Angry White Man: The Bigoted Past of Ron Paul

[Barbara Branden]

]THE NEW REPUBLIC

Angry White Man

by James Kirchick

The bigoted past of Ron Paul.

Post Date Tuesday, January 08, 2008

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=...15-4532a7da84ca

Excerpts:

"If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, since his presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the ideological spectrum. Antiwar conservatives, disaffected centrists, even young liberal activists have all flocked to Paul, hailing him as a throwback to an earlier age, when politicians were less mealy-mouthed and American government was more modest in its ambitions, both at home and abroad. In The New York Times Magazine, conservative writer Christopher Caldwell gushed that Paul is a 'formidable stander on constitutional principle,' while The Nation wrote of 'his full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq.' Former TNR editor Andrew Sullivan endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination, and ABC's Jake Tapper described the candidate as 'the one true straight-talker in this race.' Even The Wall Street Journal, the newspaper of the elite bankers whom Paul detests, recently advised other Republican presidential contenders not to 'dismiss the passion he's tapped....'"....

"Paul's newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. ...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....

"The newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled 'The Duke's Victory,' a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. 'Duke lost the election,' it said, 'but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment.' In 1991, a newsletter asked, 'Is David Duke's new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?' The conclusion was that 'our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom.' Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website....

"...like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul's newsletters. They frequently quoted Paul's 'old colleague,' Representative William Dannemeyer--who advocated quarantining people with AIDS--praising him for 'speak[ing] out fearlessly despite the organized power of the gay lobby.' In 1990, one newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine 'who certainly had an axe to grind, and that's not easy with a limp wrist.' In an item titled, 'The Pink House?' the author of a newsletter--again, presumably Paul--complained about President George H.W. Bush's decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite 'the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony,' adding, 'I miss the closet.' 'Homosexuals,' it said, 'not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.' When Marvin Liebman, a founder of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom and a longtime political activist, announced that he was gay in the pages of National Review, a Paul newsletter implored, 'Bring Back the Closet!' Surprisingly, one item expressed ambivalence about the contentious issue of gays in the military, but ultimately concluded, 'Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals....'...."

[sjw]

Ron Paul's response to this smear job:

[Brant Gaede]

Ron Paul's response to this smear job:

It's not a "smear job." He let crap go out under his name that he at least didn't pay attention to.

I personally could care less about this one way or another for as a Presidential candidate he offers himself up as a disastrous President for he has no good idea how to protect America from its enemies. And like the libertarian who is primarily a libertarian he has no real, coherent philosophy. Please give up some references where he talks about human rights, even, not just fetus rights.

--Brant

PS (edit): Frankly, after listening to those videos, my considered opinion is he's a bald-faced liar.

Edited January 15, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Barbara Branden]

I've never had this problem before with Youtube, but I can't get any sound from the Ron Paul videos. Can someone tell me what buttons I should be clicking on?

Barbara

[Brant Gaede]

I've never had this problem before with Youtube, but I can't get any sound from the Ron Paul videos. Can someone tell me what buttons I should be clicking on?

Barbara

I don't understand. Try just going to You Tube and searching for Ron Paul.

--Brant

[Chris Grieb]

I have posted when I first heard about the New Republic story.

I was not surprised. My question to the campaign was why they didn't anticipate that the old Ron Paul Report would be looked at by someone and probably become an issue.

Ron Paul supporters; The Ron Paul Report was published under his name. Publish something under your means you approve.

[georgedonnelly]

He screwed up.

That does not make him a racist or a terrible candidate for president.

He's a whole lot better than the other candidates in the major parties.

All candidates (persons) have warts (flaws).

[BaalChatzaf]

I have posted when I first heard about the New Republic story.

I was not surprised. My question to the campaign was why they didn't anticipate that the old Ron Paul Report would be looked at by someone and probably become an issue.

Ron Paul supporters; The Ron Paul Report was published under his name. Publish something under your means you approve.

I assume you meant "Publish something under you [name] means you approve".

I would add to that, publicly repudiate something published under your name something which you never asserted.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

I've never had this problem before with Youtube, but I can't get any sound from the Ron Paul videos. Can someone tell me what buttons I should be clicking on?

Barbara

Check the volume control interface. You may have the volume set down. Also, make sure your speaker is plugged in. The first thing to check when something fails is the physical connection.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

It's not a "smear job." He let crap go out under his name that he at least didn't pay attention to.

It's obviously a smear job and you're obviously continuing it. No one who looks at the *whole* of what Ron Paul says and has been saying seriously thinks he is a racist, they think he was sloppy in monitoring this publication or in choosing some of his friends. And more importantly, no one who engages in this smear believes that the other candidates are paragons of virtue who haven't done worse than that.

Ayn Rand said don't question a folly, just ask what it accomplishes. It's damn obvious what it accomplishes for the mass media: they can silence a man who actually has good answers on important issues. For some Objectivists, it's also easy to divine what the motive is: to avoid having the argument on the main area of import that they disagree with Ron Paul on, foreign policy. They know they would lose such an argument, so they resort to perpetuating a convenient smear. (Or in the case of TAS, they publish other nonsense).

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

It's not a "smear job." He let crap go out under his name that he at least didn't pay attention to.

It's obviously a smear job and you're obviously continuing it. No one who looks at the *whole* of what Ron Paul says and has been saying seriously thinks he is a racist, they think he was sloppy in monitoring this publication or in choosing some of his friends. And more importantly, no one who engages in this smear believes that the other candidates are paragons of virtue who haven't done worse than that.

Ayn Rand said don't question a folly, just ask what it accomplishes. It's damn obvious what it accomplishes for the mass media: they can silence a man who actually has good answers on important issues. For some Objectivists, it's also easy to divine what the motive is: to avoid having the argument on the main area of import that they disagree with Ron Paul on, foreign policy. They know they would lose such an argument, so they resort to perpetuating a convenient smear. (Or in the case of TAS, they publish other nonsense).

Shayne

Oh, I don't think he's a homophobic racist, now. Then? I think he irresponsibly let this stuff go out under his name. That's what I'm objecting to. And after looking at those videos I get the impression he's lying about what he did and didn't know back then. It's politically legitimate to bring this into the public's purview. And he's better off dealing with it now than later, if he can. He did make some good points about how blacks are discriminated against by the war on drugs. Looking at the "whole" of his campaign, he's not my candidate. He's incompetent--grossly incompetent--on the most important issue, defending this country. And please come up with some references that show he's all for individual rights, since he's a "libertarian." I'd really like to see that.

--Brant

[sjw]

He's incompetent--grossly incompetent--on the most important issue, defending this country.

Which is exactly my point. The real issue is that you disagree with his foreign policy, you have no actual argument against his, so you latch on to this convenient smear job.

And please come up with some references that show he's all for individual rights, since he's a "libertarian." I'd really like to see that.

So Ron Paul has to be "all for individual rights", whereas your other candidates only have to be for your warmongering foreign policy? Another folly. The real motive is clear enough.

Shayne

[Barbara Branden]

It's obviously a smear job and you're obviously continuing it. No one who looks at the *whole* of what Ron Paul says and has been saying seriously thinks he is a racist, they think he was sloppy in monitoring this publication or in choosing some of his friends. And more importantly, no one who engages in this smear believes that the other candidates are paragons of virtue who haven't done worse than that.

Ayn Rand said don't question a folly, just ask what it accomplishes. It's damn obvious what it accomplishes for the mass media: they can silence a man who actually has good answers on important issues. For some Objectivists, it's also easy to divine what the motive is: to avoid having the argument on the main area of import that they disagree with Ron Paul on, foreign policy. They know they would lose such an argument, so they resort to perpetuating a convenient smear. (Or in the case of TAS, they publish other nonsense).

Shayne

"Sloppy?" Alloiwing a newsletter to go out under your name for decades -- a newsletter attacking blacks, gays, and Jews, and, for good measure, supporting the Confederacy -- is sloppy?

I quote today's Bidinotto blog:

"Cong. Paul now disavows authorship of this material, most or all of which was ghostwritten, and says it doesn't represent his actual views. But even though these screeds were published under his own name for decades, he claims not to have been aware of their content -- a claim that many, me included, find to be transparently unbelievable. It is impossible to read this garbage and not come to one of two conclusions. Either Ron Paul does not believe this repugnant nonsense, but nonetheless allowed it to go out under his name -- as a cynical ploy to sell newsletters by means of scaremongering, collectivist race-baiting, and homosexual-bashing -- or he actually does believe this stuff. You can decide for yourself which alternative is more disgusting and alarming."

Barbara

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think Ron Paul is a libertarian, even, which is why I asked for the individual rights references.

--Brant

[sjw]

"Sloppy?" Alloiwing a newsletter to go out under your name for decades -- a newsletter attacking blacks, gays, and Jews, and, for good measure, supporting the Confederacy -- is sloppy?

I quote today's Bidinotto blog:

"Cong. Paul now disavows authorship of this material, most or all of which was ghostwritten, and says it doesn't represent his actual views. But even though these screeds were published under his own name for decades, he claims not to have been aware of their content -- a claim that many, me included, find to be transparently unbelievable. It is impossible to read this garbage and not come to one of two conclusions. Either Ron Paul does not believe this repugnant nonsense, but nonetheless allowed it to go out under his name -- as a cynical ploy to sell newsletters by means of scaremongering, collectivist race-baiting, and homosexual-bashing -- or he actually does believe this stuff. You can decide for yourself which alternative is more disgusting and alarming."

Barbara

Barbara, can you or Bidinotto back any of your claims up, with quotes from the newsletter, with references? Note that you are not merely accusing Paul of letting some of this stuff slip into his newsletter here and there, you are accusing the newsletter of it more or less being systematically being filled with it. I won't accept that claim without proof.

And even if he was a bigot (and I don't think he is) I don't think it's even relevant. Unless he thinks bigotry should be legislated, he's still a lot better than the other candidates.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

I went to Bidinotto's blog. There I saw the cover of current "The New Individualist." Horrible. Ron Paul didn't deserve that. Esthetically I wouldn't have that in my house, not even in the fireplace. I'd tell Robert he needs to upgrade cover sensibility, except I dropped getting that publication many years ago when I decided the parent organization had little or no value to me.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

It's fair to assume that at the time of publication Ron Paul generally agreed with the content of anything going out under his name, absent a credible explanation yet forthcoming.

--Brant

[sjw]

It's fair to assume that at the time of publication Ron Paul generally agreed with the content of anything going out under his name, absent a credible explanation yet forthcoming.

Oh please. If that's the best you can do then why don't you just not say anything at all.

[Martin Radwin]

I quote today's Bidinotto blog:

"Cong. Paul now disavows authorship of this material, most or all of which was ghostwritten, and says it doesn't represent his actual views. But even though these screeds were published under his own name for decades, he claims not to have been aware of their content -- a claim that many, me included, find to be transparently unbelievable. It is impossible to read this garbage and not come to one of two conclusions. Either Ron Paul does not believe this repugnant nonsense, but nonetheless allowed it to go out under his name -- as a cynical ploy to sell newsletters by means of scaremongering, collectivist race-baiting, and homosexual-bashing -- or he actually does believe this stuff. You can decide for yourself which alternative is more disgusting and alarming."

Barbara

It is an unfortunate aspect of reality that John Galt is not running for president. First, because he doesn't actually exist. Second, because if he did actually exist, he would probably turn down the job, just as he turned down the job of "economic dictator of the nation", choosing to be tortured instead.

Given this sad state of affairs, it is important to confront the reality that the choice of candidates for president is what it is and does not include an ideal libertarian or objectivist candidate. Nor is there any reason to expect that either the republicans or democrats will ever run an ideal candidate for president in our lifetimes or, for that matter, ever.

Unless Bidinotto is advocating against voting for any of the presidential candidates, I assume that he is supporting one of the existing candidates, presumably one of the republican candidates. Since he finds Ron Paul to be such a repugnant candidate, due to, among other things, his presumed racism, he presumably believes that the candidate he supports is superior to Ron Paul. As such, he should be prepared to subject whichever candidate he supports to at least the same level of scrutiny as he does to Ron Paul.

I don't know who Bidinotto is supporting. But assuming that he is any of the leading republican presidential candidates, the following may reasonably be said about whoever it is:

1) He supported and continues to fund the disasterous Iraq war, which has killed over 4000 American soldiers, injured tens of thousands of American soldiers, killed probably hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (estimated, exact number of deaths related to the war unknown), displaced millions of Iraqis as refugees, destroyed Iraq's infrastructure, led to widespread sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing, all at a cost of over a trillion dollars.

2) He supported and continues to fund the "war on drugs", which has ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans and turned most major cities into war zones, destroyed foreign nations implicated in the drug trade, and led to massive violations of the civil liberties of all Americans. The "war on drugs" has destroyed the lives of more black people and done more to destroy black communities than the Nazi party, KKK, and White Aryan resistance could ever hope to achieve. It's even destroyed more lives in the black communities than the racist newsletters published by Ron Paul.

3) He supported at least some of the following legislation, as pointed out by Mark in another thread:

a) Patriot Act

b) Military Commissions Act

c) Real ID Act

d) Defense Authorization Act

e) Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

As a result of this legislation, the US is now one terrorist attack away from the imposition of martial law.

I could go on and on about the grievous sins of all of the major republican and democratic presidential candidates, judged by either libertarian or objectivist standards, but the above is more than sufficient to illustrate my point.

So, Mr. Bidinotto, which is worse, based on libertarian or objectivist standards -- some racist newsletters published a number of years ago, or the above list of crimes committed by all of the major candidates. one of whom you presumably support? I eagerly await your reply.

Martin

[Brant Gaede]

It's fair to assume that at the time of publication Ron Paul generally agreed with the content of anything going out under his name, absent a credible explanation yet forthcoming.

Oh please. If that's the best you can do then why don't you just not say anything at all.

Obviously, just to piss you off. Of course, I have had several other posts on the subject that didn't elicit this comment, so I must have already done better by your whatevertheyare standards. Can't even cough up one Ron Paul individual rights' reference means you can't even do as well as you are complaining I did.

--Brant

[syrakusos]

Barbara, can you or Bidinotto back any of your claims up, with quotes from the newsletter, Shayne

Click here to go directly to the control page for the PDFs of the newsletters in question.

It is not all that surprising. While I object to parts of the article, some of the spins on this and that aspect of conservative ideology, the article is not surprising and neither are Ron Paul's views.

On the other hand, I for one would not like to be quoted in the national media from some of my posts on OL or RoR. On The Well (click here) we have a rule: YOYOW="You own your own words." Nothing can be quoted off the Well without express consent of the writer. This allows everyone some freedom to philosophize with half-baked ideas until they can be fully baked. In a community of writers and artists, technologists and scientists, this is critical to intellectual engagement. You get to see the weak points before you go into print, and you can abandon a dumb idea.

Ron Paul's situation is different in many ways, but basically, he was writing for his conservative constituents -- national as well as local -- and telling them what he knew they wanted to hear. How much of that stuff he actually "believes" is impossible to parse, but the worst of it to come to light is not congruent with Objectivism or even libertarianism.

Dr. King's short-comings (including his "doctorate") are all well known and non-issues. Jefferson had his inability to manage his own consuming passions, the first of which was Sally Hemings. Which brings up the fact that I am sorry that Ron Paul did not like Barbara Jordan.

"Don't call for black power or green power. Call for brain power." -- Barbara Jordan

"It is reason, and not passion, which must guide our deliberations, guide our debate, and guide our decision." -- Barbara Jordan.

They should have made a great couple... oh, but, there was that gender thing... maybe she broke his heart and Ron Paul is still carrying a torch and that explains his homophobia...

Edited January 16, 2008 by Michael E. Marotta

[sjw]

Can't even cough up one Ron Paul individual rights' reference means you can't even do as well as you are complaining I did.

It's a ridiculous question. Ron Paul isn't a philosopher he's a constitutionalist. He puts things in terms of following the constitution. Implicitly, that's pro-rights to a significant degree.

The Objectivist refrain that Bidinotto repeats against "states rights" is on a certain level right but it's mainly stupid--permitting 50 different states to choose what the law will be is far better than having 1 massive state mandate it over a vast geographic region. At least with 50 there's a better chance of rights-lovers moving to the same area and getting the majority. There's zero chance with a massive federal government. And if there's a state that's better on individual rights and you can move to it, you have no right to complain about your own state not respecting this or that right--just move. There's nowhere to move with the current setup.

Shayne

[sjw]

Barbara, can you or Bidinotto back any of your claims up, with quotes from the newsletter, Shayne

Click here to go directly to the control page for the PDFs of the newsletters in question.

Oh, well I am just apalled--NOT.

I don't agree with the comments but, my, can some people get their panties in a bunch over political correctness issues. Correct me if I'm wrong, but NONE of those points condoned using governmental force and violence to accomplish any end. Many of them were just non-objective bitterness directed at a statistic, e.g., blacks on welfare. Wrong, but not nearly as bad as what Ron Paul fights, e.g., the Welfare State and the IRS.

It's just a smear job, and it'd be silly if it weren't for the political correctness brainwashing that's gone on in this country. It's SHAMEFUL that Objectivists would pander to that brainwashing.

Shayne

[sjw]

Let me underscore what I just said. Can anyone point to ANYTHING those newsletters promoted that would get the government to violate rights? How is bigotry that respects individual rights worse than political correctness that doesn't?

Shayne

[John Dailey]

~ Given that all that crap has been promoted in Ron Paul's name for so long, and that he just 'wasn't aware of it'...

...were he to become President, what other crap will be done under his auspices...which he also 'won't be aware of'?

~ Talk about having a history to back up 'plausible deniability' on, well, anything.

LLAP

J:D