Tom, I wish you'd warned me. I took a swig of water just before reading that dialogue. I almost spit all over my screen. Pretty funny. Yeah, it's true that some people are waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too touchy and idealize Ron Paul.
A lot -- not all, but a lot -- of the Paulista libertarians are actually well-intentioned folks who have gotten caught up in the our-team-versus-their-team of politics. That's what the party system is for, and I for one can't get too worked up about people falling into it.
For a lot of libertarians, the most important internal division of the movement is whether or not it should be willing to embrace practical politics; to a lot of the pro-politics folks, rejection of Paul looks like yet another instance of libertarians shooting themselves in the foot by preferring fringe candidates (and the "Party of Principle") to more mainstream second-bests (generally Republican). Viewed through this lens, of course they supported Paul more than they ought to have.
Ron Paul stands for different things to different people -- "the Party's ugly racist past," "proof that libertarians are willing to engage in grown-up, two-party politics," "third-rate kook," "a loyal politician who deserves our support in return," "right-wing infiltration of the movement," whatever. Nobody should get shut out in the rain or called a betrayer for embracing the wrong vision of Paul, or else sooner or later you're going to be purging everybody.
To my mind the biggest question going forward is, "How can the libertarian movement re-absorb or retain the more acceptable parts of the Paulist movement?" The second question is, "...and how can it avoid appearing to rehabilitate the less acceptable parts?" All the rest of it, from litmus tests to who-betrayed-whom, is just sour grapes and does not in the end aid the cause.
Ron Paul is the second coming of our Lord and saviour Ayn Rand. How dare you blaspheme his greatness "The Good Doctor?"
Smear-merchant.
As a Calvinist Christian Ron Paul supporter (but not blindly!), this all breaks my heart. Yes, this will do great damage to the cause of liberty. As the hymn says, "Put no confidence in princes..."
I would not be at all surprised if North is the culprit. He represents the nutty side of Reformed Christianity. It's a shame he didn't obey his own dictates and sign himself up for a good, old-fashioned stoning when he was revealed to be a false prophet concerning his Y2K predictions. At the very least, he ought to have given back the money people sent him for his alarmist books, etc.
Grant,
Lot of wisdom there, dude.
For the record, I have no personal dislike of Ron Paul, and until not too long ago was one of his biggest political fans as well. If I was driving down the road and saw him on the shoulder with a flat tire, I'd stop to help him. If he was running for re-election to Congress with the same reputation he had before he ran for president and opened himself up to more scrutiny, I might contribute to his campaign.
With his supporters, even more so: A LOT of them are good people and solid libertarians, and I don't blame them for supporting his campaign. I thought they were making a mistake, and think so now more than ever, but if libertarians held all their mistakes against each other, none of us would have any friends left in the movement.
When it comes to LRC and LvMI, though, the betrayal I'm talking about -- if there is one -- does not subsist in supporting Ron Paul, or even getting litmus-testy and irritable in doing so. That's completely understandable.
Rather, the betrayal -- once again, if there is one, which is not yet clear -- would subsist in having acted as a front for racist endeavors or as a conduit for slipping racists into the libertarian movement under radical libertarian ideological cover.
If that has happened, I'm not interested in trying to rescue LRC/LvMI from a situation it put itself in. Rather, I'm interested in rescuing libertarianism from the taint they will have put on it.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
I would take Gary North off the list of suspects. See my humble blog:
blog.KevinCraig.us
You sure called it spot on in your previous prediction that this was going to come up again. I hope I am not oblivious in my assumption that there is only so much interest and concern that can be generated by words written 10+ years ago.
This kerfuffle is all just word crimes. Why anybody would worry more about hurtful words (10+ years old again) when real live flesh and blood people are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan is a puzzle I can't figure out.
Well, these revelations have certainly taken the wind out of my sails. I have removed my Ron Paul bumpersticker and yard sign. Won't replace them unless this issue gets addressed far better by the campaign.
To wit:
* The author of the racist articles needs to be outed and villified.
* The tainted money from Stormfront needs to be donated to a Jewish charity.
* The campaign needs to go on the offensive and make the plight of blacks at the hands of the drug warriors a signature issue.
All this said, it could be that the articles are taken out of context, that the author is not racist. Many in the Lew Rockwell circle practice equal opportunity hate. If you believe that not being an anarchist makes you a felon, then you believe that over 99% of the population are felons.
For example, I have been flamed by the same crew and I am a southern WASP.
Is it racism if you hate everybody?
The fact that any of this has come up at all gives a pretty good indication of just how successful Paul has been. Let's face it: ANY (somewhat) radical libertarian is going to find themselves open to mis-interpretations that would be practically politically damaging in the mainstream sense.
I'm not suggesting that the newsletters have been mis-interpreted. I cannot defend Paul for the words in his newsletter. They are indefensible and I think Paul knows it. He is a flawed human, as am I. I would rather Paul get damaged on the basis of his political ideas. However, the language in the newsletters is not that different from just about any such conservative newsletter of the time. It's no different than McCain refering to Asians as "gooks". Go back and find the transcripts of a Limbaugh show from that era, and you won't see much difference. Hell, look at what nearly every other Republican candidate has to say about homosexuals today.
I support Paul because when I survey the field of candidates for the Presidency, he is the only one that would be a step in the right direction AND has been successful in getting out a message. However, I do not close my eyes and cover my ears with respect to the man's faults. Badnarik had a few himself, as did Russo and Browne.
"Why anybody would worry more about hurtful words (10+ years old again) when real live flesh and blood people are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan is a puzzle I can't figure out."
I'll bet this guy is wondering the exact same thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A...h?
v=AcBb3PudTcA
Thane,
You write: "This kerfuffle is all just word crimes. Why anybody would worry more about hurtful words (10+ years old again) when real live flesh and blood people are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan is a puzzle I can't figure out."
That's an understandable position but, I think, an incorrect one.
The error here is in treating the newsletters as if they are unrelated to Paul's present status. That's just not the case. As a matter of fact, a good argument could be made that he would not be a Republican candidate for president at all if it wasn't for those newsletters.
As of the mid-1980s, Paul's political career looked like it was at an end. He had run for US Senate in 1984 and lost in the primary; Tom DeLay had inherited his House seat and quickly entrenched himself there.
Paul spent the next ten years building the fundraising list that would propel him back to Congress, and he built that list in two ways: a) by running for president as a Libertarian; and b) by building a roster of newsletter subscribers whom he could convert into campaign donors. For that matter, he probably bootstrapped the LP run with his existing newsletter lists.
Paul got back into Congress for ten more years, and thus in a position to run a credible campaign for the GOP's presidential nomination, because he was able to raise money. He was able to raise money because he had good lists. He had good lists because he published newsletters.
The question of the newsletter content is relevant because it goes to who has supported his campaigns and what he told them to get them to do so.
The absolute least damning explanation for those excerpts is that Paul didn't know ... but that's still pretty damning. If elected president, will Paul have anonymous ghostwriters putting out executive orders and legislative proposals, and then just take "moral responsibility" for it later?
The next least damning explanation is that Paul was just telling his readers what they wanted to hear to get their money and support ... but that raises questions of integrity and of whether or not he's doing the same thing now.
The most damning explanation for those excerpts is that Paul believed, and possibly still believes, what was published under his name.
Or at least that's the most damaging explanation so long as he continues to evade and stonewall. It would be less damning if he directly confronted the excerpts, pointed out that they weren't especially atypical of GOP rhetoric of the time, and says "I've changed."
Regards,
Tom
P.S. Kevin, thanks for the pointers on Gary North!
>Rather, the betrayal -- once again, if there is one, which is not yet clear -- would subsist in having acted as a front for racist endeavors or as a conduit for slipping racists into the libertarian movement under radical libertarian ideological cover.
I see 2 possible motives the individuals you're talking about could have for such a betrayal (if it did exist)
1) they want to increase the ranks of anti-statists and find it ok to pander to racists, maybe not considering racism important enough to worry about
or
2) they are racists themselves and see the state as a barrier to whites and their idea of western civilization
I think 1 is more plausible, but one could make a case for the latter.
Ron Paul probably just doesn't want to alienate anyone. His lame response might partially be to keep those in agreement with the newsletters from withdrawing their support.
>Why anybody would worry more about hurtful words (10+ years old again) when real live flesh and blood people are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan is a puzzle I can't figure out.
Ideas have consequences.
I am wondering if the "neo-confederate" label will now be used to imply racism to anyone who believes in the right secession.
I also find it interesting that implying that Paul is a racist is the best smear the progressives at the New Republic can come up with.
I would rather be a "neo-confederate" than a "new republican" if given a choice between the two labels.
Wendy,
That's an interesting question -- but I don't believe you'll find any criticism of secession, linked to the "neo-confederate" label or not, anywhere in my writing.
Nor will you find any criticism of Paul's foreign policy position with respect to Israel in my writing -- or, more to the point, you won't find me portraying that foreign policy take as "anti-Semitic."
There's a certain amount of overlap between the various secession movements and racist groups (for example, read up a little on the League of the South), but what I've gone after in this affair is not secessionist overlap with racism, but rather plain, blatantly expressed racism (and homophobia) itself.
And, over time, I've become less concerned even with the content or with who wrote it than with the fact that Paul has lied about who wrote it.
He either lied when he claimed that he wrote it in 1996, or he's lying when he says that he didn't write it today.
As far as his actual views are concerned, he defended the material in 1996 and repudiates it today, but seems to be saying that his views haven't changed. So either he's lying about his views, or he's lying about whether or not those views have changed.
Yes, I know, most politicians lie ... but Paul's big selling point has been that he's different from most politicians.
Regards,
Tom
it's not that far removed from something buchana would write. i dno't agree with it but really, i don't see how it would effect his policies, which are reductive in nature. he's not going to establish some sort of national racism program
Interesting letter. Instead of directly smearing Dr. Paul, you are smearing his supporters by saying that they just react with the word "smear" without countering with content. Unfortunately, like those articles, you ignore all of the evidence given by those providing comments. Your entire article is a baseless smear.
As an OB, wouldn't Paul have the money to start his campaign? I mean, I am of the understanding that he started with relatively zero contributions dollars when announcing his candidacy. Does that undermine the idea that he intentionally raised all that tainted money via the newsletters to start his bid for President?
Tom,
As for your least damning conclusion (that Paul didn't know about the excerpts), and how that applies to ghost-writers in his cabinet while serving as President...do you honestly think that would occur? Do you really think Paul would take as much of a nonchalant approach to the Presidency as he did with a nothing newsletter that, until now, hardly no one heard of before?
It is of my belief that Paul's character and commitment to the Constitution far outweighs any oversight in a newsletter where someone took advantage of his good name. It is also my belief that this situation is being blown WAY out of proportion. It unfairly discredits a man that has no more a flaw in his soul than any other politician currently running for President. Here we have questionable words being attached via ASSOCIATION to one candidate (Paul), and this is considered somehow worse than another candidate (Obama) actually breaking the law with drug use. Or people are screaming racism via ASSOCIATION against Paul, while a candidate such as McCain can freely refer to Asians as "gooks" or sterotype Muslim's in front of national television by stating they only sell burkas and won't travel with them because they only fly one way. What about Giuliani's sorrid past? What about Hillary Clinton's approval of adulterers? After all, she's with one, so it must be true.
I'm sorry. If I had to choose between these candidate based only on their past, I'll take Paul every time. Couple that with his position and intelligence on the issues (you know, that stuff that is SUPPOSED to matter), and voting for the best candidate for President becomes a no-brainer.
This story has already run longer than the Don Imus controversy. The only difference is everyone heard what Imus said.
As Ron Paul told Jay Leno, "I may have my shortcomings, but the message has no shortcomings."
Now, I just have to wonder why so many "libertarians" are so eager to scuttle the biggest thing to happen to the Freedom Movement in thirty years. If the Cato Institute or Club For Growth were able to mobilize 100,000 people, I'd be cheering them on and sending them mmoney.
http://www.trinityfoundation.org...rnal.php?
id=184
Gary North and the Tyler church
I believe I am the "heretic in the making" mentioned by Chilton in the Robbins article cited by OkieGranny. I knew Chilton quite well; we shared the pulpit in the "California church" referred to. Like all of us "Christian Reconstructionists," Chilton loved publicity (we're usually ignored -- even people like Falwell and Robertson, who read our writings, never admit it publicly), and was willing to skewer fellow Reconstructionists for 15 seconds of fame. He could be a good storyteller, because he had a knack for the melodramatic. His books are among my favorites.
John Robbins, of course, was a bitter foe of Ayn Rand:
http://www.trinityfoundation.org...urnal.php?
id=57
I agree with Robbins in his criticism of Rand's materialism. But the problem with both Robbins and the Reconstructionists is their acceptance of "archism" and their equating of anarchism and chaos.
http://KevinCraig.us/archist.htm
Commenting by HaloScan
