TheAgitator.com
Ron Paul on CNN
Friday, January 11th, 2008Paul’s appearance with Wolf Blitzer didn’t do it for me.
I haven’t been in the libertarian movement long (I’m 32, and I really only became a full-fledged movement libertarian at 25, when I started working for Cato). But reading the long-time activist’s descriptions of those newsletters and how they were written, edited, and distributed, when Paul says he had no idea who wrote them, and that he rarely read them—well, I simply don’t believe him. Nor do I think that would be a viable excuse even if it were true.
I thought his appearance was overly defensive, lacked any sort of contrition, and found it wholly unconvincing.
Take Paul’s discussion of the drug war’s impact on minorities. Yes, it was spot-on. But I’ve been watching this campaign fairly closely, and I believe that’s the most time to date that Paul has spent talking about the drug war. I’ve actually been surprised at how little he has discussed it. His position on the drug war is one of the main reasons why I was encouraged by his candidacy. This campaign could have represented the first time ever (that I know of) that a GOP candidate challenged his rivals to defend the failure and moral corruption of drug prohibition in a nationally-televised debate. It hasn’t happened. That his longest discussion of the drug war to date had to come only after he was confronted about the newsletters, and in the context of defending himself from accusations of racism, is unfortunate. And perhaps telling.
Here’s the other thing: Paul talks in the Blitzer interview about how the drug war has disproportionately sent black people to prison. He’s right. Black people use drugs in proportions only slightly higher than their share of the general population. But the proportion of blacks in prison for drugs crimes is substantially higher. They are far more likely to get arrested for drug crimes, far more likely to be convicted, and even when facing similar charges, tend to receive longer sentences than whites.
A big reason why is the latent sentiment at every level of the criminal justice system—from cops to prosecutors to jurors—that black people are inherently more prone to criminality than white people. It’s sort of the opposite of "group rights." It’s "group wrongs"—or punishing black people on a individual basis for perceived transgressions by black people as a group. It’s also a form of collectivist thinking—the antithesis of libertarianism.
I have no idea if Paul is a racist. I suspect that he isn’t, at least today. But he’s certainly had no problem benefiting from the support of people who are. It’s more than a little disingenuous for him to now defend himself by invoking what the criminal justice system has done to the black community when for fifteen years a newsletter bearing his name, and the profits from which went into his bank account, celebrated and encouraged the black-people-are-savage-criminals lie in particularly vile and perverse ways.
The newsletter defended the Rodney King beating, for God’s sake, on the bullshit argument that King was part of a criminal class of people. The implication is that some people deserve substandard treatment under the rule of law because of the color of their skin. There’s nothing remotely libertarian about that.
Whether he was active or passive in the newsletters doesn’t matter. Paul perpetuated that way of thinking for more than a decade in a newsletter he published. He did it during the 1980s and 1990s, the very period over which the drug laws exacerbated the white-black disparity in America’s prisons. He can’t now use the "blacks are treated poorly by our criminal justice system" defense to distance himself from those very newsletters.
Perhaps it’s too much for us to expect Paul to turn over the names of the paleo types who wrote those screeds (if it’s true that he had no hand in writing him himself—which I’m having a harder and harder time believing), to apologize that they ever went out under his name, and to disavow and repudiate the beliefs of the paleolibertarian supporters who have propped him up for most of his career, some of whom he still calls friends.
But if he can’t, it’s also too much to ask libertarians who find those views abhorrent to continue to support him.
I have defended Paul on this site and on Hit & Run. I’m sad to say I’m becoming more and more embarrassed at having done so.
It is totally unfair to criticize paul for failing to bring up the drug war more often. 1) it isn’t his “thing.” it is yours. he sees it as a small issue compared to the economic problems coming our way. 2) he never got asked about it except at one debate, and he spoke of it then. Every time he has been asked he has answered. 3) injecting his opposition to the war on drugs is political suicide in a republican debate.
For me, it was never about the man. It’s the principals he adheres to, (check his voting record).
Find another true conservative who understands and abides by the Constitution and he’ll have my support too. But whining about how this man handles defending the old story of these newsletters accomplishes nothing. Yup, he doesn’t handle himself as well as a politician would. Get over it, he was never a politician.
While you do say that his message is right on the mark, you complain that he doesn’t make it enough. Even while understanding he is the ONLY ONE carrying this message. Get off your ass and you do it than. I’d vote for you!
But if the next sound bite is all you are worried about, I’m a little concerned with YOUR principals.
I find it difficult to reconcile my revulsion at a possible association with racism (I too have previously defended Paul among my circle of friends) with my lack of desire to disassociate from a movement that is much more than Paul. Namely the Ron Paul Revolution, which consists of many liberty and prosperity loving individuals, most of whom I suspect have no racist leanings.
At what point does the movement become bigger than the man whose name it bears? If one votes for Paul, is one voting for liberty or the man himself (perhaps that depends on the voter)? Should we forget that, racist or not, this man has probably done more for the cause of liberty than most and once in power will take action resulting in a better country for all ethnicities?
Dan, you’re kidding right ?
First, he could bring it up on his own, for instance in campaign ads.
Or, during the recent interviews he’s had since mid-November after the first money bomb.
And to argue that this issue is political suicide in a republican debate is absurd. Why? Because opposing the Iraq war seems to be, too. When did worries about political suicide ever REALLY bother Dr. Paul?
No, political suicide starts when you allow your name to be used for several years and never pay attention to what it’s attached to – then play dumb about who wrote those comments when asked.
As Radley points out – and indeed as many respected libertarians were warning us for months – this whole affair, including the poor handling of it now, could damage the perception of “libertarian” in many people’s eyes, just when it was getting favorable discussion.
“injecting his opposition to the war on drugs is political suicide in a republican debate.”
The problem with this argument is that there are about three dozen positions Paul takes that are “political suicide” in a GOP primary.
I voted for him (I’m in NH, thank god that’s over) not because I really think he would ever be elected or make a good president, but because he was the only person asking what the government should be doing instead of how they are going to fix everything, and the only person willing to speak honestly about the drugwar (on the few occasions that he did). In spite of his shortcomings, the areas where I very much disagree with him and these recent problems, I don’t think he will hurt the public perception of libertarianism and I think his reasonably good showings in Iowa and NH will encourage more candidates with similar approaches to government to run in the future.
I don’t fault Paul for bringing up the drug war more often in the debates. He’s already dismissed as a crank by many…the reality is that leading off with drug war opposition would, unfortunately, completely cement that impression in most people’s minds.
I do agree with Balko that I wish Paul would out whoever wrote the articles or at least let us know how the whole arrangement came to be.
“As Radley points out – and indeed as many respected libertarians were warning us for months – this whole affair, including the poor handling of it now, could damage the perception of “libertarian” in many people’s eyes, just when it was getting favorable discussion.”
I think that’s EXACTLY why it has been brought up — yet again — and is being endlessly “discussed” on the Internet. The neo-cons will be extremely happy if they can smear both Dr. Paul and the libertarian movement at the same time, and a lot of so-called libertarians seem to be more than happy to help them do it.
I have to agree with Dan about the War on Drugs issue. Personally, I suspect that Dr. Paul has decided to keep his focus on the two most important issues – foreign policy and the economy. As destructive and offensive as the drug war is, these other two problems are even more important if we are going to have any hope of restoring the Republic.
I’ve been an avid reader of your blogs, both here and over at Reason. I’m rather taken aback by your decision to dump your support of Dr. Paul over this situation. Considering how much steam his campaign has built up recently, the small victories the running have received (such as FOX allowing Paul into the debates, the amount of funds he’s raised and his rising numbers in the polls in spite of the lack of real news coverage) don’t you find it odd, or at least convenient, that this issue is being brought up now? Everyone (and I mean everyone) on the blogosphere are aware that the neo-cons and neo-libs both want to make sure Paul goes down in flames. This whole issue being brought up at this time shows to me that they may just succeed. What it has done is thrown a wrench into the machine. It has driven a wedge between the Paul supporters. The news media’s hype of this is just that – hype. He’s apologized and taken responsibility for them being released under his name. What more do you want? I can’t simply accept your rationale you use to state your claim. It seems too easy an answer for you sir.
I have been a supporter of Dr. Paul for a very long time – going back to his first presidential run. I have never seen, nor heard him speak in such a way. It simply doesn’t add up sir. Please re-examine your stance on this issue.
You know, if Ron Paul could actually win this thing, I’d totally be willin to overlook the newsletters and a lot of other stuff.
It would be worth it just for the 80,000 or so federal drug war prisoners he’s said he’d pardon. Not to mention all the creeping totalitarianism he’d veto and the money he wouldn’t spend. All politicians are a tradeoff, and Paul would be a pretty good trade.
If he could win.
But he can’t, so all I really care about is that he’s been bringing attention to libertarian ideas. These newsletters, however, are not the kind of attention that’s good for libertarianism.
Radley, I don’t think you should be embarrassed. What’s come out now is qualitatively and quantitatively different than what came before. The amount of it also makes Paul’s defense of ignorance much, much less plausible. So I think as circumstances changed, so did your views. I’m not sure what you should be embarrassed about. Did you go around explaining to everyone you met why Ron Paul was going to save the country and how his immigration plan was just peachy keen?
I keep hearing about these “news-letters” but have yet to actually read any of their content. Perhaps someone could dredge up a link or two and allow for some objective dissemination of their content.
Does the tendency of black people to be convicted far more often extend to casual use as well, or is it relegated to dealing? If it’s primarily casual use, that’s a problem. However, when it comes to dealing drugs, I think you’d have to weigh other factors like how many other races both whites and blacks who got harsh sentences also committed. Would you really be more sympathetic if black drug dealers tended to have long rap sheets of violent crime and drug dealing recidivism?
I’m just curious, since all I hear is “blacks tend to go to prison more,” but I don’t see a racial breakdown showing what crimes get them sent there.
If us Libertarians need to find a perfect candidate before we can support him, we’re going to be looking for a long time. Jesus hasn’t expressed any interest in running.
Rep. Paul has a huge congressional record, and he’s made a huge number of speeches in his career. It’s sort of funny that NO ONE has found anything racist in what he has actually SAID, isn’t it?
I expected our opposition to use anything they can find against him, but I’m really disappointed at how quickly some supporters are dropping him. This is a critical time; we really need to rally around him.
The problem with these letters isn’t so much the content (what has come out isn’t worse, its just more numerous) but rather how Paul has dealt with it. A lot of us who have supported Paul have done so because we can overlook some problems because he represents something bigger. That view comes from the fact that, for all his personal foibles, Paul has been a man who radiated integrity. I could tolerate his stance on abortion because I could understand it even if I didn’t agree, I could overlook the quaint love for gold because it was internally consistent, I could ignore his absolutely asinine position on immigration because there were so many other positives to his campaign. But not this. The value of a man isn’t seen when times are easy, when you’re riding a wave of support and wearing the mantle of Quixote. Any asshole can play Mr. Smith under those circumstances. The real trial is when something bad happens, when you’re forced to face the mistakes any human being inevitably makes. Dr. Paul has failed to man up and take responsibility for these newsletters. He has failed to explain why they were able to happen. All he has given us is some thin press release trying to minimize the vile content and saying he takes “moral responsibility” without actually having to explain himself.
Dr. Paul has disappointed me. Sure, he never really had a chance, but he was someone I could get excited about. That just isn’t true anymore. What saddens me most, however, is how this will be used. We’ve been fighting a losing battle since Reagan realized that Christians were a more reliable voting block, and now the first hero we’ve had in a generation has just taken a big shit on the movement.
Airforce: I’d love to be able to rally around him. Unfortunately, in a movement defined by an emphasis on personal responsibility, the man has taken none.
Ron has done more for our big-liberty / small-government views this year. And over the last 20 years.
Think about it. The WORST thing about him is…. someone wrote HORRIBLE things in his newsletter.
Just stop and think about that. The WORST thing about him is non-oversight over some newsletters in his name.
AND ON TOP OF IT ALL, he doesnt just shrug it off. He says “For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
Now thats a leader. Someone who admits a fault and takes responsibility for it. You’ve never heard HIM say these things. He takes responsibility for his WORST mistake. What else could he do? What do you do when you make a mistake?
Mr. Balko,
I’m disappointed. You should really see Dr. Paul speak in person sometime before you throw him under the bus again. I disagree with much of what he says but his sincerity and overall love of liberty are overwhelming. I honestly do not believe that there is a hateful bone in the man’s body. Is DC life so much like high school that you have to trash good people to preserve your reputation? Should he apologize because something from his past embarrassed you?
“Jesus hasn’t expressed any interest in running.”
And he’s fucking nuts anyway. I sure as hell am not going to vote for someone who goes around claiming to be the son of God or God incarnate.
Ron Paul and the grassroots efforts are fighting against the old media and their obvious propaganda and support of candidates that support a warfare and welfare state. It is absolutely unfair and illogical to expect him to bring up every topic at every moment. Considering what is being fought, he’s done a tremendous job. If you’re that fickle to not support him, then you’re not really looking to support someone.
Besides, like someone else stated, if you wait for a perfect candidate, then you’ll wait forever. How about asking why the old media isn’t treating the other candidates the same way? What does that tell you? Even in last night’s debate he had to ask to answer the same questions everyone else was being asked … obvious attempt to marginalize him.
You really should consider the stance you’re taking and how unreasonable it is. Think about everything you do in your life, and how unfair it is to expect you to know everything about everyone you ever come across, and to remember 10-20 years after the fact. You’ll fail because it’s impossible.
What Ron Paul publicly supports and campaigns on is what I think government should be.
Just because some kooks give him money and some former employees were ignorant doesn’t mean I’m going to throw my vote to another candidate. Especially since there isn’t another candidate who share’s Paul’s views of government.
Maybe if Fred Thompson weren’t so anti-immigrant…
But until that happens, Radley, who do you plan to support instead?
By all means, Radley — go ahead and drop Ron Paul in revulsion. Let us know when you find the perfect candidate. The LP has been searching for one since 1971, which is one reason they, as a party, continue to slide into irrelevance.
Meanwhile, Ron Paul has stirred a huge interest in the small-l libertarian movement and philosophy, and is having a larger impact than CATO, Reason, the von Mises Institute and lewrockwell.com, combined.
But if you’re too embarrassed, maybe you’re just not ready for the realities of life.
Show me the letters!
I agree with #10 — do you think the fact that Paul might be a latent tolerator of racism really matters to the 80,000 federal drug war prisoners rotting in jail, who Paul would pardon? Black, brown or white, I bet every one of them would prefer to have a latent racist elected than stay in jail so that Libertarians can feel more pure about their candidate.
We need to get perspective here, and stop doing what fat, lazy, contented centrist Americans have done for years — namely allow politics to become about nothing but inflammatory hot-button issues.
The reality is that living in America just as it is remains pretty damn comfortable for most people. So we can afford to prioritize sensational, emotion-driven issues over justice for those who aren’t so lucky.
That’s why the drug war has gone on as long as it has. That’s why the Patriot act and other assaults on freedom continue — because we’re quibbling about sensational, selfish issues like gay marriage and partial-birth abortion.
“The WORST thing about him is non-oversight over some newsletters in his name.”
Well, there is the possibility that he cynically used race-baiting newsletters for political gain. Wouldn’t that be worse?
Even if it was really an oversight problem, it indicates incompetence. It means he was clueless about what was going on in his own name for a long period of time and hired people who were either (a) writing this stuff or (b) not mentioning it to Paul because they were also incompetent. But are we really to believe that for the relevant period of time no one ever said to Paul, “Hey, what’s the deal with those race-baiting newsletters?”
This is the man who claims he could be chief executive of the federal government. Even if he would shrink the federal government, it’s still a much bigger organization than his medical practice, newsletter, and political staff.
Selections From Ron Paul’s Newsletters
So which neocon or socialist will you be supporting now that Ron Paul has not answered this question to your satisfaction? Surely one of them must be an aceptable substitute.
Will it be “Freedom is Submission” Guiliani? Perhaps “100-year war” McCain. How about “Double Guantanamo” Romney or would you prefer “Death for Medical Marijuana” Romney? Kumbaya Obama? or just “No Nickname will Cover It” Hillary?
Damn that Ron Paul for not adequately and repeatedly flogging himself for those newsletters (never mind that he has never actually ever been discovered saying any of those things or ever acting in a racist manner, mind you, but having simply the nerve not to wear the proper color hair shirt for the the new millennium’s version of the Moral Majority). Damn him.
“Should he apologize because something from his past embarrassed you?”
I know the question is directed at Radley, but as someone who has donated money to the Paul campaign, vocally supported his candidacy, and as recently as last week defended him against charges of racism, I feel justified in answering.
Yes.
Paul’s “acceptance” of “moral responsibility” for the racist trash published in his newsletter is meaningless, just like Janet Reno’s acceptance of responsibility for the Davidian massacre. Just as Reno’s statement would’ve meant something if she’d arrested and prosecuted the jackbooted thugs who killed the Davidians, so too would Paul’s statement mean something if he publicly identified the authors of the material in question (probably Lew Rockwell & Jeffrey Tucker), condemned them personally, and totally severed his relations with them.
Lets see. Dr. Paul has said that more blacks than white are incarcerated for drug charges than whites even though usage rates are about the same . And this is a racist statement. It Obama had said this it would be a statement of enlightenment showing how minorities are persecuted under drug laws. So he may have said Rodney King was a criminal. He was. And even if he did say M.L. King was a communist leaning Philanderer. The last charge is well documented so prove Dr. king did not have any ties to communism.
So Mr. Balko’s version of Libertarianism does not allow one to discuss certain groups of people in any negative terms. Great he has created Libertarian racism. Congratulations
I just perused the documents on TNR and took the time to read three b/c it’s friday night and I’ll read the rest later, but here’s the three I read:
–The October 1992 issue of the Political Report paraphrases an “ex-cop” who offers this strategy for protecting against “urban youth”: “If you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example).”
This was what he said to do in case of a carjacking which was really popular at the time (and which I was a victim of). The pamphlet said “I do not know what to make of this advice.”
–”A 1989 newsletter compares Salman Rushdie to Ernst Zundel, a Canadian Holocaust-denier.”
It actually compared TNR and other lefties reactions to the two (Zundel was imprisoned in Canada) in a not wholly unreasonable way.
–”The November 1990 issue of the Political Report had kind words for David Duke.”
It actually talked about how much support he had for his libertarian ideas despite his “baggage.”
If the three example I selected out of curiosity are representative of all of them, I call shenanigans on the whole thing.
Wow. I’m amazed at your thick-headedness on this Radley and the absolutely absurd character assassination going on in some of the comments here (Tim Starr). Just unbelievable.
Further, given that Ron has decades of history demonstrating his truthfulness and moral courage I find your ongoing willingness to take the word of the little twerp at a rag that doesn’t have the journalistic integrity to be worthy of sitting side by side with the national enquirer at the local supermarket over his.
Further, I find it amazing that whenever someone is charged with a crime by the state, or accused of pretty much anything, you have no problem and no hesitation about assuming the best about that person first. No matter what their prior history.
But hey, let a man of integrity get slandered in a two-bit hit piece and you assume the worst and are ready to jump ship. That’s pathetic, it’s beneath you, and I’m deeply embarrassed for you.
Further, maybe you just haven’t seen it, but Paul has talked about the Drug war prior to this. Perhaps you haven’t bothered to venture out of the beltway or your cozy ivory tower long enough to see it. Those of us actually doing the work to get him elected have heard it. It’s not really Ron’s fault that your only source of information is apparently whatever the media can feed you through your TV.
Lastly, Ron *has* apologized for, and repudiated any idea that he might possibly endorse racist beliefs and/or remarks. It would hardly do him or anyone else any good to reveal the names of the people who did it.
Yeesh, your whining about this and his not naming names and all that is far too reminiscent of the MO of types like Sharpton. This isn’t about improving race relations. Throwing a few paleos to the wolves is not going to solve racism, and it’s not going to really make anyone feel better about what was written in those letters.
Rickey Ray Rector
What was your stand on his execution Radley? I recall a candidate for president who left the campaign to return home to supervise this execution of a retarded black man. That murder helped elect that governor to the presidency. Not racist of course no moreso than Sistah Soljah.
This is really pissing me off. I am puerto rican and I don’t give a flying fuck about who paul associated with in the 90s.
I bet a good number of 60 yr old white males thought the same in the 90s. that was the time of crack epidemics and right wing militias.
I am A OK with Paul and will continue to donate to his campaign.
He is the libertarian of our time and I will stand with him. More Republicans need to hear his message before the party the get take over by the theocrats.
If it does, you can kiss more of our liberties good bye.
Ron Paul!
I might be embarrassed to have financially and vocally supported Ron Paul’s campaign if we lived in an America that remained close to the limited government principles it was founded on, or if there was any indication the country was moving in that direction, or if there was any candidate besides him that advocates the Constitution instead of spouting fear-mongering platitudes and other soundbites that hypnotize the sheep. You should be more embarrassed that your post was picked up by pseudo-conservative jackals like Megan McArdle.
“Further, I find it amazing that whenever someone is charged with a crime by the state, or accused of pretty much anything, you have no problem and no hesitation about assuming the best about that person first. No matter what their prior history.”
I seem to have missed all of the examples of this sort of thing. Maybe you could provide one.
“It would hardly do him or anyone else any good to reveal the names of the people who did it.”
I disagree. It would serve a purpose. Who it is would say something about Paul. If it’s someone he is still buddies with — maybe someone who still talks like this — it wouldn’t look so good. If it is a buddy of Paul’s, it’s true it wouldn’t help Paul to reveal the person’s name, but it would help other people trying to determine the significance of the newsletters. Obviously, some Paul supporters don’t want the person’s name — they just want the issue to go away — but it won’t.
When does “more and more” become “most”?
“The neo-cons will be extremely happy if they can smear both Dr. Paul and the libertarian movement at the same time, and a lot of so-called libertarians seem to be more than happy to help them do it.”
Yeah, like the way they keep pushing the old canard that libertarians are unusually prone to conspiracy theories.
“This campaign could have represented the first time ever (that I know of) that a GOP candidate challenged his rivals to defend the failure and moral corruption of drug prohibition in a nationally-televised debate.”
Of course, pounding the table for drug de-criminalization is not going to get anyone the GOP nomination this century. Ron Paul wants to do away with criminalizing consenting actions, but this really only plays to 20-30 year olds. For those in the GOP older than mid-30s, this issue is at-odds with their thinking.
Do you recall that Ron Paul is a Republican, not your wet dream Libertarian?
I’m figuring out that I think I’m more upset at the writers than I am able to get at Ron Paul for this newsletter fiasco. From their drafting this junk in the first place to not being willing to stand up and be counted now is simply cowardice. I’m also not going to try to explain away Paul’s responses (or lack there of) so far. I do think they have been lacking somewhat. But what I can’t get my arms around is the libertarian idea of live and let live and yet all this upset over what someone writes in a newsletter with Paul’s name attached to it. Yes it may indicate something about his management style; and yes I or any number of people might have handled it differently, but when you get down to it what is wrong with Paul sponsoring a newsletter that allows people to participate in the very freedom of expression that we as libertarians (forgive me if I’m painting with too broad a brush here) are supposed to believe so strongly in?
I’m sure Faux News cringes every time Judge Napalitano is on. I’m sure CNN holds its breath every time they host Wayne LaPierre. The local rag here, the St Pete Times, probably hates covering the lawful use of a handgun for self-defense, but they still do it (or allow it). It’s not the same as spewing bigotry, but don’t we libertarians believe that people are free to believe and speak as they wish? I personally am satisfied that Paul does not hold these views. That seems obvious to me from his writings I have read and speeches I have heard. I even think those that are questioning their support for him (like Radley) still believe that. But I think Vox gets it right http://voxday.blogspot.com/2008/01/andrew-nails-it.html. I mean, to what degree are we going to hold Paul accountable for something we as libertarians are supposed to actually stand for? Paul doesn’t support abortions (or probably “gay marriage”), but understands that it would not be in his power as El Capitan to do anything about it. What is really so wrong with him allowing something to be written (or in the case of abortion, being done) that he doesn’t agree with, but is indeed consistent with his beliefs as a practicing libertarian?
Ackk, I’m so confused…
Radley,
I’m taking the time to write this because I have a great deal of respect for you and the work you’ve done exposing the militarization of the police and their excessive use of force in recent years. However, you are mistaken in much of your analysis here.
First of all, you are dead wrong in saying that the first time Ron Paul spent any time talking about the drug war and its disproportionate effect on black people was in the Wolf Blitzer interview. Paul spent a considerable amount of time making the same points you just made — and citing facts and figures to back them up — during the debate at Morgan State University. He also got more applause than any of the other candidates from that predominantly black audience.
Also, the racist comments did not appear over the entire 17-year span of the newsletters’ publication. I forced myself to go through all the newsletters TNR had posted on line, and found racist remarks only for the two-year period between October 1990 and October 1992.
Did Ron Paul write that stuff? I’m a former writer and editor and also a former college professor who got to be pretty good at spotting plagiarism in student papers, and I have to say I very much doubt it. It isn’t at all like Ron Paul’s style of writing (you can go to the Mises Institute website, where there is an extensive archive of Paul’s writings, if you don’t believe me), and there’s nothing in his voting record over 10 terms in Congress to suggest those are his views.
Then, if he didn’t write it, did he know about it? I don’t find it so far-fetched to believe that he may not have. Back in the ’60s, when I was a naive young college student, I recall a certain U. S. Senator who published one of the most conservative newsletters on the Hill — it was even quoted by mainstream conservative publications like Human Events. The thing was, this guy was not only one of the most liberal Republicans in the Senate, he was one of the most liberal Senators period! I went to one of his speeches with a friend. The speech turned out to be one of those standard wishy-washy political monologues that said nothing. Afterward, we went up to him and my friend told the Senator he really enjoyed reading his newsletter. The Senator got this slightly terrified look on his face, as if he thought he might be asked a question about it. It wasn’t until years later, when I learned how Congress really worked that I realized that he not only didn’t write the newsletter, but he probably didn’t even read it.
Finally, you seem to equate paleolibertarianism with racism. I suppose this is because your only exposure to libertarianism is the kind preached and practiced at Cato and Reason. I’ve been a libertarian since the mid-sixties, long before there ever was a Cato or Reason (in fact, I remember when Lanny Friedlander started Reason as a mimeographed sheet!), and I can honestly say I’ve never known an openly racist libertarian. I say “openly” only because I can’t read other people’s thoughts. And we were all “paleo” in those days. I stopped being active in the movement in the early 1980s. I must say, though, that I’m quite dismayed with the direction taken by Cato in recent years (I liked P. J. O’Rourke better when he was a hippie!). It has become just another Washington think tank laboring in the service of the corporate elites. Actually, I thought you were one of the few bright spots there, but even you seem to have your priorities mixed up: why do you get upset over some long-ago politically incorrect newsletters that carried Ron Paul’s name while ignoring Cato’s present-day advocacy of the return of indentured servitude in the guise of the H1-B program?
Radley, as post # 27 “Eyewitness” pointed out, the choice is between Ron Paul and a bunch of socialists and neocons. If you don’t support Paul, who are you going to support? If you can’t see that Paul is far and away the best candidate in the field, regardless of the old newsletters, then you’re not as smart as I thought you were.
“but when you get down to it what is wrong with Paul sponsoring a newsletter that allows people to participate in the very freedom of expression that we as libertarians (forgive me if I’m painting with too broad a brush here) are supposed to believe so strongly in?”
Tom, if Paul was running a blog, I don’t think anyone would blame him for the comments. But he didn’t just set up an open forum and just let people speak, come one, come all. He paid someone (presumably) to write this newsletter that supposedly represented his views. There were no bylines. Everything appeared to be by Paul — or at least in his name, which implies his approval.
So I think you are painting too broad a brush and respectfully disagree.
Even if Dr. Paul knows who wrote the particular articles in the particular newsletters (I’m sick of the broad characterization that 3 decades of newsletters contained the subject statements–as if every newsletter was in the same vein), he is too much of a gentleman of the old school to “out” that person and subject him or her to personal ruination.
I live in Texas and have known about Dr. Paul since the 1970’s. He HAS apologized for the content of the newsletters. He HAS accepted responsibility for their dissemination. This whole issue arose in 1996 when, at then Gov. Bush’s behest, Karl Rove armed Dr. Paul’s Democratic opponent with this same ammunition. Ron Paul has never backed away from the fact that the buck stopped with him and he accepted responsibility back then.
I can’t believe that I am seeing libertarians adopt collectivist stances inherent in fallacies like “guilt by association” and the like. Moreover, this expectation that he know everything that goes out in his newsletter or he’s bad at management floors me. I run my own law firm. I don’t read every letter that goes out from my law firm and if something is wrong–it may take years for me to find it. I have to trust the professionals I employ or I might as well do everything myself. Ron Paul wasn’t actively running the newsletter–he trusted others.
I respect the fact that he isn’t subjecting the person who wrote the newsletters (and who sounded like a cross between Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage to me) to the waiting vultures–just so that he can exonerate himself.
It strikes me that certain libertarian circles, typified by those so quick to run away from Ron Paul over this issue, actually fear freedom. They fear it in the same way that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton fear the end of racism, or that the NRA fears the end of all gun control.
If suddenly deprived of a good living pointing out the evils of statism, certain libertarian writers might have to, I don’t know, actually go out and be free.
Bingo KBCraig. You hit the nail right on the head.
No, you didn’t, KBCraig. You missed the nail wildly. I know a good portion of those “libertarian writers,” and they are all sincere in their desire to see a free, just, and prosperous society. And they are all talented enough to make a “good living” (it isn’t that good, by the way), doing other things.
[This comment is a hybrid of three comments I left on Radley Balko's Reason piece on the same subject and date.]
Excellent post, Radley. Kudos on taking an honest second look based on the evidence and your new understanding of the man, and his evasions.
It’s becoming of you.
I’ll add one thing… I have libertarian tendencies, although not so much as many here, more than most in either my country’s Conservative Party or your Republican Party.
By denouncing the liar and quite possibly bigot Ron Paul, you did more to bring me to your way of thinking than anything else you could have done. It’s now possible to take a look at some of his ideas without being so disgusted I turn my head away at the sight of the man. I no longer take Ron Paul seriously enough to bother doing so.
To clarify so there is absolutely no doubt, a commentator [at Reason]
abovequoting me said:I no longer take Ron Paul seriously as a political threat… I had long considered him a dangerous crank and probably anti-semite and white supremacist (or at least present day beneficiary of the financial and ‘moral’ support of white supremacists).
I am glad this man is being discredited before our eyes. As someone who supports many libertarian ideas, I’d like to see a libertarian movement lead by more decent people.
How ’bout it, Radley? What you doing in 15 years?
I still don’t understand what’s so offensive. Some of it is pretty out there, but everyone including the mainstream political rags have said some weird things in the last 30 years.
The way the story is constructed reminds me a lot of Media Matters. They gloss over the evidence and write a story about how horrible it is. But if if you actually read the transcripts on MM or the pamphlets from Paul, it’s far form black and white. I still think Paul is nuts, but at least he doesn’t wear magic underwear or make his dog ride on the roof of the car or take police escorts to visit his upstate whores.
One more thing, as far as finding a perfect libertarian candidate goes: there aren’t any. The closest thing you’ll find to a perfect candidate is someone like Romney whose been groomed since birth(and very creepy) and Jimmy Carter who sucked ass. Our recent presidents have been a drunken frat boy, a stoned hippy womanizer, a regular womanizer, and an outright idiot. If publishing a weekly newsletter for 30 years that occasionally said outragous things is as bad as gets, I think he’s way ahead of the curve.
Persona non grata, you can find excerpts from Ron Paul’s newsletters here at The New Republic.
Maybe I’ll start taking these mud-flinging bouts seriously after I hear a lot of noise made about Guliani cross-dressing.
Not that it’ll change my mind: I won’t vote for Guliani, not because of his choice of clothing, but because I believe him to be a fascist at heart and an advocate of more and more federal government power.
For the same reason, I won’t hold any potential differing racial attitudes against Ron Paul, because I believe the odds are good that he’ll maintain the ideological course laid out by his in-office voting record regardless of what else may or may not be rattling around in his brain.
Radley –
I think this post is grossly unfair for several reasons. One, you accuse Ron Paul of perpetuating the environment that allowed some of the worst anti-drug laws to come into effect because of some admittedly ignorant, bigoted things that were published in a newsletter bearing his name. Yet you completely ignore the fact that the worst laws were passed following Len Bias’ death in 1986 — Ron Paul ran an explicitly anti-drug war campaign as the Libertarian Party’s nominee in 1988 (and he took a lot of flack for it too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHB2I83_N_k). This fact wasn’t lost on his Democratic opponents in the 90s either, who ran ads saying that scary old Ron Paul wanted to LEGALIZE DRUGS!
Secondly, Ron Paul has — repeatedly — attacked the war on drugs as both a member of Congress and, yes, as a candidate for president in 2008. At rallies across the country and at the PBS debate on minority issues he has railed against the harmful effects of the war on drugs and its disproportionate effect on minorities. Other observers didn’t miss this (see Pete Guither’s “Drug War Rant” at Salon: http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/2007/09/28.html). Please point me to any other candidate besides Paul and Dennis Kucinich (who I take you won’t be endorsing anytime soon) who has dared to even question aspects of the war on drugs? To say that Ron Paul only speaks out against the drug war when he is being accused of racism is not only untrue, but it’s underhanded and beneath you. Perusing your blog I see precious little about the war in Iraq — would it be fair of me to say that you endorse the neoconservative position? Or that you just don’t care about foreigners unless someone is challenging your libertarian credentials, for instance? (short answer: probably not…. but say, why is there so little about the single most important issue of this campaign?)
And finally, you say Paul was “overly defensive” and “lacked contrition” in his appearance on CNN. Let me ask you: if you appeared on national television immediately following a three minute segment entitled, “Racist Writings,” and preemptively saying that your response to the allegations was “not enough,” would you not be defensive yourself? I too am disappointed by the content of the newsletters but I believe Paul has apologized for them and repeatedly disavowed their content already.
As another poster said, when Libertarian Jesus shows up let me know. Until then, maybe you shouldn’t throw the only visible candidate critiquing the war on drugs and our unjust “justice” system to the wolves.
Peter,
I have to ask what realistic difference there is between what Paul was running with that newsletter and what, say Radley, is running with this blog (or more accurately other blogs that have multiple writers, i.e. lewrockwell, CATO, etc.)? Aren’t both of them basically forums for people to speak their minds? Are we to hold Radley responsible for what we write in the comments section? Granted, if there was something Radley found particularly nasty, he might delete it. That’s his choice. But to what degree are we going to condemn Paul for not doing the same thing Radley, or maybe we, might do? Neither choice makes either of them less libertarian. I also think the one thing Paul has done quite well in his responses is come out strongly against the more absurd content, the particularly nasty stuff so to speak. It’s his “I didn’t know what was going on…” comments that I take issue with because it speaks to his management style (and possibly other issues). I’m perfectly comfortable with the idea that he himself is not a racist.
Tom
Paul wasn’t a bigot. He was a cultist. He belonged to Murray Rothbard’s odd little band, and for some reason Rothbard decided in the late eighties that it made sense to do some “deep entry” move on the Buchananite/ white nationalist fringe. Why a Jewish libertarian thought this made sense is a mystery, but the guy was weird.
Paul went along for the ride for the same reason Tom Cruise doesn’t like psychiatrists.
Much like Karen De Coster, I look at this ugly scene and can’t help but see employees, paid to make libertarian noises, jumping to defend paychecks and social status.
http://www.karendecoster.com/blog/archives/002714.html
As for the newsletters, if i had to bet, put me down for “Paul knew about the newsletters all along, they were targeted at a good ol’ boy segment of his base as a good way to give a sidelong (at the time anyhow) nod and a wink to an icky (but reliable) segment of his voter base”
US politics and tender sensibilities do not mix.
Mr Balko
Many of the other posters are more eloquent than I but I too have admired your work and am stunned at your and most of your co-workers’ judgement. This would be the spot for a second thought and a little skeptical inquirery that most libertarians use.
I am disapointed in Dr Paul’s response although I don’t know what would have been acceptable. It would seem with the lack of direction of volunteers that he really doesn’t care what happens under his name and that is odd to me. Perhaps it is his love of freedom and total inability to tell someone what he thinks they should do.
However Dr Paul has done more for FREEDOM regardless of label than Reason, its staff, CATO and the Libertarian party have ever done. I’m not knocking these but he has used a seat in the United States House to profess freedom and stand up for it often alone for 20 years. Can you imagine how lonely that must feel at times? To know you are right but be called a “crank?” He has basically retired from his profession to do all of this. Why he even took a turn as the Libertarian presidential candidate. He doesn’t pull punches. He constantly and most importanly respectfully presents the case for liberty.
For libertarians to write him off so quickly while waiting for that perfect candidate to come along is unbelievable.
For Libertarians to worry “their” movement is sullied by 20 year old comments and not by a consistant hostility to religion, pro abortion until the last moment and hey perhaps after, presenting the most radical lifestyles as normal, and going beyond drug tolerance to almost insisting on their use to join the club, well now that is PRICELESS.
I do think there is a fear of winning, not that Dr Paul had a great chance but it seems like the fair weather supporters want to make certain he doesn’t.
Ron Paul has a few credits coming his way for basically a lifetime of work. I can’t think of anyone who would withstand this method of judgement.
Respectfully
Joe
You are running with a bad crowd Radley. You need to get out of the DC area. You are becoming infected.
From Ostrowski on Lew Rockwell’s blog…
While beltway libertarians are busy reading old newsletters, George Bush is foisting internal passports on us, McCain is promising 100 more years in Iraq, and Hillary just gave a quick outline of her agenda as our presumptive next president: federal power to cure global warming, which is of course a totalitarian power since everything from breathing to having babies in their view is related to global warming; universal pre-k; and socialized medicine. She will give us–and there will no Republican Congress to stop her–a consolidated state controlling everything.
But keep dredging up old newsletters boys and girls
As if any more proof or common sense is needed to KNOW that Ron Paul is not a racist in any way …
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm
Before you dismiss the web site, here is the headline and first paragraph.
NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist
Linder says Paul being smeared because he is a threat to the establishment
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.
What good will it do for Paul to name the names of those who injected their racism into his newsletters? It will enable us to verify that he’s actually telling the truth here, instead of just taking him on faith. His past statements about who wrote them are contrary to his most recent ones, so he either lied before or he’s lying now. How can we tell the truth unless he presents more evidence?
It will also enable us to tell who the racists really are, so that the rest of us can also dissociate ourselves from them.
As for the local NAACP chapter head’s testimony that Paul’s not racist, that may very well be true, but the fact that his testimony was given on the radio talk show of a conspiranoid 9/11 Denier like Alex Jones is hardly reassuring. What next, Flat-Earthers testifying that Paul’s not a phrenologist?
You may as well just go ahead and vote for Rudy or Mitt with this kind of attitude everyone is exhibiting. This country is so screwed. Just look at us on here bickering like a bunch of school kids on the play ground. The movement is beyond pathetic at this point.
Amazing how any hope this country had just went right out the window. I don’t think this country is worth saving anymore since anyone serious enough to make their voice counted can be so easily swayed by this bullshit. I thought the people who frequent these boards had more sense.
I guess I was wrong. Enjoy the rest of the election season. We deserve every second of it.
Jeffrey writes: “Get over it, [Paul] was never a politician.”
Look. Paul’s newsletter built a national support base for his first House run in part by explicitly courting the racist fringe. And in 2007, in his presidential run, Paul refused to make a strong repudiation of the endorsement he was receiving from the racist fringe. One has to at least ask if the reason we haven’t seen such a repudiation has much less to do with libertarian ideals and much more to do with not wanting to alienate a known support base.
With all due respect, I think the problem that Balko is pointing out here is that Paul, in the final analysis, is a politician.
Young Libertarian bloggers are like dust in the breeze. They blow from one non-event to the other.
Radley, it has been fun, but I am checking out…
Peter Parker,
I’m not sure how you missed it. Nearly every time there is impropriety between the police and the accused he defaults to the accused being in the right. (Note that this is not the same as assuming innocence until proven guilty, as in a case of impropriety being the accusation, that would mean assuming innocence on the part of the officer as well).
Now, I don’t mean to be overly critical of taking that position. I take a similar position myself, simply because of the nature of who the police are, what they represent, and the amount of abuse that is common today. My point is not that he should change this default view – it’s that he should be more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to other people as well, including Ron.
Freerider,
Thank you for your rather eloquent response. It was well said.
Tell ya what Radley, with all the damning with faint praise coming out of the beltway pseudolibs, the duration, intensity, style and consistancy of his faithful service to the cause of liberty, the nature of his decentralized campaign philosophy and makeup of his eclectic and independent supporter base, his great need to publicize his positions and track record in the face of establishment freezeouts (to include Cato’s “my-way-or-the-highway” attitude to supporting a true champion of the cause) and his public disavowal of racism, I will grant Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt in this case. I will continue my complete support and extend my best wishes for godspeed on his way to victory in his campaign. I see no other Republican or Democrat presidential candidate who truly begins to approach him. He is the genuine article. I wish I had the same confidence in Cato!
Oh yeah, one other thing. Yes there are some good people who do stuff for Cato. Unfortunately, for some reason, Cato is unable to show some heart. It is functioning as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. This was the case PRIOR to the newsletters fooferaw.
Ron Paul has been a lot more interested in talking about the gold standard and the Federal Reserve than he is about ending the so-called war on drugs.
White nationalists believe that the Federal Reserve is part of a Jewish conspiracy, which explains Ron Paul’s obsession with that topic.