Reason Magazine’s Nick Gillespie attempted yesterday to confront the dirty little secret about Ron Paul. The libertarian hero may be leading in some Iowa polls, but as the story about the racist newsletters that were published under his name in the 1980s and 90s catches fire, his more respectable backers need to face up to their candidate’s past. To his credit, Gillespie admits that it’s not a “smear” to bring up the issue of the Texas congressman’s connections to hate literature as well as to 9/11 truthers, the John Birch Society and conspiracy mongers like Alex Jones. Gillespie even owns up to the fact that Paul has had as many different answers to the question of his connections to hate as Herman Cain did about allegations of sexual harassment.
But rather than fess up to the fact that their presidential standard-bearer has been a magnet for crackpot racists who regard the United States government as the enemy, Gillespie tried to argue that this ought not to “invalidate” his candidacy because a) Paul is a nice guy; and b) the hate he promoted and the lunatics in his camp are not as bad as the system he’s trying to destroy. Like a good Marxist, all Gillespie can do is to claim that the end justifies the means. But as anyone who listens to him discuss foreign policy, far from being tangential to Paul’s crusade, his hate connections are integral to his appeal on the margins of society.
Gillespie is right that many libertarians and even Republicans will vote for Paul in spite of his troubling connections and not because of them. Many conservatives share with libertarians their disgust for big government and the compromises some Republicans have made in order to buy popularity. But Paul’s isolationism on foreign policy speaks to the conspiracy crowd precisely because his view of the world conforms to their vision of an evil America rampaging across the globe. Given his own extremism — which extends to his rationalizations of the Taliban and the Iranian regime — it’s little surprise that wingnuts of the extreme right and left flock to his cause (and deluge the websites of journalists who point out their candidate’s shortcomings with hate mail). Try as they might, respectable writers like Gillespie can’t explain away the fact that there is a straight line between the newsletters and many of his other views.
I understand that libertarians want to overturn the system, not just to reform it. There’s a facile logic to Paul’s approach, but that is exactly why the haters love him. As much as libertarians and anti-establishment Republicans want to believe in him, he is a product of the John Birch milieu of the far right, and that leaves them twisting themselves into pretzels trying to justify supporting a candidate for president who is irredeemably damaged by the lunatic fringe with which he has long associated himself.
In defense of Paul’s candidacy, Gillespie seems to be arguing that libertarians need to rally around him despite his imperfections because he is the most viable spokesman for their ideas:
Paul is not the perfect vessel for a libertarian message, but waiting for perfection is something ideologues insist on. Most of us are far more interested in someone who at least has shown he understands the most pressing issues of the moment — and the future.
With all due respect to Gillespie, you have to be taking some of the drugs that Paul wants to legalize in order to believe he has even a remote chance of being the Republican nominee, let alone elected president. Far from a pragmatic attempt to get him into the White House, his campaign is still very much the stuff of ideologues. Moreover, libertarians also need to face up to the fact that their little coalition of fellow travelers is populated by those to whom Paul’s disturbing record is an attraction rather than a drawback.
Principled libertarians need to rethink a decision to tie their ideas to such a flawed vessel. It’s more than obvious to all but his zealots that the vast majority of Americans want nothing to do with a candidate like Paul even if some aspects of his libertarian beliefs are attractive. Those intellectuals who try to justify supporting such a person’s futile run despite his long involvement with a hateful lunatic fringe are trashing their movement’s integrity for very little in return.
Seems like someone with an axe to grind. n nThe author of this column, that is.
Well, he certainly is being vetted. A good thing. Make sure the vetting also includes a complete search for a direct quote from Ron Paul saying anything racist. The exact opposite is what you will find – praise and defense of Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks, for example. Campaigning against the drug laws that unjustly imprison simple marijuana users for victim-less and non-violent "crimes". 1 in 20 black people in the US is imprisoned under those laws. n nOnly something a racist would do, of course. Obama, the "man of change" meanwhile continues to support this black oppression. Words are cheap. Who is the real racist? Just look at who is in the prisons and who keeps them there.
There aren't that many people in jail for simple marijuana possession. Maybe large quantities of marijuana or cocaine. Simple possession is a misdemeanor. At most you'll spend one or two nights in jail. About that 1993 direct mailer referring to the coming race war, no worries. He didn't write it, he just signed it. Do we need another President who doesn't read what he signs? I'm almost positive Obama has read few if any of the laws that he has signed.
actually, there are millions of people in jail for possession. Some states are extremely hard on it. I've seen people go to jail over seeds in their trash(and yes the cops went through it to find it). n n
You are highly mis-informed. Arizona alone has over 13,000 marijuana offenders behind bars, many of them for less the an ounce. Mississippi is right around that figure. n nPersonally I am not a supporter of Ron Paul, I can't back someone who takes fairy tales over facts. But his position on the war on drugs is the most sensical out of any candidate, right or left.
The newsletter, type-type-typed by him are full of direct quotes, some defended by him, of virulent racist and homophobic tripe. He fondly chuckled over MLK having sex with Ralph Abernathy. I wouldn't count on him maintaining the libertarian pose if he ever gets in charge of the federal machinery to actually clean up the rot he sees all around him. The passive solution of letting a thousand flowers bloom is not the guaranteed output. This is a guy who is a keynote speaker at John Birch Society, has praised militias, joked about guys blowing up IRS offices and on and on. Sure, some laws may be put aside. But–meet the new laws, same as the old laws–just different targets.
Ron Paul says he did not write that statement, disavows it and takes moral responsibility for neglecting to monitor every word of the newsletters and prevent these statement from being published.
How about a direct quote from Ron Paul's own mouth proving racism – you have none. Google the entire internet over decades. You will find none. But either do it of continue to believe your illusion. It serves some interest – not the truth. n n"HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS n nMr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 573. At the same time, I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies. However, I oppose the Congressional Gold Medal for Rosa Parks Act because authorizing $30,000 of taxpayer money is neither constitutional nor, in the spirit of Rosa Parks who is widely recognized and admired for standing up against an overbearing government infringing on individual rights. n nBecause of my continuing and uncompromising opposition to appropriations not authorized within the enumerated powers of the Constitution, I must remain consistent in my defense of a limited government whose powers are explicitly delimited under the enumerated powers of the Constitution–a Constitution, which only months ago, each Member of Congress, swore to uphold. n nPerhaps we should begin a debate among us on more appropriate processes by which we spend other people's money. Honorary medals and commemorative coins, under the current process, come from allocated other people's money. We should look for another way. n nIt is, of course, easier to be generous with other people's money."
Does the author even know what libertarianism is? Isolationist Foreign Policy? Really!?! n nThis hacks are coming out of the woodwork lately. n nHere is all that one needs to refute this author's premise: n nLibertarians believe in one core principle, Do unto others. nPlease stop spewing your hate. Learn to love, respect, and promote diversity. That is the libertarian way. That is the Ron Paul way!
If one yokes libertarian philosophy, as Ron has done, to a delusional and overdetermined structure of imaginary New Order Trilateral Commission CIA-coup satanic foes, then one may actually fear them not only for, not primarily for, and perhaps not meaningfully for their identification with any kind of empirically verifiable procedural corruption of liberty. The libertarianism is a temporary tool of resistance against the Enemy hated for deep seated, freestanding motivations. Unfortunately, the Jew Zionists don't own Congress, the U.S. Treasury was never going to put chemical traps in the currency or send guys with AK-47s to confiscate currency (as claimed by Ron in a fund-raising letter) the Trilateral Commission does not run the world behind the scenes etc. But these imaginary bogey-men will still be there if Ron becomes President. And something will need to be done about it. He won't lock you up for smoking dope, but he may well end up locking you up anyways.
I am perpetually amused by the eagerness of the mindless corporate media to lie in a futile attempt to discredit Ron Paul. Jonathan S. Tobin is merely a mindless cog in the machinery of deceit.
keeping huffing and puffing boys. nthere are still a few stupid people in this country nwho may be affected by all this wind you're generating. ncharles ranalli nalbuquerque n
In 30+ years in public life, all the anti-Paul smear merchants can come up sith are 22year-old 'Newsletters that Paul didn't write, has totally disavowed, and with all the offending passages having been written while he was busy delivering some of the 4000+ babies at his OB/GYN Private Practice! (If you know any OB/GYNs, ask them how much 'spare time' they have. Set aside time for a long bout of laughter from them). It is not possible that with all the 'Racism' Anti-Semite' and probable 'He hates Jesus,Mom and Apple Pie' rants coming out of the woodwork, that someone hasn't come up with even ONE thing on audio or video supporting this twisted view of one of the most decent men in America today.
This is a fantastic article. Please check out The Oklahoman article that Paul wrote in the mid-1990s. It doesn't contain racism, but it does contain lots of stuff that relate to crazy conspiracy theories about the Clinton administration totalitarian state. This guy flirted with the waco defenders in a very, very strong way.
Evidence please. Statements are easy – provide proof.
Commentary is not "corporate media". Tobin is not a "mindless cog." This is a Jewish publication that has perhaps over-politicized its blog and made grievous errors in underestimating the free-floating angst and anomie of the Republican base, but it is not an interchangeable cog in a machinery of deceit that doesn't exist as some real thing anyways. At a certain point the rubber band of generalizations just snaps and there's nothing there any more. n nPart of the problem is that the blog has more restricted content than the magazine and the argumentative dialectics once hashed over in the carrels of CCNY and revised by succeeding generations may have settled into a rut–Paul's rise really comes out of left field for Commentary and there's been this idea that conservative populism would not easily cross over into mass know-nothing anti-cosmopolitanism without daunting effort. We pray that is still so. But there Ron is and we really don't know the extent of his draw. n nA GOP that was inoculated against his rise wouldn't have him as a front runner in the first place. The guy would certainly not be competitive, say, in Chuck Schumer's district. Gingrich's campaign wil or will not be sustained by his big media-so-so ground game strategy and Romney is counting on this very very long carefully asset-deployed game of somewhat obscure political purpose, as there is a disconnect between his known political personality and his slogans de jour. But so far, Ron has not seriously been contested by either of these guys. n nMaybe we should have more updates on Jewish topics of interest that don't have an immediate, easy buzz. You know there's a Leo Strauss Center opening up, what's with what? Is Yiddish culture dead or did the neo-Yiddish revival touted some years back take root? What are the demographics of Jewish kids on campus? Are harediim Jews finding a way in Israel to become occupationally viable? What does Chabad think today about the Rebbe? Still Moshiach Now? Moshiach Later? Moshiach Deferred? n nBut you know, comparing polemic targets Obama vs Ron Paul, Obama is not the guy to worry about.
Ron Paul is "irredeemably damaged by the lunatic fringe"? Really? n nApparently the status quo of unconstitutional wars resulting in mass murder, indefinite detention, assassinating American citizens without due process and piling on the national debt is okay. n nIf I found some racists or conspiracy theorists who backed Obama or Romney I assume they too would be irredeemably damaged and unelectable? n nDidn't think so.
It's ok that Bill Clinton cheated on his wife. It's fine that Newt did it two (pun intended) while prosecuting Bill Clinton. It's Ok that Romney flip flopped on every position he ever discussed. n nBut, I guess actually disregarding unproven allegations that are a couple of decades old is just going too far. n ngive me a break
Jonathan Tobin of Commentary magazine threatened by "hate". What a laugh!!! These neocons have successfully sold multiple wars and sanctions against Muslims. Why? – because they HATE MUSLIMS. Tens of thousands of dead little kids because of their actions and now Ron Paul supposedly has to "confront hate" of letters he's been disavowing for years. n I like that in prison child molesters are abused. If only the American public knew what you guys have done to our troops, our wealth and the children of the Middle East. n That's why the troops support Ron Paul more than all other candidates combined… or do they need to confront their hate Jonathan?
Instead of reviewing articles written by someone else , i myself look at what he believes and says.r nr nu201cRacism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, r nthe mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals . . .r n By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called u201cr ndiversityu201d actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is r ninherently racists . . .r n we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups r nand begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.u201dr nr nRon Paul
The man is so clean you people have go back 20 years to get some old newsletter he himself did not even physically write. You people make yourselves look pathetic and slave-like by writing lies like this its just so niggardly. You call your self a Journalist why don't you go dig up some real facts. Where were you back in 2000 when George Bush was campaigning. He and his entire family is full of racists his grandfather was a filthy nazi cheerleader and banker and this is public info. Its funny because I saw nothing in the mainstream media about it. Your fighting a loosing battle Ron Paul the freedom loving anti-racist will be POTUS in 2012!
Im a proud black man from Massachusetts and im honored to say i support Ron Paul and not Obama who lied to me and STOLE MY VOTE in 2008!!!
Dear lord I was wrong! Ron Paul is the only candidate that stands for individual freedoms and how could this be racist?r nr nI will now forever bow my head in shame. The humanity!
Ron Paul accepted moral responsibility for the newsletters but disavowed the message. Just I'm guessing Michael Jordon does not oversee all of the Nike's made with his name on them. As a doctor Paul treated all the poor for free with no regard for color or ethnic background. Paul has been outspoken about the unfairness in the penal and judicial system in regards to minorities. The head of the NAACP in Austin spoke up on Paul's behalf on this matter and said he is not a racist. nI find it amusing when people say, "he wants to legalize heroin". He wants to legalize choice. Paul believes that you cannot legislate morality. Laws are not going to change peoples minds about drugs anymore than if we legislated religion or access to books on communism. Persons with free will choose their own paths here. As long as they are not harming others you can't pass laws to keep them from harming themselves. nHis foreign policy is in line with the foundation of this nation and I happen to agree. We were all angry when 9/11 happened and he voted to after those responsible. That quickly fell to the wayside as we got involved in nation building and then led to another war with misinformation. You will not convince people of the goodness and rightness of your cause by an oppressive military response. nThe department of defense reported their assessment of Iran's military capabilities which showed their military was minimally capable of carrying out a regional war much less bringing on a world war. The report also states their nuclear ambitions are strictly for deterrence and self preservation. This report comes from our military. nIsrael is home to the second most holy site in Islam. I doubt very seriously Iran want's to nuke that. Not only would Israel and the United States respond aggressively but I suspect most Muslim nations as well. nPaul is calling for a common sense approach to these challenges. That doesn't make him a kook. I have to agree with him and I believe as more people here what he stands for they will too.
Ron Paul is not a racist, and it's clear from a stylistic analysis that he didn't write the comments in the newsletters. n nThat said, here's the TRUE dirty secret of libertarianism: n nYou can be a libertarian and hate as much as you want! What you CAN'T do is initiate force against others — whether you love them or hate them. Libertarianism doesn't imply libertine, nor does it imply some kind of purism. Libertarianism defines how you interact with other people. n nSo, even if Ron Paul were a hater (he's not), as long as you believe he's a libertarian, it's irrelevant. He wouldn't use the force of government to imprint his version of morality (good or bad) on other people. n nIf Ron Paul is a racist (he's not), as long as he's a libertarian, it won't matter one bit to his presidency.
There is nothing in Ron Paul's personal beliefs or behavior to suggest he harbors racist sentiments or that he has ever engaged in racist activities. n nTo be sure, (1) many of our country's political elite have made racist or anti-semitic comments in their lifetimes — most of which we discover decades later or (2) many of our political leaders have been reluctant about, or half-hearted about, confronting racists within their own political party or effectively confronting racist policies and institutional indifference extant in our country. n nSome examples of all these situations include: Eisenhower, Truman, Nixon, JFK, Jesse Jackson and many others. n nRather than dwell upon what is NOT known or provable about Ron Paul's beliefs and values, why not focus upon something which is not disputable, namely, Paul's association with the John Birch Society? n nWhy doesn't someone ask Paul if he agrees with the basic predicates of JBS ideology? n nHere are a few examples: n n1. From the May 2008 JBS Bulletin: n n"Just as the JBS showed in the 1960's that the communists basically ran both the civil rights movement and the KKK, the strategy was nothing new…"
2. From the April 2011 JBS Bulletin: n"The history of the socialist movement in the U.S. is one of advocating mandatory public education. Recall that it is the tenth step toward communizing any country outlined by Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto." n n3. From JBS founder Robert Welch comments to the first meeting of the JBS National Council in January 1960: n n"In the Senate, there are men like Stephen Young of Ohio, and Wayne Morse of Oregon, McNamara of Michigan, and Clifford Case of New Jersey and Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota and Estes Kefauver of Tennessee and John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, whom it is utter folly to think of as just liberals. Every one of those men is either an actual Communist or so completely a Communist sympathizer or agent that it makes no practical difference…" n n
4. From the November 1966 JBS Bulletin (written by JBS founder Robert Welch): n n“We have said many times, and we repeat now, that if you can fully expose the civil rights fraud, you will break the back of the Communist conspiracy. But the word ‘fully’ is important in that sentence. It calls for bringing a preponderant majority of our fellow citizens really to grasp the fact that the ‘civil rights’ program has been designed by Communists, is controlled by Communists, and will be used by the Communists as a vital part of their total strategy for taking over our country.” n nSo–let's find out if Ron Paul agrees with these 4 JBS predicates.
Yeah, the libertarians are going to take over the government and leave everyone alone. They might even allow consenting adults to use light bulbs, washing machines and toilets of our choosing. Freedom is so inconvenient to some.
Real Libertarians should support Gary Johnson for President. n nRon Paul is incoherent on the debate stage. Ron Paul lets his 'supporters' do his dirty work, including what is clearly cyber-war, a 'base' growing with the far left anti-war Code Pink/Free Gaza money and boots who supported Obama in 2008. n nLibertarianism is being corrupted by Ron Paul. n n n n
I'm not sure how many times someone has to answer the question, but, apparently Ron Paul must continue to do so, until he gives the media the answer they want. It's obvious the answer you and the rest of the dinosaur press want is for him to proclaim he's racist. n n Keep running scared, establishment media, because you should be. Americans are waking up to those who pimp the status quo. You are the ones aiding the destruction of the nation. You will be irrelevant soon, as more people get their news from alternative sources.