Important Article on Ron Paul

[JohnnyChavello]

All of you who have been seduced by Ron Paul's candidacy, please read this article. Seems someone was able to get their hands on actual copies of the newsletters Paul published in the early 90s, and it ain't pretty...at all.

Angry White Man, from The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca).

Read this thing and tell me he's nothing more than a cleaned up version of George Wallace, or Bull Connor, or David Duke. The author writes: "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." But, to be fair, let's read some of what is actually printed in the newsletters. These are all taken from articles appearing in the newsletter, and many written in the first person, with no byline, indicating either Paul wrote them or they were written intentionally to reflect his views. Let's have a quick look:

""I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."

"One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after [Martin Luther] King [Jr.], suggesting that 'Welfaria,' 'Zooville,' 'Rapetown,' 'Dirtburg,' and 'Lazyopolis' were better alternatives."

"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.'"

Paul's campaign manager asserts that Paul often did not approve, or did not see many of the articles. You have to be willing to call bullshit on this people: the newsletters were ordinarily 8 page tracts, bearing the name of Ron Paul, and which were created by Ron Paul for the purpose of carrying forward his politics.

This is your leader and your hero in all of his racist, sexist, homophobic glory.

[Randetica]

This is your leader and your hero in all of his racist, sexist, homophobic glory.

sounds good to me

[JohnnyChavello]

sounds good to me

What about that possibly sounds good to you? Is it the racism? The sexism? Homophobia? Maybe it's the anti-semitism that's got you inspired? Maybe it's the twisted idea that Ron Paul is the last true defender of the US Constitution (a document that demands equal protection under the law for blacks, Jews, women, homosexuals, and everyone else)?

This guy is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Randetica]

What about that possibly sounds good to you? Is it the racism? The sexism? Homophobia?

yes, yes and word.

[drizl]

first of all, randetica you dont really know shit.

secondly, when you actually look into it, and read the article, you see that they are not his words. i believe you actually mentioned that yourself.

"A 1996 Houston Chronicle story that says a newsletter Paul published in the early 1990s "highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues." That newsletter was called the Ron Paul Political Report, and according to Kos, Paul told Texas Monthly magazine in October 2001 that "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. ... It wasn't my language at all.” Kos points out, though, that the newsletter was eight pages long and "whether he employed other writers or not, it beggars belief that Paul would not have had full control and approval over its contents."


if he did have editorial control over this, then hes fucked.


he still has my vote. lets say he is a racist (which his opinions are clearly not, at least these days) with the hieghtened sensitivity on all things politically correct, his ass would be fried in the oval office the minute he said anything racist. hes hardly to have a racist agenda for the white house.

he has my vote because he is committed to restoring the presidency, congress and judiciary to its constitutional role. he will destroy the IRS and the federal income tax, and he will put an end to the us militarism that is destroying the world. thats what he promises and thats what i want.

heres a quote from him on racism:

“The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.”

[Randetica]

you know shit, lots of it

[Bob]

i was going to make a joke and say "it's gonna take more than that to deter drizl" but lol there he is, beating me to it

[Documad]

It's kind of late to take a dig at Paul, isn't it. He's done.

[JohnnyChavello]

...secondly, when you actually look into it, and read the article, you see that they are not his words. i believe you actually mentioned that yourself.

Well, I did read the article and that isn't exactly true. Paul has "claimed" that a previously reported article wasn't written by him; in this article his campaign manager "claims" Paul didn't write these articles and that he often didn't see them before they were published. As you quote Kos, this "beggars belief." The articles cover decades, some of which bear titles referring to race war, most are written without bylines, but most importantly, they all appear in Ron Paul's own privately published and distributed political newsletter. To imagine that he knew nothing of the hate-filled, race baiting going on in this newsletter through the course of approaching 30 years defies credulity (and ignores some of the more circumstantial evidence of ties to the racist John Birch Society, Stormfront, and endorsement by the KKK). If your desire to be rid of the income tax and federal monetary policy is strong enough to allow you to vote for what looks like a died in the wool white supremacist, so be it.

...heres a quote from him on racism:

“The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.”

Liberty is something many people lay claim to philosophically. There's no sense in rejecting, out of hand, the idea that individual liberty consists in allowing for individual achievement and competence, but as a sweeiping generalization it ignores the world we live in - and there's only one world. Without the profoundly anti-majoritarian (and fundamentally undemocratic) principles included in the Bill of Rights, the 13th, 14th, 19th...Amendments to the Constitution, individual achievement and competence would lie exclusively in the hands and pockets of the majority or the politically powerful; in fact, for most of our country's brief history, they surely did. Legislation like the Civil Rights Acts, which Paul opposes, opened doors for women and blacks in ways that the liberty infused principles of the Bill of Rights and Fourteenth Amendment were historically prevented from doing. Individual achievement and competence can only be realized when the institutional bigotry that prohibits them are destroyed. This is why I reject this libertarian approach to issues of social justice.

[drizl]

if ron paul is a racist, then id find it a lot harder to vote for him. i dont know who else i would vote for, for sure it would have to be the least of evils if anything...


i ask you to show me proof of his connection to any white supremecist organization, the only stuff i have been able to find have been alleged connections and the whole photograph campaign contribution stormfront thing, which i believe paul wasnt aware of at the time of the donation and photograph.

[drizl]

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron-paul-statement-on-the-new-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters


January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“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.

“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. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘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.’

“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 publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

[saz]

if ron paul is a racist, then id find it a lot harder to vote for him. i dont know who else i would vote for

dennis kucinich
john edwards (endorsed by ralph nader (http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080102/cm_thenation/45264571))
the green party (http://www.gp.org/index.php)

[drizl]

id probably endorse cynthia mckinney with the green party if ron was a racist. i dont buy the accusations though. i havent been following him throughout his political career, but the newsletters seem shady, and his response is that they are not his ideas, and that someone was actually publishing stuff under his name. if thats true, thats fucked up. someone might have seen him and his views on the rise, and started writing that stuff under his name in prder to discredit him in case he ever became more powerful down the line. if it is his writing, and he's lying, then i cant vote for him.

to me, he seems like an honest guy who really believes in what he wants to see change in this country. for now, im still backing ron

[JohnnyChavello]

...heres a quote from him on racism:

“...Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.”

I just want to add one more thing to this discussion, and my general disagreement with the libertarian approach to social justice, because I don't think I expressed it as well in my other posts as I would have liked to. This afternoon I was reading a law review article on the application of deconstructionist principles to legal doctrine...blah, blah, blah...and the author made the point I think I would have liked to have made.

from Deconstruction's Legal Career, by Jack M. Balkin:

"...at one point in history, many people maintained that
the state had no duty to prohibit private acts of racial discrimination.
They argued that any harms arising from private discrimination resulted
from private preferences rather than state decisionmaking, and they
maintained that antidiscrimination laws unjustly interfered with the
freedom of private individuals to choose with whom they would
associate. Critics responded by deconstructing this distinction between
public and private power and responsibility. After all, the state protects
its citizens from many other economic and social harms produced by
private choice: consumer protection and fair labor standards regulations
are but two examples. The government’s failure to protect its citizens
from the harms of private racial discrimination delegates to private
parties the power to inflict harms on each other that it does not bestow
in other contexts, and it allows the perpetuation of racial stratification
under the cover of freedom of association. Protecting and enforcing
“private preferences” in some contexts (racial discrimination) but not
others (consumer protection) is a regulatory choice for which the state is
ultimately responsible."

This doesn't discredit the libertarian principles you've put forward, but it makes what I think is a serious point. In determining whether the government's response to private acts of discrimination is good or bad, it is important to understand that it is consistent with and similar to the government's interaction with private behavior on any other number of levels. In fact, law itself is an attempt by the government to prevent private citizens from inflicting harm on each other. If the private harm caused by discrimination should not be addressed by law, what is the distinction? Should governments not enforce contracts simply because entering into one in the first instance is a matter of private choice? Is it reasonable to expect that multinational corporations will or can be held to account for individual acts of discrimination against "discrete and insular" minority groups simply through the mechanics of free market choice?

I understand that it's reasonable for libertarian principles to be maintained sincerely, but it's my suspicion that many of its adherents use the philosophy to justify discrimination because they would prefer to live in a world where they are free to discriminate openly, and not because they believe that true liberty requires something approaching anarchism.