"The bigoted past of Ron Paul."
Look, I said it on Bloggingheads: The things Ron Paul has been saying made me suspect that his libertarianism was a cover for racism. Listen beginning at 8:07 [ADDED: You have to begin in the Ron Paul segment — here — and then go to 8:07]: "I feel like the people who are so enamored with those states' rights positions and that libertarian position... Coming from the South... an older person... who grew up in the segregated South... How do I know he's not a racist? ... I find it offensive, the positions he's taking, but maybe it's the pretty face that you put on the position that is, if not really racist, just insensitive about race?"
Now, James Kirchick has found the shocking evidence:
No word yet from Andrew Sullivan, who endorsed Ron Paul as the Republican nominee back here, with what now looks like exquisitely bad effusion: "[T]hese are principles that made me a conservative in the first place... He's the real thing in a world of fakes and frauds."
ADDED: Based on reading the comments here, I realize I need to stress what I was talking about in that Bloggingheads episode. You can listen to the whole segment. But I'm not saying that every older person who grew up in the South should be suspected of racism. I'm saying that a person who espouses the ideas that Ron Paul does — opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, blaming Abraham Lincoln for starting the Civil War and thinking it should never have been fought — makes me want to know more, and when he is also a man of a certain age from the South, that tweaks my suspicion up a notch. I don't think all libertarians or advocates of "states' rights" are racists, but I think some of them are, and many of them are insufficiently concerned about racial inequity (or they would care to make an effort to explain, when they take these positions, why they are willing to risk unfortunate consequences). Finally, I read in the comments that I grew up in the Northeast. This is not so. I grew up in Delaware, and, while I did not think of it as North or South — it was a border state in the Civil War — every black person I have ever talked to about this has assured me — sometimes after recovering from a laughing fit — that the South starts in Delaware.
UPDATE: Matt Welch collects the Ron Paul blowback. And here's Ron Paul's response:
AND: Andrew Sullivan says: "I also want to reiterate that those of us who supported the Ron Paul movement find these sentiments despicable." Why are you speaking for others, Andrew? You are not a native American. Why do you assume you channel the beliefs of others?
Now, James Kirchick has found the shocking evidence:
[L]ong before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business. In the age before blogs, newsletters occupied a prominent place in right-wing political discourse. With the pages of mainstream political magazines typically off-limits to their views (National Review editor William F. Buckley having famously denounced the John Birch Society), hardline conservatives resorted to putting out their own, less glossy publications. These were often paranoid and rambling.... And a few of the most prominent bore the name of Ron Paul....Read the whole thing.
What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics....
Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with "'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda." It also denounced "the media" for believing that "America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks."...
Such views on race also inflected the newsletters' commentary on foreign affairs. South Africa's transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara"; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending "South African Holocaust."
Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters....
While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke....
Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul's newsletters....
The rhetoric when it came to Jews was little better...
Paul's newsletters didn't just contain bigotry. They also contained paranoia--specifically, the brand of anti-government paranoia that festered among right-wing militia groups during the 1980s and '90s....
What's more, Paul's connections to extremism go beyond the newsletters....
Then there is Gary North, who has worked on Paul's congressional staff. North is a central figure in Christian Reconstructionism, which advocates the implementation of Biblical law in modern society...
No word yet from Andrew Sullivan, who endorsed Ron Paul as the Republican nominee back here, with what now looks like exquisitely bad effusion: "[T]hese are principles that made me a conservative in the first place... He's the real thing in a world of fakes and frauds."
ADDED: Based on reading the comments here, I realize I need to stress what I was talking about in that Bloggingheads episode. You can listen to the whole segment. But I'm not saying that every older person who grew up in the South should be suspected of racism. I'm saying that a person who espouses the ideas that Ron Paul does — opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, blaming Abraham Lincoln for starting the Civil War and thinking it should never have been fought — makes me want to know more, and when he is also a man of a certain age from the South, that tweaks my suspicion up a notch. I don't think all libertarians or advocates of "states' rights" are racists, but I think some of them are, and many of them are insufficiently concerned about racial inequity (or they would care to make an effort to explain, when they take these positions, why they are willing to risk unfortunate consequences). Finally, I read in the comments that I grew up in the Northeast. This is not so. I grew up in Delaware, and, while I did not think of it as North or South — it was a border state in the Civil War — every black person I have ever talked to about this has assured me — sometimes after recovering from a laughing fit — that the South starts in Delaware.
UPDATE: Matt Welch collects the Ron Paul blowback. And here's Ron Paul's response:
The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.I don't quite understand. Writing went out under your name, but you didn't pay much attention to it? Why not? A casual conclusion is that you generally agreed and enjoyed having your name on it. Are you saying your name was appropriated and the whole thing was a fraud? It doesn't seem so.
In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin....
This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically [sic] taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.
AND: Andrew Sullivan says: "I also want to reiterate that those of us who supported the Ron Paul movement find these sentiments despicable." Why are you speaking for others, Andrew? You are not a native American. Why do you assume you channel the beliefs of others?
Labels: Delaware, Holocaust, libertarians, MLK, racial politics, Ron Paul
posted by Ann Althouse at 1:43 PM
152 Comments:
Wow. Now this really explains why he thinks Lincoln was wrong to go to war.
I'll say it again- he's far-right. Nice to see people that matter are finally picking up on that.
A movement is judged by its followers. When I see troofers, conspiracy theorists, anti- semites, and real life Nazis supporting the guy, that makes me wonder. Once I looked into it, it was obvious that it's another far-right conspiracy-driven candidacy.
Why the Republicans let this guy stay so long is a question I'd like answered. The Democrats will use this, and they are absolutely right to do so.
What's funny is that I never would have cared except the online Paul presence is so annoying.
And why he has never distanced himself from the neo-nazi supporters. That is the thing that has made me really uncomfortable with the man.
A few of his quoted newsletter remarks actually sound like accurate criticisms, but if you fire a shotgun downrange the target is apt to get hit one or twice. The remark about the Civil War being a mistake really makes it hard to see this as other than bigotry, though.
When you get the kind of supporters Paul has...not just the troofers but the Stormfront types there is a reason for it...
These groups rallied to him for a reason...somehow they knew he was on their side.
It amazes me that this type of mindset persists.
How come debate moderators didn't find this kind of stuff to ask him during a debate?
At last it has been revealed that the head sheep is really a wolf after all! I feel bad for some of Paul's followers but sometimes life isn't fair, kids. Feeling empassioned for a candidate does not a viable President make!
What's the difference these days between Sullivan and Obama anyway?
I'll tell you: Obama has hope in soul, Sullivan has ....in his....
Hateful.
There's a lot of it in the air.
Take, for example, Hitchens' piece a few days ago calling Obama's church "a bizarre outfit" and "crackpot."
I went to the church's website, looked at its bulletin and saw how its members are involved with hospice and cancer patients, HIV patients, the homeless, etc.
Yup, that's bizarre for a church, all right...
Ummm, this is The New Republic. Ron Paul is one of the Republicans who trigger my gag reflex (Huckabee is the other) but I'll really believe this when we get some third-party to look at the original sources.
Damn you, TNR, for sullying your reputation so much that I have to my gloat.
I thought most people knew this already, although I guess I've only seen it on political message boards and not in the mainstream media.
I subscribed to RP's rather expensive newsletter for a year in the early 90s. I'm glad that somebody is noticing what was in it. The main thing I remember was rumor-mongering about the new currency, as if it was going to track your every transaction and take the last shred of freedom away. Nutty stuff. Surely some copies survive of this stuff. Let's publish it and ask some hard questions. It was a small newsletter, so RP can't shift the blame on this one.
No matter what you think you ought to reflect on how other slave holding societies ended slavery. Brazil did it later than we did and without a civil war. Other countries did so successfully without mass murder and destruction. For the rest of you guilt by association types, you might remember what members of the Democratic Party used to say about blacks (along with their paramilitary wing the KKK).
"Slavery among the whites was an improvement over independence in Africa. The very progress that the blacks have made, when--and only when--brought into contact with the whites, ought to be a sufficient argument in support of white supremacy--it ought to be sufficient to convince even the blacks themselves."
--William Jennings Bryan, 1923
Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party, 1896, 1900 and 1908
Appointed Secretary of State by Woodrow Wilson in 1913
His statue stands in the U.S. Capitol.
And ...
"Anyone who has traveled to the Far East knows that the mingling of Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results. . . . The argument works both ways. I know a great many cultivated, highly educated and delightful Japanese. They have all told me that they would feel the same repugnance and objection to have thousands of Americans settle in Japan and intermarry with the Japanese as I would feel in having large numbers of Japanese coming over here and intermarry with the American population. In this question, then, of Japanese exclusion from the United States it is necessary only to advance the true reason--the undesirability of mixing the blood of the two peoples. . . . The Japanese people and the American people are both opposed to intermarriage of the two races--there can be no quarrel there."
--Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1925
President, 1933-45
And ...
"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."
--Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1957
Sullivan on these
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/ron-paul-expose.html
If true, he's pretty disgusted
This post has been removed by the author.
Andrew can't believe it.
The comments at New Republic must be the Paulbots everyone's been talking about.
I think that Paul is "far-right" only if you see political thought as having only one axis.
The problem with the far-right and the far-left is they are indistinguishable. The same prejudices and paranoias guide their philosophies. This is not to confuse either with mainstream liberal or conservative (I'm very conservative; used to be very liberal). A commenter at JustOneMinute noted that the same NH neighbors with sky-high Dean yard signs 4 years ago are displaying sky-high Paul signs now. Far-right and far-left -- the same.
For a long time I detected a strong anti-Semitic strain in RP and his supporters; I wasn't looking for racist and homophobic strains but they don't surprise me.
BTW one should quit throwing the word "Nazi" around like it's a far-right thing. "Nazi," a strain of fascism, is a lefty thing, as Jonah Goldberg has so aptly explained. Nazis believe in government control of everything - something both RP and regular conservatives reject. Who believes in government control? Libs and lefties.
How come debate moderators didn't find this kind of stuff to ask him during a debate?
Perhaps because they never took him seriously as a candidate. He was a "kook" so they found it a waste of time and resources to do any opposition research on him?
But I agree. Beyond the obvious fact that Paul is now more dead, this makes me wonder what else the "debates" are missing.
So Ron Paul is part of this huge racist conspiracy where he is says he admires MLK and Ghandi as stewards of civil disobedience, but really believes he was a pedofile. If they actually had some video or proof of him saying these remarks I would buy it, but its a newletter written decades ago. This is just a smear released right before the primaries to hurt Ron Paul. Isnt he more tolerant of gays than the other republicans. He wasnt trying to pass an ammendment BANNING gay marriage. He doesnt want federal drug laws that discriminate against blacks. I just dont see how a decade old newletter should explain Pauls ideology better than his voting record.
George,
Try reading alittle about Obamas church and some of the hateful speech its pastor invokes on a regular basis before you defend it. You'll look less like an ignorant liberal.
Andrew Sullivan, proud member of the MSM, and just as incurious (learned this from George Bush perhaps?) and lazy as the MSM it seems.
All I can say is ha ha ha ha ha Andrew you self-righteous, pompous windbag.
As I've said many times before, that he's right about several issues doesn't change the basic reality that he's a total loon. That he may also turn out to be a racist loon makes it even worse, but isn't entirely unexpected (although I would dissent from the reasoning that says that if you're opposed to X, it must mean you're opposed to it for reason Y - that seems an attempt to tar anyone who has certain beliefs for legitimate reasons with the same brush).
Yeah, I'm a subscriber to the Larid Wilcox and John George definition of extremism. The trouble is that no one else is, so I say far-right because everyone knows what I mean.
What amazes me is that in this age of the internet, no one picked up on this for so long. It took a freeper to pick this up first, and only because he found some paper copies. The internet is extremely limited in time. It gives an illusion of having all information, when in reality in only has a fraction.
I knew this the first time I read RP's words. He has never sounded like a Libertarian. He always sounds like a Bircher or a LaRouche whacko.
Terribly disappointed.
Oh well. Put not thy faith in princes... or politicians.
Peg - it comes into coherency once you abandon the right-left scale, which has several deep flaws, and look at it through a Hayekian lens of planning vs. liberty. Goldwater said that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, but as we see well-personified in Paul, you can go too far towards the liberty side of the scale as to the statist side.
I would like to join Simon's dissent. :)
But this is certainly interesting news! I knew Ron Paul was a nut, but I thought he was just sucking up to the Pat Buchanan types. I didn't realize he actually WAS one.
I was IN South Central Los Angeles during the 1992 Rodney King riots.
The Paul newsletter doesn't come close to half of it.
If this is the worst of it, there's no there, there.
He always did have the smell of Birch sap on him.
Jeebus though could they get a few things right?
Paul was a "flight Surgeon" in the US Air Force not Army and the designation "surgeon" in that title doesn't neccessarily mean you are qualifed to perform surgery like it would out in the civilian world.
Goldwater said that extremism in defense of liberty is no vice,
Goldwater said that in reference to defending against communism-but that gets twisted by a lot of right wingers to support their inner faction squabbles.
Oh, one more thing -- I would like to clarify something about Paul's politics and Ann's perception of them.
An obsession with "states' rights" is NOT a libertarian political position. Libertarians don't favor state governments over federal; they favor individual rights over government authority. If the federal government forces a state government to stop oppressing people, libertarians should see that as a victory -- provided that the federal use of force isn't worse than the state oppression is.
That's why I think that reasonable libertarians can agree that the Civil Rights Act (or something like it) was necessary, but still think that it isn't necessary today -- in the 1960s, oppression of blacks was a much worse violation of individual freedom than the federal intervention was. Today it seems clear to me that the reverse is true; we spend countless dollars and man-hours dealing with the vagaries of racial law and get no apparent benefit from it.
I'm going to guess that this is an MMFA-level smear from a publication that, in addition to their recent lies, featured an establishment, anti-American hack like JasonZengerle.
Althouse might at least consider not going in whole hog with TNR. Plenty of people are concerned about things like holograms or even RFID chips in dollar bills, and that doesn't make them "far-right", nor do they deserve to be mentioned in the same breath with Nazis. Even one of Rudy's current advisors warned against a NationalID card, way back in 1986.
Let me suggest that much of the article is based on things written by people other than Ron Paul, and that the author's intepretation of "far-right" might be more than a bit skewed.
I love it. The best part is that Andrew Sullivan will have egg on his face.
He is a disgrace to gays...hell, he's a disgrace to people.
As for Ronnie Paul...could you imagine if he was your OBGYN? Yikes. I can imagine the sound of his voice as he's poking around down there. Not fun.
You know the irony of it-
There is no way in hell Goldwater would be for weakening on National Defense or that extremist anti-war stance.
The Birchers were extreme isolationists-Goldwater would kick 'em in the ass.
Ron Paul is stupid and ignorant, so it's no surprise he believes stupid and ignorant things--he doesn't believe in evolution either. Still, he strikes me as the candidate most likely to leave me alone, and I have to give him points for that.
Re the Civil War, I don't think it's necessarily racist to believe that Constitutionally, the South had every right to secede. In fact, I think I can see secession hiding in one of those penumbras right now. And Paul isn't the only one who thought it wasn't worth fighting a war to end slavery...that was also Lincoln's view. He fought the war to preserve the Union--i.e. his own power. And he would have been right at home with Paul's views on race.
Ann, your liberal bigotry against the South is overwhelmingly offensive. I don't like Paul and don't doubt that he is everything nasty Kirchick says, however, as a Southern woman of your age (can we call that older?) who grew up in the segregated South and who supports state's rights and tends to libertarian ideas I guess I'm a probable racist in your eyes. Okay. That is your generalization to embrace. All I'm saying is that your prejudice is obvious and offensive.
You didn't have to read his newsletter to know he's a nut.
lgf been there done Paul.
Lots of nice linkys.
And how about our good friend Obamarama.
He belongs to a really nice church.
Here is a bit on Obama's Church:
The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan received the "Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright,Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer" Award at the 2007 Trumpet Gala at the the United Church of Christ.
More at:
Trinity United Church of Christ
lone whack,
Sure not all that stuff was written by Paul. Why would he be caught dead or alive in the same venue.
"He has never sounded like a Libertarian."
A whole lot of Libertarians don't sound like Libertarians. ;-) A whole lot of them do seem to want permission for their vices without the political philosophy having much influence on them at all.
I'm actually registered Libertarian, atm, though I probably ought to change. Still, philosophically, I'm more libertarian than not.
Peg - it comes into coherency once you abandon the right-left scale, which has several deep flaws, and look at it through a Hayekian lens of planning vs. liberty.
I would strongly recommend Virginia Postrel's book "The Future and its Enemies" to those interested in a discussion of planned versus unplanned society.
Ya there are some that try to tar Goldwater with racism-he was far from it.
His idea was that you could not dictate laws or legislate from the bench or else you would be artificially enforcing them.
In other words it would cost you a whole lot of blood and treasure to enforce a law that had no natural support from the bottom up.
Well Lincoln had economic reasons as well.
The South wanted to trade or export all their natural resources to England.
Kind of like giving away the Rhineland.
"An obsession with "states' rights" is NOT a libertarian political position. Libertarians don't favor state governments over federal; they favor individual rights over government authority."
I had made this point in my last comment, decided it was a digression and edited it out.
It's an important point.
Re the Civil War, I don't think it's necessarily racist to believe that Constitutionally, the South had every right to secede.
Given that they fired the first shots of the war, the question of whether or not they had the right to secede is fairly meaningless. They were either (a) rebellious states or (b) a hostile foreign power launching a war of aggression against the United States. Either way, they needed a good ass kicking.
Apparently, disavowal and a polite apology were enough
for Sullivan. Hard to believe I ever gave him any credit for being rational or independent.
Why would he be caught dead or alive in the same venue.
Exactly right. You can't just say, sorry, I have a blog called "Althouse," but despite the fact that you can't prove otherwise, I didn't write all of those blog entries, at least not the ones you consider heinous, and they weren't really my views anyway, they were just meant to look like my views and I profited from their distribution.
Ridiculous. The denial the Paul-fanatics are demonstrating is fascinating, psychologically. And now Sullivan piles on.
Christy-
I think you have to actually go listen to Ann at bloggingheads as opposed to reading it?
I think Ann is posing the question more as a hypothetical-that is to be proved or disproved.
It doesn't come off the same way if you listen to it.
That's my take anyways.
It's more of a provocative- to get the discussion going.
In other words do you think Ann thinks Reynolds is a racist?
Rrrh, I'd hazard a no.
Ron Paul didn't grow up in the segregated South. He grew up in the segregated NorthEast. You know, like Ann Althouse did.
I thought everyone already knew this stuff as well. I guess not. If you want a real laugh, though, go check out the comments at Pajamas Media:
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php
Hilarious.
Revenant said...
"An obsession with 'states' rights' is NOT a libertarian political position. Libertarians don't favor state governments over federal; they favor individual rights over government authority. "
That's right - federalism and libertarianism address related but distinct questions: libtertarianism is concerned with "should government do X"; federalism is about "which government should do X." (Moreover, that's really something of a shorthand - federalism is primarily a legal question of "which government should do X under our system of government; it echoes the normative version of the same question which is addressed by subsidiarity, which you'll often find public choice theory proponents touting).
madawaskan said...
"Ya there are some that try to tar Goldwater with racism-he was far from it. His idea was that you could not dictate laws or legislate from the bench or else you would be artificially enforcing them."
Well, he opposed the Civil Rights Act, too, on the grounds that he thought it was unconstitutional. I think his reading of the Constitution was wrong (or at least, I think it answered the question using an invalid criterion, viz. original intent of the drafters vs. original public meaning of the text, and was thus mistaken), but I don't doubt his good faith in reaching that conclusion.
If you watch C-SPAN, the Paulites who call in are crazy, and all seem to have read the same script, except there is no script and they're all just the same frequency of crazy. I wonder where these revelations leave Ilya Somin.
"Ummm, this is The New Republic."
The author, James Kirchik, also writes for Commentary.
simon-
Well, he opposed the Civil Rights Act, too, on the grounds that he thought it was unconstitutional. I think his reading of the Constitution was wrong (or at least, I think it answered the question using an invalid criterion, viz. original intent of the drafters vs. original public meaning of the text, and was thus mistaken), but I don't doubt his good faith in reaching that conclusion.
simon thanks-that has always vexed me, and it's an interesting discussion.
I forget the station, but Ron Paul was asked anout his racist and supremist supporters. His response was so what. He said, in effect, that they had a right to vote and support who they wanted and that he would take every vote he could get. He also related that he had supporters from the extreme far left.
Ron Paul is just trying to appeal to the real "disenfranchised" voters; those whose fantasies border on lunacy.
Prof A
TNR indeed. But still damning.
BTW, you might want to update with Paul's Press Release
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron-paul-statement-on-the-new-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters
This PR stuff sounds like the Clintons's usual defense: I didn't really do/say/or write any of that, even tho it went out under my name &, hey, it's old stuff anyway & let's move on, & basically I had a part in all the Clinton Presidency that was good & none in what was bad.
Paul's people seem to be saying that he agrees with the stuff which represents good judgment & really doesn't agree with the stuff which kinda doesn't seem so good when scrutinized by mine enemies.
Maybe he should weep! Or bite his lower lip!
From the Release:
"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts...a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically (sic) taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
Of course he only wrote the stuff that no one's offended by and beside's its old news. I don't know about you guys but I've come a long ways since 1991. /sarcasm
I'm cuckoo for cocoa puffs, cuckoo for cocoa puffs.
That is some really nasty stuff...
I would tend to buy Paul's exlanation. I went to college with his son Rob and I never heard anything close to that ever come out of his mouth -- and Rob was an articulate spokesman back then. I wouldn't vote for Paul in a million years and think he is a whack job at times -- but not a racist.
He is way too lax about with whom he allows to speak for his bandwagon. He may be a racist for all I know, but I don't think so.
"Ya there are some that try to tar Goldwater with racism-he was far from it. His idea was that you could not dictate laws or legislate from the bench or else you would be artificially enforcing them."
It's worth pointing out, though, that Goldwater also was also a bit of an admirer of Ian Smith, the last prime minister of Rhodesia under White rule. There are arguments to be made that Smith was better than his successors, such as the execrable Mugabe, and a number of Black politicians in Zimbabwe have given limited praise to Smith. But it's hard not to notice that in the 1960s, when Rhodesia attempted to secede from the British Empire (via the Unilateral Declaration of Independence) precisely because of White opposition to majority rule, Goldwater spoke in support of the White minority ruler. This is . . . not something I'd expect a conscientious libertarian to do.
To be perfectly honest, I admire what Goldwater did for the Republican party and for America, but I'm not sure how far from racism he really was.
I discuss a few issues with the article here. Perhaps someone can answer the question about 1990, and hopefully everyone will agree that that's either yet another serious TNR "mistake" or an intentional attempt to deceive.
Ann,
You are absolutely right about Paul. Thanks for the link.
However,
As a liberal who grew up Jewish (and converted to Mormonism) and who disagrees entirely with Ron Paul on a whole range of issues and fundamental philosophies, I have to take issue with your characterization of southern libertarians and come to Christy's defense:
No doubt, there are plenty of Southern libertarians who do in fact use it as a cover for racism. However, if you accept as a premise that it is possible for a person to be a libertarian without being a racist (and in a pure libertarian sense that is certainly possible), then why is it possible if they live in Michigan but not if they live in Mississippi?
One is remined of Flannery O'Connor's famous quote,:
"anything that comes out of the South is going to be called grotesque by the northern reader, unless it is grotesque, in which case it is going to be called realistic"
and unfortunately you've made Miss O'Connor's point.
"In fact, I think I can see secession hiding in one of those penumbras right now."
I'm pretty sure (though I'm not a lawyer) that SCOTUS ruled secession illegal. Something to do with someone in Texas around 1870 or so.
Madison Man asks an interesting question--with a paper trail like Paul's, where was the MSM? It couldnt be because Paul's anti-war/isolationist rhetoric was consistent with some of their views? Was it because he was the real anti-war candidate?
For those familiar with Libertarianism, it should come as no surprise that Libertarians believe that the only proper use of a military force is to maintain the security of the homeland.
I read some of the Paulbots' comments at the Pajamas Media site. The rabid defense of him is fascinating. Half of his defenders are using the "ghostwriter"/"he didn't write or approve of this these comments" defense and the other half are saying that he was right with all those comments.
And no internal squabble as to which side is right? What a strange cult of personality RP has cultivated here.
Ron Paul: He's anyone you want him to be.
balfegor-
I knew him personally and I'd say no way.
I think he just came at it from a different perspective.
He kicked out someone from the Air Force Academy Officer's Club for being a bigot, and he did it for me.
Let's just say he didn't like people who acted like they were..
Crap it's hard to get into the specifics, but I really won't believe words, I saw how he acted.
He treated me like a person, an eighteen year old and this was back when he was Chair of- I think- the Armed Services Committee-he'd take the time to shoot the shit about his favorite topic-
Flying.
If you are a flyer you'll know that this might be where he got his ultimate love for and value of-
Freedom.
You know we never could get him to talk about politics-he came to loathe it.
He hated the media for twisting everything he said.
But he loved the Air Force. He loved the cadets-and he would never go for this isolationist bullshit.
Wait...
Now I understand that the opinions Paul expressed may not be "PC", and I'm not a Paulista for a number of reasons.
However, I lived in the area in 1992. The anger expressed by this opinion piece after the riots was understandable, especially to someone who saw the whole situation in context. Complaints of racist oppression as an excuse for mayhem, after years of attempts to rectify past racism with money and legislation here in California really did anger a lot of people, not just the "far right" bogeymen being invoked here.
Furthermore, I'm sure that Ron Paul understands what a quotation mark is, even if you don't. When he uses quotation marks around "civil rights", that implies that he is not denouncing civil rights for black Americans, but rather, preferential treatment in the name of "rights". There was a strong notion, in the early '90s, at the height of gang violence in Los Angeles, that, in the attempt to rectify past wrongs, heinous crimes by African-Americans were not being prosecuted, nor sentences doled out as they should have been. Was this feeling justified? I don't know -- it's surely not the whole picture, regardless. However, this feeling was not confined to some group of fringe "far right" bigots.
Where are the comments about Jews and conspiracies? Where's the animus towards gays, and the conspiracy paranoia?
Where are the quotes to back this up?
Frankly, taken in the context of the LA riots and the emotions surrounding them at the time, the quotes here are not nearly as much of a "gotcha" as Ann makes it sound. And many people had concerns about the real future of South Africa. Apartheid truly did have to be ended, and should have been ended years earlier. But South Africa has not exactly been without its problems since.
Some quotes about the Jews and the conspiracies, and maybe an actual quote praising David Duke, would be far more damning.
Like I said, I'm no Paulista. But the actual quotes here are not exactly earth-shattering.
This isn't a new discovery; I read on a local blogger's site (righthandthief.blogspot.com) about these newsletters in November, and hecited a Daily Kos post from May. I'm glad to see it getting more attention.
Ann, Ann! How could you?
The New Republic is using Paul's occasionally anti-black comments to paint an entire chunk of the web and American society as "angry white men".
Some of the supposedly damning quotes from Paul are pretty standard diatribe among various interest groups. E.g. his comments about "Bolsheviks" is gentle compared to what is common on the internet conservative blogs.
As far as I am concerned, The New Republic is no better than Ron Paul. Not a supporter of either.
Something else.
I read through most of the supposedly damning quotes here: http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/01/ron_paul.php
They come from the New Republic's "exposé".
Frankly, most of these damning quotes are simply opinions that don't gibe with the standard set of beliefs that the New Republic reader demographic shares. Is it so shocking when someone points out that, around the time of the LA riots in 1992, black children were growing up in Los Angeles with a hatred of "whitey"? Was the idea of prosecuting violent juvenile gang members as adults when their crimes were especially severe "racist"? Seems to me it was a mainstream viewpoint, even a majority viewpoint.
I encourage people to read through them, think about when they were written, and ask how damning they really are.
An example: “The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.”
Now I suppose, if you're a New Republic reader, you might read that as, "Man, you let 'em into the washroom and next thing you know, they'll kill us and burn down our cities!" But that's not what it says.
Again, I don't think I would vote for Ron Paul for President, come hell or high water. However, I don't think he really deserves to be painted as a klansman for expressing his opinion during volatile times. And it seems to me that Bill Clinton went for welfare reform not long afterward, so again, the idea that our welfare system helped create more poverty and violence was not exactly confined to the "far right".
Jeebus-
The New Republic still can't get it right.
they corrected it to read this-
(Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Air Force surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.)
Cripe as I first explained he was a-flight surgeon.
Now the military might use it in some archaic sense but you can be a flight surgeon and not be qualified to be a surgeon.
It is not used the in the same sense as in the civilian vernacular.
Her is an explanation of it from wiki-
A flight surgeon is a specialized medical officer in the military. Flight surgeons are osteopathic or medical doctors. Flight surgeons are primarily responsible for the medical treatment and certification of aviation personnel e.g. pilots, aircrew members and air traffic controllers. In most branches of the U.S military, flight surgeons also have public health and occupational and preventative medicine roles. They are often called upon to provide medical consultation/advice as part of an investigation board into an aviation mishap, and they give routine medical exams to aviators. A periodic pilot exam is called a flight physical.wiki
He's a frickin' OB/GYN that can qualify you to be a "flight surgeon" but that does not qualify you to be an Air Force surgeon.
I know it's stupid but damn I hate the gulf between the military community and the civilian one.
They can't get this right but this is who Liberals believe to be the "experts" when it comes to Iraq.
For the love of Mike!
This thread is pretty interesting to me as a former moderate who was seeking conservatism and stumbled upon libertarianism along the way...
I think the issue of race is something that the GOP has to come to terms with. It's not just a "Ron Paul" phenomenon, or that his 'cult' / bots are quick to find excuses for the language. I can comfortably and proudly defend some of the anti-war and pro-liberty arguments, but I won't bother defending him on his words re: race and bigotry.
Anyway, the GOP does have a poor history when it comes to race. Conservatives always seem to be on the wrong side of the civil rights debates. Abraham Lincoln aside, liberals and moderates believe the GOP is a big 'front' for bigotry.
Whether it's anti-Woman, anti-"Negro", anti-Mexican, anti-Gay, anti-Atheist (especially now), the GOP seems to harbor American bigots. I'm not saying all conservatives are like that, else I wouldn't have sought conservatism myself, but it is a stigma that the GOP needs to shed.
I understand the policy arguments, but it doesn't help that -on the issues- Republicans are:
Against AA, against Roe, anti-welfare (poor people are disproportionately minority), pro-Christian (anti-everything else that isn't Christian)and on immigration, (I get this "Send all those filthy lepers and their children back to where they came from!" vibe)and retarded when it comes to the Education problem in America.
This is in large part a 'perception' problem, but there is some truth to the accusations of bigotry and elitism. At some point the party will have to confront the issue. I have to admit that reading a conservative blog and seeing conservatives argue against racism really gives me hope for the GOP. It may sound dumb to all of you, because you probably think everyone that thinks this way is a "paranoid liberal hippie loser", but I see this conversation as showing progress in the conservative mindset.
When I see Barack Obama heralded in ways by Fox News that even I think are over-the-top, it feels good to see that maybe America is coming around. Maybe, racism is dying now that bigger problems are beginning to surface in the world.
Not everyone thinks racism is even an issue anymore. I've felt it throughout my life and I still see it as a problem for our country. During my time in Madison, (I'm an American of Mexican descent)I was called a "spic" and "chink" a few times by white guys who didn't know me. Also, I was occasionally followed in stores by State Street store managers. I was 26 or 27 at the time, so it wasn't an issue of age. Despite the awkward situations, I don't fault them, it's hard to break away from personal fears -- some of which have been learned from childhood.
People of color tend to expect racism from non-colored people. They rarely share this sentiment, because how could you really? When I was living in Ithaca, NY it was somewhat similar, but a lot more staring. Yet, as I look back, I always remember Madison, WI as the BEST experience I've had in my life. A few racist incidents aside, in terms of culture, diversity, lifestyle, and generosity of the locals, I've never seen anything like it.
Sorry for getting a bit personal there... but race is one are where no political candidate can screw around on. I'm not sure how this Ron Paul thing will play out. I am disappointed that the one glimmer of hope I felt emanating from the GOP was this Ron Paul guy--- an idea, of a "better America" and less corporate greed and injustice in the world.
I have to admit, that idea has lost some of its appeal. One last thing,... today when Bill Clinton said "Barack Obama" was living a fairy tale, it was really difficult for me (as an idealist) to listen to -- especially because I love(d) Bill Clinton. Now, all of the 'dreamy' candidates are being massacred by the nasty and hateful ones and I don't like it one bit because it puts us back at the "pick the lesser of evils" mode of choosing Presidents, and that's a terrible way to look at life.
Ann, you might note that Sullivan took the time to request a response from the Paul campaign, which he got and responded to.
Your willingness to jump on Paul as a racist bigot without further investigation shows your bias.
Now, I like what Ron Paul is saying on the stump, but definitely think he does have to rehash and address this past issue again for everyone. Paul claims moral responsibility for the stuff written under his name, but does not claim that the stuff you find objectionable - the racist and anti-gay bigotry - as his words. One is left to judge whether this is true or not, but the hate speech certainly doesn't jive with Paul's message of today at all.
At least Sullivan, who you criticize, took the time to find out what's really going on here. You, being your usual intellectually lazy self, didn't.
Also, I think this explains why some of Paul's supporters really are nuts. Obviously they think this stuff is the real Ron Paul.
Andrew sullivan said this about it:
"[Paul campaign issued] the right response [in defense]..."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/ron-paul-respon.html
Given that they fired the first shots of the war, the question of whether or not they had the right to secede is fairly meaningless. They were either (a) rebellious states or (b) a hostile foreign power launching a war of aggression against the United States. Either way, they needed a good ass kicking.
A classic case of "to the victor go the spoils". At least up until the Civil War, a better argument could be made that if states entered the Union voluntarily, they could leave it the same way.
"Obviously they think this stuff is the real Ron Paul."
So who is the real Ron Paul, aggie? Does Ron Paul even know?
"deserves to be painted as a klansman"
If he deserved that, he wouldn't be running for POTUS. He'd be running for the Senate. In West Virginia.
"the GOP seems to harbor American bigots"
See my 5:28 comment. And no, I don't call myself Republican.
Anyway, the GOP does have a poor history when it comes to race. Conservatives always seem to be on the wrong side of the civil rights debates. Abraham Lincoln aside, liberals and moderates believe the GOP is a big 'front' for bigotry.
Ok, let's talk reality, instead of wishful thinking on the part of those on the left.
On the Republican side:
- party founded to abolish slavery
- went to war to do just that.
- did it.
- passed 13th, 14th, 15th Amdts.
- passed original Civil Rights Acts
- attempted reconstruction
- provided majority of support for passage of Civil Rights Act of 1964. Only Senator voting Nay was Goldwater.
On the Democratic side:
- founded by slave holders
- went to war to keep slavery
- even those in the North supported slavery and opposed war
- opposed Civil Rights Amdts. and laws.
- opposed Reconstruction
- imposed Jim Crow
- resegregated military and imposed Separate but Equal in U.S. govt. employment (Wilson)
- Almost all KKK members belonged up through at least LBJ.
- Which meant that almost all uppidy blacks lynched were done so by Democrats.
- Almost all of the opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came from Democrats (the exception in the Senate being Goldwater).
- President Pro Tem of the Senate today is a former (?) KKK official.
As I see it, the Democratic Party has been in existence for roughly 200 years, and some 80% of that time actively practiced militant racism against African-Americans. And it still can't eliminate the last vestiges of that by removing a former KKK member from its senior ranks.
Man is it ever interesting to see how much SPIN can be placed no matter what the FACTS are.
If you don't like Ron Paul fine but to look for ways to smear him is something else.
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS233377+08-Jan-2008+BW20080108
Ya agree with your sentiments about the border frenzy.
Bush tried to temper it-but the internet blew it up out of proportion and I think the Republican candidates that over catered to it made a mistake-and they are being eliminated one by one.
Tancredo-gone.
Duncan Hunter- buh bye.
Thompson-on the ropes.
Some of us tried to tell them to quit following that Malin race baiter but the likes of Mickey Kaus still link to Polipundit a site too racist for most of his readers.
He purged over there all not as rabid as he and his readership went plummeting right with it from 40,000 to 6,000 despite the juicy links from Kaus at Slate.com.
Just exactly what is that guy's major malfunction? Kaus?
Polipundit btw isn't even American.
If Republicans were all the racists that they are being made out to be I don't think they would have fled that Polipundit site by the thouseands and I think that tancredo would have fared a little bit better.
So ya it stinks to enough Republicans.
"Against AA, against Roe, anti-welfare (poor people are disproportionately minority), pro-Christian (anti-everything else that isn't Christian)and on immigration, (I get this "Send all those filthy lepers and their children back to where they came from!" vibe)and retarded when it comes to the Education problem in America."
AA as currently defined? Absolutely.
against Roe?
A number of people consider it a bad decision. Both left and right. How is this a racial issue?
anti-welfare?
Depends. How would you classify those who believe getting someone a job and education is better than a perpetual handout? Racist?
pro-Christian?
How so? Many of us are agnostic. What laws specifiably have been passed that were pro christian?
on immigration, (I get this "Send all those filthy lepers and their children back to where they came from!" vibe)?
perhaps you shouldnt get your "vibe" from kos or huffington post. Illegal immigration is what we are supposedly speaking of, and yes. Many of us are against it. Why do you feel this country should have no control of its borders while every other country does?'
Have you gone back when the civil rights bills were being voted on and checked to see which party supported them and which party did not?