and principled member of Congress, and has proven so for some time. Everyone who knows him says there isn’t a bit of racism in his character, he’s the most outspoken critic of the drug war, for Pete’s sake; he’s proven himself, over time, to be an honest man. Has the media company in question done the same?
No one can say for sure if Paul actually proofed the specific newsletters with the provocative stuff in them. It is a really old story and am sure it has been covered before. Back in ’08 on Anderson Coopers show on CNN. There is nothing new and Paul has denied it. Until someone can prove Paul wrote the stuff or actually saw the specific newsletters then this is over and deserves no more attention.
We have bigger issues before us now. Also, people have been inundated with charges of racism and we are tired of hearing about it. Time to move on.
I’m getting out the popcorn for when the intellectual contortions begin…
I went back and read the worst parts of the newsletters before commenting. I don’t trust WaPo to tell a straight story about Ron Paul, but for the sake of argument I’ll assume that Paul not only was familiar with, but wrote every single word in the bigoted newsletters.
There are five remaining candidates vying for the presidency. Four implicitly or explicitly accept the following: Unnecessary and unconstitutional wars that have killed 6 million people since the end of WWII, kidnapping and savagely torturing people based on mere suspicion, imprisoning individuals incommunicado on mere suspicion, assassination via robot drones certain to kill innocent men, women, and children, giving billions of dollars of the citizen’s money to brutal dictators when they believe it to be in our strategic interest, economic sanctions estimated to have killed half a million children, overthrowing legitimate governments when they believe it to be in our strategic interest.
As Rod says, let us deal honestly with the truth and its implications. Our nation has become corrupted by power and soaked in blood head to toe. The words in the newsletters are ugly and bigoted, but did they once advocate violence? or the more seductive idea that our righteous violence will make the world a better place?
What does is say about the soul of our nation that violence, vengeance, and lawlessness are the basis of accepted political discourse but politically incorrect opinions that champion non-violence are anathema?
“If this is true, then Ron Paul is a liar. If this is true, the best thing that can be said about him is that he’s a terrible cynic, because he profited off of the propagation of rancid views that he didn’t personally share.”
*If* it’s true? How about indulging yourself in a reasonable effort to ascertain the veracity of the accounts before reproducing content that may well be libelous?
Just how carefully did you read the Post story anyway? You are aware, aren’t you, that there is a difference between attacking messengers and analyzing their accounts?
The hearsay “case” they offer doesn’t even meet the burden of production. Let’s have a closer look, shall we?
Hathway says “it was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product” and “He would proof it.”
Here we have *two* references to *a* *newsletter* in the *singular*. Was there a *single* newsletter or were there *many* newsletters? Clearly, the latter is correct. Did *all* of the multiple newsletters contain offensive content? Are we supposed to infer that when Hathway refers to a single newsletter *twice* that she actually meant *multiple* newsletters and that Paul proofed them all?
Did she ever *herself* observe Paul proofing *any* newsletter or did she just *infer* that he proofed every newsletter because it was “his newsletter” and “under his name”? Why does Hathway think it necessary to remind us of these facts?
Next, we’ve got an anonymous declarant who says Paul was aware of offensive content. What that amounts to is a claim that by definition has *zero credibility* and reprehensible journalism.
With respect to Crane, what do mailing lists have to do with awareness of content?
With respect to Dondero Rittberg, we’ve a got a witness who there is reason to believe may be biased, combined with the fact that his observations in the “mid-1990′s” *might not even cover the 1994 letter even if true.*
All told, what we have is a culture more preoccupied with hearsay allegations of responsibility for offensive speech than it is with politicians who think it’s acceptable to engage in the unjustified premeditated murder of American citizens and other human beings.
Fix the preceding problem, end affirmative action, harden the currency, slash the spending, and then *maybe* I’ll be concerned about offensive speech.
Haven’t seen anything that makes me think RP lied. Have you?
“I would ask readers to think before rushing to comment about how this or that group is trying to destroy Ron Paul by publicizing this. Attacking the messenger, or argumentum ad hominem, constitutes evading the truth, not dealing honestly with it, and its implications.”
If a given argument involves someone’s character then an ad hominem isn’t a fallacy – for instance, if I say “person X says it is true, therefore it is true” it would be acceptable to call into X’s credibility.
That said, does the WaPo introduce more information than we previously had? Most of the article is behind a paywall so I don’t know what it says besides page 1.
I really don’t know what to think of the newsletters as a whole. Obviously they are awful, and even the most innocuous connection Paul has to them is damning. Then again, I think they are no more disqualifying on their own than the more pressing support for forever war and destruction of liberty the other candidates espouse.
I would have though you would know better than to believe the Washington Post.
At most this is another hearsay argument. It doesn’t prove anything.
This comment is intended as an extension of my previous post.
I tremendously appreciate your last paragraph-you know, the one in which you implore readers to “think before rushing to comment..” and then generously supply a hectoring lesson in Latin meant to assist the precipitous dunderheads who support Paul.
As my previous post indicates, it is *you* who *failed to think* and *rushed to judgement*.
Here’s something to think about: what should those referred to as “readers” by you who happen to be AmCon subscribers conclude in regard to what your estimate of their intelligence and maturity is?
To any discerning, *mature* reader who is not obsessed with PC, what you’ve posted in that last paragraph is far more offensive than anything that may have appeared under Paul’s letterhead.
Thanks for the Latin lesson, Mr. Senior Editor. Maybe next time you can teach us some multivariate statistical analysis?
I doubt it.
Signed,
Dumb, Rushing Subscriber Who May Have to Cancel
Rod,
You write for a webzine founded by, still running the columns of, and still largely espousing the politics of, Patrick Buchanan — a man characterized as racist, anti-Semitic, yadda yadda, by the great mass of the “respectable” media (including your former employer, NR). Buchanan has said and written more “provocative” (i.e., politically incorrect) things than the Paul newsletters ever did. Yet, despite all the opprobrium heaped upon him by the high priests of punditry, you have, at times, found positive things to say about his brand of politics, and have, at least, avoided the shrill denunciations that the leftists and neocons spit out.
There is a similar story with you and Steve Sailer: a provocative, politically incorrect writer dismissed and jeered at by the “in-crowd”; but yet you approvingly link to his blog posts, and refrain from shunning him as if he were journalistic kryptonite — because, no doubt, he makes a fascinating and vitally-needed contribution to the public debate. (Sound like any Presidential candidate out there?)
Why is this story so important, Rod? Why are you seconding the voices of politically correct suppression? The “offensive” columns were only a fraction of the ones in the newsletters; the naughty views that are supposed to make us all gasp are really just too-blunt statements of what most people already know/believe, but are afraid to say out loud (“A lot of homosexuals catch HIV!” Oh, the humanity!) If the newsletters are “rancid,” so is The American Conservative.
This country needs — desperately needs — Ron Paul’s message on foreign policy, the size of government, and individual liberty. I would say that we do not necessarily need the man himself to deliver this message, but, at this moment, there is no other figure with his national stature to take his place. We need Ron Paul. You, Rod Dreher, need Ron Paul.
Think about your children, Rod. A few months or years from now, parents all over this country will be burying loved ones killed in the unnecessary, immoral war that our political class is plotting against Iran. The tiny, beleaguered Christian community in that country — ancient Orthodoxy, and a burgeoning house church movement symbolized by heroic pastor Youcef Nadarkhani — will be ravaged, possibly extirpated. Our economy will be in shambles; inflation will cheat you and neighbors of the fruit of your labor. The country that your children are set to inherit will be poorer, more divided and bitter, and less free.
Ron Paul is, in this moment, the only hope of changing the political conversation in our country, so that we can begin, however imperfectly, to avoid, or better endure, the disasters that are sure to befall us on our present course.
I do not apologize for just not giving a d*mn about the newsletters.
current president claiming the right to kill American citizens without a trial?
uh – the current president is not claiming the right to kill etc – he signerd a bill – supported by as majority of Republicans and Democrats to detain – not kill – without habeas corpus.
Now I find that detain thing extremely objectionable and sure wrote to my Senator and Congressman (a rep and dem) to express my thoughts on this.
Let’s pass on the exaggerated rhetoric please. First = the facts are gruesome enough without exaggerating them. And second, It sure is not helpful when dealing with a country that is full of people who did not object loudly to this terrible terrible bill. My only hope is the ACLU will take it to the Supreme Court and it will be promptly thrown out.
Yes, it’s brotherhood or else time at Washington Post and apparently here as well. Does Ron Paul have a low opinion of Black Americans? Is it necessary to love everyone alike to be a good citizen? Does every member of species Homo in this Republic deserve my respect? Can they demand it of me? Do you think that the current inmate of the White House actually likes White people as a group?
As far as I’m concerned, the statute of limitation ran out on White guilt a while ago and I’m no longer interested in the “Who dropped the N’ word game.”
It’s perfectly possible to have a low opinion of persons and groups and still be a perfectly good public official. It’s called professionalism. I don’t give a damn what Ron Paul thinks about black rioters in LA.
This is horrible. If he is truly responsible, heshould be made to put many, many quarters into the Swear Jar.
I wonder, however, how the people who led America into two unnecessary, immoral, fraudulently promoted wars ought to make amends? Their words may have been less “rancid,” but they sent hundreds of thousands to their deaths, uprooted ancient communities, and set international understanding back at least a half-century.
It’s a good thing that some of them said “sorry,” and that the rest of them said “hey, look over there!” Otherwise, we’d have a serious problem on our hands, and we might look to somebody like Paul to solve it.
If only he hadn’t disqualified himself by not properly vetting his fundraising to suit standards of discourse common in Manhattan twenty years hence.
Well, I suppose it’s too late now.
Why is the well-know OB/GYN Dr. Andrew Sullivan quoted here as an authority on politics?
“Attacking the messenger, or argumentum ad hominem, constitutes evading the truth, not dealing honestly with it, and its implications.”
So let us then ask, the eternal question, what is the truth?
No one has ever claimed Ron Paul wrote of the offending sentences in the “newsletters”. Not even Mr. Rittberg (if it’s Tuesday, it goes back to Dondero). But let’s say for the sake of argument he knew what was going on as people allege. If we are to say RP is a racist and a cynic, what would explain then why a man like this would then be willing to take positions on the federal death penalty or federal drug laws based on the disproportionate impacts on Black or Latino communities? If he was a racist, why did he take of a black man’s wife in the hospital he worked at for nothing, why have a black press secretary?
Maybe, again for the sake of argument, once upon a time he harbored such thoughts as in the newsletters. He certainly doesn’t now. And if so, then what makes Ron Paul any different than ex-Ku Klux Klan members like Supreme Court justice Hugo Black or Sen. Robert Byrd or even Harry S. Truman, who looked into joining the Klan as a young man? Nothing. So they can obtain honor and high office despite their less-than-savory past, why not Ron Paul?
What it comes down to is this, what is the statute of limitations on the past? Does the same standard apply to randy Newt and his ex-wives? Certainly the voters of South Carolina didn’t think so? But is that because we now racism is now more of a crime and or sin than adultery? In some quarters I think that’s true. If so, then why isn’t Mitt being asked what did he tell people in France when asked why, as a Mormon, he believed black people were the children of the Devil? I notice that’s not an issue, probably because it was a long time ago and nobody thinks he feels this way now. Fine then. So why isn’t Ron Paul accorded the same pardon then for what he did in the past?
I will grant you Paul has not handled this issue well, especially going back to his 1996 campaign because in trying to initially defend the “newsletters” instead saying what he said to Texas Monthly five years later, he created the very doubts in people’s minds about his story. Clearly whatever political gain was thought to come from the newsletters has not materialized. Indeed RP done much better going in the opposite direction (which is also true on Von Miesans as well). So if you don’t believe him, why not celebrate the conversion instead of focusing on man’s sins nearly 20 years ago? How long would you have kept the statute of limitations on the Apostle Paul?
Dr. Paul has owned up to every other thing he has said that others consider damnable or screw-ball, including opposition to the Civil Rights Act, the MLK Holiday, and fiat money. I’m certain he spoke out against the “counting by race” and other reverse discrimination policies that were hot topics in the 90′s. In any event, all of that has been published in the Congressional Record. Compare those words, which I’m sure many described as “racist”, to the most scandalous material in these “newsletters” and ask yourself if they came from the same hand. Ron Paul has less ego than any politician in my experience. If he wrote something then which he now regrets, I am certain he would say so. If he wrote something he doesn’t regret, I’m sure he would defend it. He does everything else. If he says he didn’t write something and didn’t endorse it, I’m sure he didn’t. Compared to the outrageous positions taken by other Republicans, not least his rivals for the nomination, including comments concerning Palestinians, illegal immigrants, food stamp recipients, and Muslims in general, their actual advocacy for the suspension of civil rights, the writ of habeas corpus, repeal of posse commitatus, all of which unquestionably pander to racism if they don’t qualify as racist themselves, quibbling over Dr. Paul’s association with these writings, published nearly two decades ago, is, in the Biblical analogy brought to mind elsewhere in this blog, truly straining at the mote in one’s neighbor’s eye while ignoring the log in one’s own.
I recall these same complaints being made against the founder of this magazine during his campaign for the Republican nomination in 1996. I lived in New York at the time, and had to listen to comments from George Pataki and Rudy Giuliani about Pat Buchanan that made me despair of the Republican Party. Dr. Paul has not given his critics nearly the ammunition Pat did. I think, as a result of how both parties have failed this nation in the intervening years, in ways far more significant than these claimed instances of racism, the U.S. electorate will not be misled by these kinds of accusations again. Chicken Little has cried “the sky is falling” one too many times. This is especially true of our younger generation, who have grown up seeing how the “race lobby” has corrupted American education and the political system and they are not impressed by the lobby’s indignant protests.
We’ll see how it pans out, but it strikes me as out of character for Ron Paul to lie.
Romney’s ever-ramifying ties to “the vampire squid” are another matter:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46172017/ns/politics-the_new_york_times/#.TyOWqPk8B8E
oh well can you blame ron with the way discussion of the topic of race is regulated in this country the way in which you have to walk on eggshells to avoid offending anyone the hysterical reaction that the Establishment has anytime anyone expresses or even hints at having a non-authorized opinion on race can you really blame ron for lying about this i mean if the Establishment doesn’t want to have an honest debate about race in this country then why should he be honest about those newsletters now yes those newsletters contained very vulgar and immature language but all they were trying to do was discuss racial issues in an honest way now as for this article its very clearly a smear piece one that contains a half truth paul probably knew the issues that the articles were about but didn’t know about the language that was being used but you don’t have to be a paul supporter to realize that this is a smear piece its given away by the fact that the article tries to paint paul as only promoting these views in order to make money so you see he is a fraud who is trying rip you off rod you’re a smart man you should be able to see through this
1. The content of the letters is stupid maybe, but not awful or rancid.
2. This whole matter has been blown so out of proportion, I am having a hard time remembering the very precise content being discussed – or even finding it reprinted via Google.
3. That Paul profited from the newsletter without typically reading it was my first assumption before he said anything on the matter (this election cycle, this isn’t a new revelation, you know). Maybe that is a little off, to profit off a newsletter in your name without caring about the content, but I would not consider it a Gingrichesque sin.
4. The real racism is the support for war against 1.3 billion Muslims under the assumption that Muslims are basically dangerous. Apparently that is socially acceptable violent race/religious hatred. Sticks and stone will break my bones, but words…
Ron Paul’s “rancid views”? Wow. Even at AmCon we are subjected to the empty language of multicultural orthodoxy. Give me a break.
There’s nothing quite as entertaining as watching the Paulites react whenever any negative word gets said about their leader. There’s nothing else out there like it. I’d like to know if there’s any precedent for the almost sublime confection of hysteria, paranoia, and invective that immediately swells up and begins swirling like a herd of twisters in response to stories such as this. It’s like those movies from the fifties where some explorer inadvertently violates some taboo dear to a primitive tribe deep in some jungle, and suddenly the drums start banging, everyone’s yelling, and the explorer and his damsel are running through the jungle as a horde of thousands chases them down the trail yelling and shaking their spears. I kind of like Paul, especially on foreign policy, but his supporters are some kind of case study in how not to act if you want to attract people to your movement.
Even at AmCom, like the sandbox, we are subjected to (what are claimed as empty words , i.e., “rancid views”) which yet … like sticks and stones … really, really hurt. So we children say, “Give me a break.”
The views broadcast in the newsletters were despicable. I say, give Mr. Dreher that pined-for break. Even Dr. Paul himself has dissociated from the words of his money-earning newletters; whether he penned them, or was cognizant of their presence, or not.
The views were rancid, fellow rascals. Have the courage to stand with Dr. Paul. Listen to him. Disavow them.
“We’ll see how it pans out, but it strikes me as out of character for Ron Paul to lie.”
Maybe I am cynical, but I don’t think it is out of character for anyone to tell officious lies (that is, lies for his own benefit or that of another). It would certainly seem out of character for Dr. Paul to lie maliciously.
That doesn’t mean I think Dr. Paul lied, or that he currently is lying, about the “racist” newsletters. Personally, I haven’t even made the determination that the newsletters in question are actually racist! I’m simply pointing out that even the best people lie when it is to their benefit and no one is victimized by it.
All I can say is that, if such impetus were needed, this just confirms me in my decision to vote for no one for president in either the GOP or Democratic party this year.
Thought experiment for those who dismiss all this: Suppose a black or Hispanic candidate were running for president; and suppose this candidate were associated with a newsletter that was anti-white to the same extent as Ron Paul’s newsletter was anti-minority. Suppose that this fictitious candidate were also saying the exact things and taking the exact positions for which you praise Paul. Would you defend this hypothetical candidate as much as you do Paul? If the answer is “no”, then I think we’re not dealing with transformative politics but pure hypocrisy and giving racism a pass.
Rod: If Ron Paul really did mine the mailing list of that evil publication for his own fundraising purposes, then that is flat-out contemptible….
Absolutely agreed, but it is sadly evident that a large portion of your readership is unwilling or unable to see this.
Even if — even if! — none of this particularly bothers you, can you at least understand why it would disgust others, and disgust them to the point that they would consider it a deal-breaker regarding Paul’s candidacy?
Alas, I think that for all too many the answer is either “no”, or “yes, but who cares what those PC-spouting, pro-immigration, race-traitor lovers of brown people think, anyway?”
I wish the Main Stream Media would give the same amount of investigating reporting to Mr.Obama as to Mr.Paul. Its as if Mr.Obama’s past ihas been lost to the ages.
John Haas said: “I’d like to know if there’s any precedent for the almost sublime confection of hysteria, paranoia, and invective that immediately swells up and begins swirling like a herd of twisters in response to stories such as this.”
See “Obama, Barack Hussein: 2008 Election Of”.
@Thomas: “That Paul profited from the newsletter without typically reading it was my first assumption before he said anything on the matter…”
The story that Paul didn’t know what was going into the newsletters was preposterous from the start. We once had “doubting Thomas,” now we have “naively credulous Thomas.”
@delicatefish: “Here we have *two* references to *a* *newsletter* in the *singular*. Was there a *single* newsletter or were there *many* newsletters? ”
My God, I can’t believe anyone could write this tripe in good faith and actually have enough wits to be able to form sentences. If I say “I edit *a magazine*,” every normal speaker of English is going to assume I mean I edit *every* issue of the magazine in question. Look, Paul, Rothbard, and Rockwell worked out the “let’s appeal to the racists” strategy as a team. I knew this the first day I heard about the newsletters. It’s bloody obvious if you know anything about the people involved. The idea that Rothbard and Rockwell did this behind Paul’s back is ludicrous.
Paul’s (ghost) writings create serious problems with him as a libertarian, never mind the image or PC issues. What am I to think of a man who believes that vast swaths of the US population are inherently criminal by birth, yet who also believes that we don’t need a large, intrusive state to regulate this teeming mass of degenerates?
Whipping up this kind of fear in civil society against itself isn’t historically the prelude to lightening the burden of the state on the average citizen, it’s a way to convince the citizen that he is in imminent peril and must stand ready to sign away frivolous liberty for the sake of his own safety. The confusion in the method and the message is nobody’s fault but Dr. Paul’s.
In fairness, I don’t see a trace of that former vicious populist fear-mongering in his current and most previous campaigns. I’m glad of it, too, because they are the most successful campaigns he’s waged, in terms of ears and eyes opened to the message of liberty and anti-interventionism. The Rothbardian redneck fusion model has been a dead-ended rabbit hole for libertarianism, and the blowup of these antiquated bits of racist propaganda in the midst of what was a very positive campaign for Dr. Paul, prove it. But when you’ve spent 20 years shooting yourself in the foot, you might have trouble jogging later on, it’s not reasonable to expect otherwise.
as crazy a Jew-hating, race-baiting rag as you can imagine.
While I’d agree with that summation, many would describe the magazine that is attached to this blog the very same way. Which leads to one of the great intellectual quesitons: who gets to decide who is a racist, anti-Semite, anti-gay, anti-Muslim?
In discussing the politics of African American Dallas, you were quick to describe someone as race-baiting and ugly. But you are very defensive when people you agree with–Steven Sailer for instance–has had the same kind of accusation made against them.
That’s one of the great quandries as we discuss issues like race. It’s easy to accuse Paul of being a racist, especially when you oppose him. It’s true that the allegation has more weight when it come to someone is sympathetic to him. But who gets to accuse others of being racist/anti-Semetic/homophobic/Islamaphobic and who doesn’t? What’s the rubric?
Turmarion, the man you are talking about exists. In 2000 I gave money to the Presidential campaign of Alan Keyes, in fact the only man to whom I had given cash for his campaign in my life before Ron Paul (and I was part of the Reagan campaigns before I had money to give). He had my enthusiastic support for the same reason as Dr. Paul – his dedication to respecting the Constitution of the United States and conforming our government to its limitations. His speeches and writings critical of the liberal white establishment in this country were (and are) as inflammatory as anything coming from Jeremiah Wright or Louis Farrakhan.
Well, I was wrong. He had me fooled, I admit it. It turns out his dedication to the U.S. Constitution was selective, peculiarly omitting respect for habeas corpus, trail by jury, ability to confront witnesses, etc. in cases of suspected terrorists, respect for the First Amendment in the case of Muslims, and his subscription to the power of the “unitary executive”, at least while a Republican is in the White House.
If Ron Paul ever takes the turn that Alan Keyes did, I won’t support the Doctor any more either. The Man is not God, nor even America’s Messiah. He has deficiencies. He’s not the best of campaigners, although he has improved immensely over 2008. He doesn’t deftly handle questions which are “off” his message. His clumsy handling of the “newsletter” issue is a case in point. But I, and I don’t have the wealth to afford it, would make Mitt Romney’s proverbial $10,000 bet that Ron Paul will not do an Alan Keyes. He will continue to speak for peace, for liberty and for the Constitution four years from now as he does today, as he did four years, as he did twenty years ago.
Rod, judging from what has been coming out of the mouths of Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney concerning Iran, Israel and “not taking war off the table”, we had better hope that the Ron Paul candidacy is about more than just registering a protest vote. You think Ron Paul would make a disastrous President? If not Ron Paul, regardless of who is elected, I think the United States is heading towards disaster – the way of the Soviet Union, in fact. And if the choice were between putting Romney or Gingrich in charge of our foreign policy and military resources and Turmarion’s hypothetical anti-white racist, I’d feel safer with a Wright or a Farrakhan in the White House.
” Suppose a black or Hispanic candidate were running for president; and suppose this candidate were associated with a newsletter that was anti-white to the same extent as Ron Paul’s newsletter was anti-minority. ”
We have a President that has a long and intimate association with an anti-white black church and its pastor. Let’s have a gander at Obama’s church in Chicago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWigzBClEk8
Now, Obama was not present at the above ‘service’, featuring Father Pfegler’s but there is no reason to doubt that similar messages were being preached while he was attending and donating to the church. Further, there is evidence that Obama joined that church not so much out of religious conviction but because it was a center of black power in Chicago.
Is any criticism of Jews, as Jews or organized Jewery, possible. Surely as an ethnic group they and their organizations have huge impact on both domestic and foreign policy. Take the ADL and its pro-mass immigration, anti immigration law enforcement positions. Or the ACLU — way disproportionately Jewish–and its war on any expression of Christianity in the public spaces of this 80% Christian (at least nominally) country [see the battle over the Mount Soledad Cross in San Diego, or of spontaneously erected crosses on Camp Pendleton, California).
Can we criticize the behavior of blacks in general — who, after all, were the major rioters during the LA riots? Is not some animosity natural when you have black politicians like Maxine Waters justifying the riots, and black cultural icons like Spike Lee practically egging them on.
Any discussion of color absent cultural context displays superficiality, poor judgement, and an attraction to the banal. I do not care if the speaker is Pat Buchanan, Steve Sailer, or Ron Paul. It is to the credit of TAC that it does not participate in ugly discussions of race but examines theology, philosophy, tradition, place etc. Rod, thanks for contributing to this ethos.
As regards the Ron Paul issue, if there were a candidate who showed better judgement in the areas of past associates and message dissemination, I would consider jumping ship. However, that person would need to have sound policy proposals. And if you want particular foreign policy and local governance ideas entering the mass conversation, he seems like our best option (at least for the time being).
My opinion will change if he says something hateful himself or proposes racist policies. However, from what I have observed thus far, I highly doubt any such thing will take place. Analysis of any candidate involves weighing the good and the ill. I do not know whether this is right or wrong, but I tend to privelage policy proposals and ideas over biography. In fact, I would like to see personality, the power of the presidency, play a much smaller role in our future governing decisions.
While I’d agree with that summation, many would describe the magazine that is attached to this blog the very same way.
“Many”? Well, if a man is incapable of telling the difference between TAC and a radical-right magazine run by an American neo-Nazi, then that man is either willfully blinded by ideological choice, or is a thorough clod.
Incidentally, many of us — me included — openly questioned Barack Obama’s moral judgment in choosing his tactical alliance with his white-hating black Chicago pastor. I don’t believe, and never did believe, that Obama was, or is, a racist. I believe that he attached himself to Jeremiah Wright because it seemed like a politically advantageous thing to do at the time. Many Obama supporters did the same thing some Paultards are doing here: attempted to dismiss the moral concern about Obama’s judgment as something not worthy of concern, and certainly not in the context of the Great Mission To Beat The Republicans. But the question was an important one — not so much, “Is Obama a racist?” but “What does it say about him that, even if you grant that he is not personally a racist, he associated himself with an open racist like the Rev. Wright when it suited him politically to do so?”
The Paul newsletter affair highlights what, for me, is my greatest objection to Paul: he is so caught up in his own ideology that he lacks prudential judgment. Paul is a libertarian ideologue. I happen to agree with some of his positions, and the mainstream GOP candidates are so awful that I’m glad he’s in the race. But an ideologue he is.
Cecelia –
“current president claiming the right to kill American citizens without a trial?
uh – the current president is not claiming the right to kill etc – he signerd a bill – supported by as majority of Republicans and Democrats to detain – not kill – without habeas corpus.”
Anwar al-Awlaki — look him up. Here’s a start: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/7564581/Barack-Obama-orders-killing-of-US-cleric-Anwar-al-Awlaki.html
“Uh,” indeed. Welcome to reality.
“The Paultard instinct…”
Please don’t go all Mark Levin on us.
“Even if — even if! — none of this particularly bothers you, can you at least understand why it would disgust others, and disgust them to the point that they would consider it a deal-breaker regarding Paul’s candidacy?”
I certainly understand why Ron Paul’s opponents would gleefully seize upon the issue as a way of marginalizing the only antiwar candidate in the race. To the degree we acquiesce to that process, it’s cold comfort to the family standing at the grave of a pointlessly slaughtered US soldier for us to tell them, “Well, your husband and father might be dead now, but at least we saved you from the horrors of a president who made some politically incorrect comments and got names off the wrong mailing list decades ago.”
Re: Can we criticize the behavior of blacks in general
No, nor whites, nor Jews, nor gays, nor Christians nor any other group of people en masse.
Behavior is an INDIVIDUAL trait, due to INDIVIDUAL choice. There is no such thing as “group behavior” which imputes wrongs to each and every single member of a group. If you want to criticize rioters, bigots, corrupt lobbyists, wanton men, or santimonious hypocrites, go for it– but direct that criticism at its proper targets, the individuals guilty of those things. Do not ever tar innocent people with deeds they had no part in– that is the sin of injustice.
You don’t want people making ad hominems but you’re calling Paul’s supporters Paultards?, Not even Paulbots, but Paultards? Nice..
The reason that many Paul supporters are going to stick with Paul unless something both major and current comes to light is that pretty much all the other candidates are telling us outright they want to go to war or, in Obama’s case, its on the table.
The newsletter affair may point to a certain carelessness on Paul’s part, much as Obama’s relationship with Wright, but in the light of the issues on the table it’s just not a deal breaker.
You don’t want people making ad hominems but you’re calling Paul’s supporters Paultards?, Not even Paulbots, but Paultards? Nice..
That’s the general term I’ve read for people who are so sold out to the Ron Paul cause that they can’t take any criticism of him without freaking out. E.g., “Ron Paul needs to buy suits that fit.” “Well, it’s obvious to me why certain rootless cosmopolitans would mock Dr. Paul’s tailoring in an effort to distract from the fact that he is the only candidate in this race who…” etc.
It’s Paultarded. Not all Ron Paul supporters are so wound up about him. Some are, though.
Yeah, JonF, I used to think like you.
However, the existence of groups like La Raza, the NAACP (long since an ethnoactivist rather than ‘civil rights’ group), the ADL and/or AIPAC, etc. speak to the fact that people form groups that share religious, racial, ethnic, etc traits. Moreover, groups display different — on average — behaviors. This is the real world.
As for whites, we are criticized all the time as a group — ever hear of the ‘white privilege’ indoctrinations many or our college students are subject to?
Rod, you complain about Ron Paul lacking “prudential judgment,” then you defend your own use of that “Paultard” label? You need to think about that a bit.
i too saw Spotlight, and it’s every bit as bad as you describe
I agree. The name calling does seem as childish as the knee jerk defense posture. You could call them: Paulians, zealous libertarians, Paul enthusiasts, followers of the Paul, Paul’s Army, etc. When you were a supporter of Huckabee, I doubt that you would have appreciated being called a Hucktard, Huckbot, Huckenstein.
Anyway, hopefully everyone can just agree that those were ignorant statements that Paul should not have printed. It will be nice when there are other people spreading some of these ideas around, but for now condemn the associations, condemn racialist rhetoric, and support the policies that you think are worth supporting.
The only relevant question is this: Will America be a better place to live with Ron Paul rather than Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich or Barack Obama as its president?
Yes, it will be better.
I quite agree that Ron paul is not a very good candidate. He has trouble deviating from libertarian talking points. His beliefs have never really been engaged so they’ve nearly ossified into rote responses.
But who are we kidding here? Paul is not running against Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, he’s running against Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. A little bit of reflexive Paulism would be much better than thoughtful Romneyism, which is why I can’t fathom why so many conservatives are bending over backwards to find reasons not to like him.
While I won’t cast any stones at TAC, I think its perfectly safe to say that Patrick J. Buchanan is a vile bigot and an anti-Semite. He’s toned down the latter in the past decade, as many of the fringe elements of the American right have amazingly morphed from a thorough dislike of Jews and Judaism, to their present position of unconditional support for Israel and the Likudnik agenda.
I won’t likely vote for Ron Paul (if I do, it will only be under the conditions that Obama’s re-election is secure), but the comparison between Paul and Buchanan is interesting. Both have opinions on foreign policy and economics that are highly unorthodox within the GOP (with Buchanan to the party’s left on the latter, and Paul to the right). Both have run influential presidential campaigns–while Buchanan didn’t win the GOP nomination (and Paul is not likely to do so either), both had significant influence on the tone and tenor of the primary debate.
The difference is, Paul is being attacked for offensive statements made two decades ago; his current commentary is pretty much devoid of that sort of filth. Many in the DC political establishment seem eager to be rid of him. Buchanan, on the other hand still says and writes lots of vile shit, and just got fired from a major network because of it, but still is treated by many in the DC establishment as a respectable figure.
No, Buchanan’s output isn’t as disgusting as Carto or numerous other neo-Nazi agitators out there, who blame the Jews for everything. He knows how to sweeten the cyanide so it isn’t noticed when one drinks the tea. (And he’s not a current candidate for President).
But Paul is nowhere near the only mainstream political figure with offensive positions in his portfolio.
A couple of points:
1. We do not have all the facts. What we have is testimony from former staffers and associates who believe that Paul was deeply involved in the newsletter. While such people may be reputable sources, as Rod helpfully explains, their accounts may not be enough to make bold claims about Paul or his character. (Nor should these testimonies be dismissed immediately as some neo-conservative plot. The Washington Post is surely against Paul, but if they got the goods they got the goods)
2. I agree with Dreher that a “no-enemies to the right” approach has some real moral problems. People who produce extremist literature about non-whites or Jews are morally obscene and should be repudiated. But what of people who read such publications? The ‘tactful’ thing to do is to denounce such people, preferably on television, so the cool kids in liberal media can give you a round of applause. An alternative argument is that reaching out to people may pull them from their conspiratorial mindset and direct them towards a more nuanced and sophisticated view of the world. Dreher is a journalist, so he takes for granted that denouncing extremists or anyone associated with extremism is the sign of a great person. I am not so sure.
3. Are the comments in the Ron Paul newsletters REALLY that bad? I don’t think so, although I may not be reading them closely enough. A wisecrack about black looters is hardly grounds for mass opprobrium. Shouldn’t being soft on looters hurt your reputation? Why are they people who warn against the dangers of homosexuality and its like to AIDS crazy?
4. Drehers comparison to Obama’s relationship with Pastor Wright does not put supporters of Paul in as big a bind as he might think. I don’t care that Obama was “associated” with Wright. My own view was closer to that which Larison articulated: Obama had a duty to defend his pastor, and denouncing him showed a lack of moral character. I had a similar reaction to the shady way in which Obama separated himself from Rashid Khalidi, (our kids attend school together, I think he said) a moderate Palestinian academic of Christian background. I don’t like leftists that much, but a leftist (Obama) who repudiates his own allies is scum. Give me the commie who honorably defends his friends. Unlike Rod I do not believe that journalists and media people can reconcile the black and white races by expressing disapproval over incorrect views. For Christs sake who cares. (I agree with Meehan’s sound judgement on this issue)
Of greater relevance is Paul listing Bastiat as one of his favorite philosophers. Given that Bastiat was a french liberal who argued, quite fanatically I think, that society was naturally harmonious, it is perfectly fair for a magazine founded by Pat Buchanan to explore the limitations of this philosophy. Citations of Ta-Nahisi Coates, whoever that is, and Andrew Sullivan are of less value.
the best,
neal
Rod,
Yet. By engaging in juvenile name calling, you do diminish whatever argument you are trying to make.
Perhaps in lieu of simply jumping on the name calling band wagon, you might refer to those who strongly support Paul and “avid (or strong) supporters of Paul. The term Paultard, which derives from the term Retard, can only be seen as an insult, regardless of who may be saying it.
Rod Paul’s claim to fame is that he’s ideologically pure.
There is nothing in Libertarian philosophy that says an individual is not free to be racist, in fact Libertarians would argue that freedom means exactly that an individual should be free to be as racist or not as they choose.
So we can all rest assured that Paul remains ideologically pure, whether or not he pandered to racists, and whether or not he is a racist. Since ideological purity is all that matters, being a racist or not is irrelevant.
Lying, on the other hand…wasn’t that Clinton’s impeachable offense?
Having read your “update,” I still have to say that I simply don’t care–I don’t care about the comments, and I don’t care whether Paul had any part in them or not. They simply aren’t that objectionable to me. In my opinion, their chief fault lies in being poorly articulated, not in being prima facie false.
However, I can see how they would bother some potential voters.
Or would they? Several here have mentioned Obama’s dubious affiliations with known racists who advocate actual destructive actions against whites (i.e., Obama was knowingly associated with statements far more inflammatory than those in Paul’s newsletters). Now, I typically avoid these tu quoque games, but, aside from sensational media coverage, did Obama’s associations trouble an appreciable number of respectable Democrats? Apparently not. It provided fecund grit for Obama’s opponents, however.
And that’s just it: the newsletter issue, whether Paul was associated in name only, as he claims, or whether he wrote the words himself (still unlikely), is merely relatively superficial grit for his opponents. One doesn’t have to be a full-on Paultard to be generally unperturbed by the newsletter question, regardless of its scope. While I’m sure they exist, I simply haven’t met a single Paul supporter, dogmatic or merely casual, who has substantially altered his assessment of Paul on the basis of these allegations. Nor, conversely, have I met someone “on the fence” for whom this served as the deciding factor in a negative decision. For the record, I am not a Paultard; I harbor deep philosophical differences with the good Doctor (whom I still consider good). He probably wouldn’t make a stellar chief executive, either. But, as other commenters have noted, when we have, on the one hand, an incumbent President preparing as we speak for armed intervention in Iran and who has personally authorized the assassination of American citizens, among other appalling travesties, and, on the other hand, a collection of mentally deficient partisans whose only effectual complaint against Obama is that he hasn’t invaded Iran quickly enough, then, well, I simply don’t care.
By the way, call this a Paultardian defense, but isn’t this the same Andrew Sullivan who only yesterday grossly misrepresented Romney’s voting record? And can’t we all agree that the original Washington Post article constitutes shoddy journalism? When did cryptic intimations and unspecific allegations count for solid evidence of anything? Earlier, I noted that this article doesn’t soundly prove anything specific about Paul’s career that wasn’t already known. I stand by that assessment.
Rod….Its not Mr.Paul but Mr.Paul’s message. Finally,on a national stage,a classic Conservative and Libertarian message. A 3rd point of view. Not the same old same old. Something to give freedom lovers in America hope.
“You don’t want people making ad hominems but you’re calling Paul’s supporters Paultards?”
Stupid is as stupid does.
I don’t think the term “Paultard” is helpful either and I’d prefer that Rod avoid using it. It’s like Sullivan’s “Christianist”. The limited utility gained by inventing a pejorative epithet is outweighed by the impression that you’re name-calling as a way to shut down any debate in advance. (I’m not a big fan of -tard, as an insult. Even putting political correctness aside, it’s just too playgroundish.)
And I say this as a person who wouldn’t self-describe as any sort of libertarian, and who is generally suspicious of the level of uncritical support extended to Paul by his supporters.
Rob, I have to disagree. The problem with the subject is Ron Paul, as racist as he might be behind closed doors is not advocating policies that are inherently racist. Rather he is asserting policies that are both fiscally responsible and socially tolerant. If any of his policies were intended to engage in race baiting then these letters would make me worried but he is not; rather, he is calling for cutting foreign engagements to help the Federal government comply with domestic obligations and find ways to resolve them. All he is calling for is more Constitutionalism and if believing the Federal Government should abide by its Constitution and its original meanings is racist, so be it.
Am I understanding this correctly? Ron Paul has been publicly accused by the head of the CATO Institute of using the mailing list of a pro-Nazi lunatic to raise funds, and the thing that bothers some of you more is that I used the playground insult “Paultard” to describe people who are so fanatically pro-Paul that they cannot concede that any reasonable person could oppose him?
Um…
Ron Paul has been publicly accused by the head of the CATO Institute of using the mailing list of a pro-Nazi lunatic to raise funds
Once again, if true, who cares? Political organizations of various stripes share mailing lists all the time. I disagree with most of these organizations, but I don’t assess a political candidate based on the fact that one of his former organizations procured one mailing list, among many others, from an objectionable group.
Is it really so misguided for me–not an avid Paul supporter–to maintain that the newsletter issue is a comparative…non-issue? I just don’t understand the problem–at least not to the extent as the mass media in general seems to understand it. First of all, the statements were neither “rancid” or “vile.” They were careless and offensive, but hardly morally atrocious (and, in many cases, not even incorrect). Second, regardless of the extent of Paul’s involvement, we’re comparing him to Obama, Romney, and Gingrich, three of the finest charlatans, frauds, liars, adulterers, and murderers this country has ever seen. Pardon me if my concern lies otherwise.
Rod,
Are you saying that being a “pro-nazi” disqualifies someone to express a political, or social opinion? If these individuals wish top participate in the political system, they do have a right. It really doesn’t matter what I personally think of them.
Then again, as someone else pointed out. If those are your constituents, then you have to engage them, and if Paul, as their representative in Congress engaged them and solicited campaign support, then that is what politicians have to do.
I am not personally offended that he used a supposedly extreme right-wing mailing list to solicit campaign funding. I am more concerned with the general direction our country is taking, and consider the use of a mailing list, or the publication of a local newsletter 15 or 20 years ago to be pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.
rod ed crane is a koch brothers puppet so i wouldn’t exactly take him at his word
As someone who might reasonably see himself as falling under your “Paultard” insult, I can only say this. Your terror of any imputation of racism, tribalism, anti-semitism etc. more an symptom of cowardice than virtue. I understand that you have a family to feed and a truly even handed examination of such issues would put that at risk. Still, name calling people for expressing their honest weariness over the white guilt con-game shows a little overeagerness to please our self-proclaimed censors on your part.
As our country is further balkanized along racial, confessional and other lines, some sort of White expression of interest becomes inevitable. How that expression manifests itself depends on how it is received. If received as one voice out of several in the public square, it will mature along healthy lines. If it proceeds as an underground movement, then it will reflect all the deformities of such movements.
BTW I do not support Dr. Paul. I do find him fascinating in that he is considered a lunatic for taking our Constitution seriously. As my old friend Joe Sobran said. “We can rest assured that The Constitution will not be allowed to threaten our way of life.”
Neal Murray,
In the current context, your points 1 and 3 are in conflict. You see, any criticism of blacks that is not qualified, softened, and couched in weasel words *is* considered extremist. Even with all those sweeteners, it might be called extremist and racist. Even advocating for totally race-neutral policies, if they might disadvantage ‘people of color’ in some way, or benefit whites as a group, is considered ‘racist’ — witness the labeling of NumbersUSA and Mark Krikorian and the Center for Immigration Studies as ‘hate groups’.
Re: All he is calling for is more Constitutionalism and if believing the Federal Government should abide by its Constitution and its original meanings is racist, so be it.
Correction: Paul is calling for the Federal Govermment to follow is interpretation of the Constitution. There are other interpretations, and though you may find Paul’s preferrable you should acknowledge that he is not some infallible Pntiff who has alone been gifted with knowledge of the True Meaning of the Constitution.
Re: However, the existence of groups like La Raza, the NAACP (long since an ethnoactivist rather than ‘civil rights’ group), the ADL and/or AIPAC, etc. speak to the fact that people form groups that share religious, racial, ethnic, etc traits.
And the Orthodox Church speaks to and for people who assent to its theology and partake of its Sacraments. But there’s still a lot of differences between Orthodox Christians, as witness some of the dissents I have had with Rod here.
And this discusson is an eerie deja vu for me. Just yesterday I was delivering a similar caution to some leftwingers on another site, pointing out that they too are over-politicizing life. The personal is NOT the political unless you make it so, and the indvidual is not the group. Or rather, the group is less real than the individual.
In the absence of any smoking gun proof, I’ll take Ron Paul’s word to that of his detractors. With respect to the newsletter comments, I think some of them are a little over the top, but far from rancid. And I have previously stated that I think Paul’s inattention to the newsletter operation reflects poor management which hopefully he has corrected in his current operation. As far as buying and using the Spotlight mailing list, what’s wrong with that? I seriously doubt if it was the only mailing list his newsletter bought and used and who knows the reason that Spotlight subscribers liked his newsletter. You can’t equate Paul to Carto on the basis that they had some (who knows how many?) subscribers in common. If this defense makes me a “Paultard” (I prefer Paulista), so be it.
Your terror of any imputation of racism, tribalism, anti-semitism etc. more an symptom of cowardice than virtue. I understand that you have a family to feed and a truly even handed examination of such issues would put that at risk.
What an asinine thing to say, well and truly. If you cannot conceive that the only reason any white person would object to the things in those Ron Paul newsletter, and Paul’s alleged affiliation back in the day with the foul Willis Carto lot, is cowardice and careerism, then your moral imagination is deformed. I’ve put myself on the line in public a number of times denouncing race hucksterism. The series of columns I did for the NYPost 12 years ago exposing the way Jesse Jackson shook down people and was getting a pass from the government on his tax filings remain one of the things I’m most proud of having written. I wrote those things because I believe racism, and capitalizing on racial spite, is immoral. It’s wrong when they do it, and it’s wrong when we do it. If that makes me a coward and/or a careerist in your eyes, then I’ll wear that slur with pride.
This is what living in a political bubble will do to you: make it impossible to imagine that any reasonable person could have views contrary to your own.
Rod, I, for one, most certainly do not live in a political bubble. My relatives are secular, big-city (Northeast and West Coast), hold graduate degrees from “ranked” universities, and are liberal-to-leftist in politics; my wife’s family are Bible Belt, bachelor’s-from-Big-State-U (if college-educated at all), FOX News conventional Republicans. I get blowback in political discussions from both sides. Moreover, I served eight years in the Army, where I met people from many walks of life, and where Paul has many admirers. Not living in a bubble, I am thoroughly familiar with, and disenchanted with, the lies of the Left (“Diversity is our strength!”) and the Right (“They hate our freedom!”).
I fully recognize that Paul is strong, too strong, medicine for most people, but I also know that different facets of his platform strike chords with a broad spectrum of the public — even with people who disagree with him on most things, or are put off by him personally.
Depends what you think Paul’s purpose is. If you think of him as actually trying to get elected, or as someone who holds public office, it’s reprehensible as hell, but if you think of him as some desert prophet or as an ideal, people seem to sweep the human imperfections under the rug. You don’t have to make policy for people of other races if you just espouse the Randian scriptures on your direct mail e-newsletter.
I don’t really like though how it constantly seems that every repub candidate is getting methodically torn down. The only reason Ron Paul is getting this I think is because Gingrich self-destructed and even a protest candidate is starting to get backlash. the moment anyone but romney shows to be viable, the media knives come out.
What a pointless thread this is.
Rod,
In order to understand the whole controversy you should check out these articles by Murray Rothbard. He was an economist and political philosopher who orchestrated the paleo-libertarian movement in the eighties. Prior to leading this populist right wing coalition, he banded together with leftists to oppose the Vietnam War, and before the war, he befriended the most radical members of the old right. So, if I had to guess, you would categorize his alliances as coalitions of expediency more so than purity.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch6.html
As regards the bad blood among beltway (Koch) and paleo libertarians:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon37.html
The whole controversy is a muddle. I look forward to hearing what you make of it all.
This is political correctness on steroids.
Those newsletters appeared 30 years ago. THIRTY!
Also at what age does expressing an opinion some folk think is “racist”t cause one to be damned and cast out for life? Would you attack someone 30 years later for his statements when he was ten?
Mitchell Young-
I agree. Let me clarify myself by saying that I do not think the category of “extremist Literature” should be expanded beyond a few cranky publications that truly deserve the title. As someone who identifies with the politics of Pat Buchanan and respects the work at Vdare, I obviously am against those who try to exclude reasonable critiques of multi-culturalism, immigration or affirmative action from public discussion. Apologize for the confusion.
Its fine to believe that racism is immoral, but it is possible, I think, to hate a vice so much as to become kind of hysterical about it. I don’t think this is a formula for relativism so much as trying to understand other humans whose characters may not have the sufficient purity expected from (say) a Benedictine monk. People like to boast of their gay/black/jewish/mexican/muslim friends. Well, I have friends who are racist. Denounce such people? Why? One would have to live an enormously sheltered life not to be associated with someone, somewhere, who at some point, somewhere, said something negative about this or that group. Some expressions of bigotry are often a pretty reasonable reaction to experience. Many white police officers and teachers from inner-city schools, if you buy them a drink at a bar and give them a knowing wink, will share all sorts of ideas about blacks, the publication of which would get a writer fired (Fired! For Gods sake) from a national magazine. No, I cannot imagine Christ in an SS Uniform, but let us not make an idol out of anti-bigotry either.
regards
neal
This is about Paul’s limitations as a libertarian. You can’t be an individualist and hold these deterministic views about categories of people. It doesn’t compute. If there are group faults, group virtues, then why on earth not group rights, group restrictions, and group privileges?
Whether or not Paul is morally flawed, he is ideologically flawed.
Rod Dreher Wrote, “I wrote those things because I believe racism, and capitalizing on racial spite, is immoral. It’s wrong when they do it, and it’s wrong when we do it.”
Very admirable, but is this a Theology column or a social/political one? In this political environment where whites and only whites can be held accountable for unkind views of other groups, your moral posture while theologically sound, is politically disastrous.
My question which you fail to address still stands. Are people, including public figures no longer free to have racial or religious opinions? Must white politicians always present a disingenuous mime of false bonhomie?
Conservative politics is a dead letter in that case, condemned to shame-faced navel gazing and apologizing at the slightest protest from those who have no scruples whatsoever. If the only way to proceed is with those of purest heart, then there is no way forward, and you cede the ground to real neo-Nazi thugs.
Mr. Patrick:
But Paul doesn’t hold “deterministic views about categories of people, whether or not he did thirty (thirty!) years ago when the newsletters were published.
In fact, quite recently he’s on record as arguing that his brand of libertarianism is the most anti-racist political philosophy possible, given that it regards the individual as the fundamental unit of analysis, not the group or the individual-as-group-member. According to Paul, to evaluate someone as a member of a group–i.e., to engage in identity politics–is a restriction on that individual’s autonomy and liberty.
I don’t entirely agree with him, but he is ideologically consistent on this point.
“Those newsletters appeared 30 years ago. THIRTY!”
Quite right. I mean, that’s a regular epoch. I’ll bet he evolved into an entirely new species since then.
What an interesting crowd this topic has attracted. Okay, first off, racism is just not cool. Sure, some people are hypersensitive about certain phrases and words, and sure some of us might occasionally use those phrases or words which were received in a way we didn’t intend. That’s simple to make amends for: apologize, just as you would for any other unintentional insult. Don’t spin yourself around in circles trying to justify your actions. Don’t project the problem entirely onto other people’s perceptions or blame it on the by now nearly meaningless “race card.” That kind of reaction to a social mis-step on your own part is making excuses rather than accepting responsibility for everything you do or say.
Secondly, Holocaust denial/minimization is seriously morally reprehensible. End of story.
- Deeds Above Words
Rod, all I can say is that I mentioned on more than one post when you first started here that the crowd seemed to have a higher than average proportion of those with really ugly and scary views on race, especially as compared with the old blog. I’m glad you’re finally starting to see that.
Rod
“Am I understanding this correctly? Ron Paul has been publicly accused by the head of the CATO Institute of using the mailing list of a pro-Nazi lunatic to raise funds, and the thing that bothers some of you more is that I used the playground insult “Paultard” to describe people who are so fanatically pro-Paul that they cannot concede that any reasonable person could oppose him?
This is not an either or.
If Paul was using the mailing list of a Neo-Nazi to raise funds that’s indicitive of poor judgement and questionable ethics.
That doesn’t excuse you from using playground insults. If we wanted our politics expressed in playground insults we wouldn’t hang out at AmCon. There are so many politcal forums to choose from where the suffix “tard” is sufficient to dismiss a person’s POV.
Might I suggest “fanatics” instead? Just something to consider.
“As our country is further balkanized along racial, confessional and other lines, some sort of White expression of interest becomes inevitable. How that expression manifests itself depends on how it is received. If received as one voice out of several in the public square, it will mature along healthy lines. If it proceeds as an underground movement, then it will reflect all the deformities of such movements.”
Thomas, I would argue that how they are received is up to the members of such a constituency. If they advocate at most civil disobedience, peaceful resistance, and peaceful protest then they will be received as one voice out of many. If they advocate or foment to violence, things will not go as well. This was the stark choice which lay before the Black civil rights movements in the 60s. Things could have gone either way. MLK, with all his human foibles (and I don’t call him a saint), tried to steer his part of it along peaceful lines.
I guess that should be “excuse you” not “excuse you from”.
@ Rob:
You’re right, I am making the mistake of conflating Ron Paul with the Ron Paul Survival Newsletter, again. Drat. It’s not so hard to maintain ideological consistency when you maintain at least two identities to scapegoat.
I say again: Put political correctness aside. This man is not a very good proponent of libertarianism, and he is an absolutely lousy propagandist.
Rod, you bring a lot of value-added to the table. And I will say that I’m not necessarily a 100% simon pure libertarian, by any stretch. Were I to describe myself with a label, it might be “reactionary snob” or “decentralist” or “Local anarchist” or possibly even “monarchist.” Just so you know where I’m coming from. And you may be right, that it’s time to cut bait on Ron Paul. Perhaps he has not told the truth, I don’t know. Gosh, a politician who lied. Sure, you’re right, we shouldn’t take it lightly, and maybe we should dismiss the man if he told a lie. I will only say this: if Ron Paul should be repudiated, then, finally, the Amerikan political system has expired. Because there is truly no one left to vote for.
AnotherBeliever, Yes extreme actions are not called for. But I wish I could believe that White constituency concerns would be met with an evenhanded mentality. Given the reaction of the elites to even the merest mention of immigration restriction or relief from Affirmative Action, the interests of whites seem destined to be denounced as racism.
I know more and more Americans who feel alien in the places of their birth. I also know more than a few who plan retirement or careers overseas. I won’t live long enough to see how this all ends and perhaps that’s a good thing.
I just love the approach of people who combine “How dare you attribute those statements to Ron Paul” with “And anyway, they are true!”
Things I learned on this thread:
1) Ideas propounded 30 years ago (1982) are irrelevant.
2) “White” is a special interest group.
3) Ideological purity trumps human decency.
AltkennanRight,
Gary Johnson also advocated libertarian politics, and more consistently than Paul, and he is now running on the Libertarian Party ticket. Why not vote for him if such are your ideals?
Jon F: I may well vote for Gary. Doesn’t seem like such a bad guy. And I’m not opposed to voting third party. Indeed, I voted for Chuck Baldwin and was happy to join the 170,000 “just say no” patriots who did likewise. I was only saying that among people who have a chance to win the presidency (and Ron does have a slight chance) Ron Paul is the only one worth pulling the lever for. Now, if Ron was compelled to endorse one of the other candidates, I would give him my support, so long as Ron wasn’t just doing it to keep Rand’s politcal future viable (and I don’t think Ron would do it for that reason). I think that, in the end, Ron will not endorse Mitt or Newt or Santorum (to give him the benefit of the doubt of having a chance to win, which no one ever gives to Ron). Ron’s principles will ultimately prove to be too much, and none of these guys will compromise their firm stance on the quicksand of their wishiwashiness, or do I underestimate them?
There’s nothing new in the Washington Post story. His secretary saying he would call and ask if they needed any money. Or he would drive the 50 miles every so often to check things out at the office. The rest of it is Eric Dondero. Good Gravy Rod.
The NeoCons will not stop because they’re terrified that more and more Republicans will sign off on his foreign policy views. Stop fighting endless war in the Middle East. Dragging the United States further and further into the never ending Arab Israel conflict.
I thought it would be a mistake to allow you to blog over at the American Conservative. You did praise David Frum’s National Review cover story “Unpatriotic Conservatives”