If Ron Paul should be slammed for anything, it’s not some silly remarks he’s made in the past in his Newsletters…
—Eric Dondero, former Ron Paul aide
Ron Paul was, is, and always will be out there. I can’t remember who called him the GOP’s crazy uncle, but that pretty much sums it up. The Republican Party has never known exactly what to do with him. (Remember RMG banning discussion of Ron Paul discussion during one election season)? His libertarianism, I think, has thrown off the mainstream media, which has largely given him a free pass. He’s too different from the rest of the party to fit the he said/she said mold of our truth-averse 4th Estate and so has only ever received also-ran treatment.
Until now.
Recently, Paul’s conspiracy-laden, racist newsletters from the 80s and 90s came to widespread attention. Newsletters, Jonathan Chait notes, were the blogs of the pre-internet era. I remember working with my right-wing great uncle in the declining years of my family’s shoe store; I was frequently dosed with old copies of Reed Irvine’s Accuracy in Media and newsletters from Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum. Newsletters allowed the Far Right to stay in touch and, because they came with a subscription, to make money.
The racist content in Ron Paul’s newsletters–which are mainly written in the first-person without a byline–has earned the support of some white supremacists. James Kirchick has documented some of the bile. His first excerpt (about the LA Riots after the beating of Rodney King) is disgusting, but hardly unheard of from conservatives that swing racist:
“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,” read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with “‘civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.” It also denounced “the media” for believing that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.”
This excerpt, however, is right out of Charles Manson and The Turner Diaries:
“What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’” Two months later, a newsletter warned of “The Coming Race War,” and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, “If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.” In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” “This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,” the newsletter predicted.
Paul has disavowed these newsletters (though he was taking credit for them in 1995). A former aide to Paul has issued a statement in defense of his former boss. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
Paul, it seems, has no problem with Hispanic culture, just the Spanish language:
[Paul] is completely clueless when it comes to Hispanic and Black culture, particularly Mexican-American culture. And he is most certainly intolerant of Spanish and those who speak strictly Spanish in his presence, (as are a number of Americans, nothing out of the ordinary here.)
He also has no problem with Jews:
American Jews, Ron Paul has no problem with. In fact, there were a few Jews in our congressional district, and Ron befriended them with the specific intent of winning their support for our campaign.
And that campaign tactic for which the aide evidently dressed up in stereotypical Jewish garb? Yes, it happened. But that was
to push back on Anti-Jewish charges from the Morris campaign, yes, that did happen. The Victoria Advocate described the press conference very accurately. Yes, I was asked (not forced), to attend the conference dressed in a Jewish yarlmuke, and other Jewish adornments.
And Paul yelling at Jewish Young Republicans? That was all about Israel.
There was another incident when Ron finally agreed to a meeting with Houston Jewish Young Republicans at the Freeport office. He berated them, and even shouted at one point, over their un-flinching support for Israel. So, much so, that the 6 of them walked out of the office. I was left chasing them down the hallway apologizing for my boss.
And gay men? No problem.
[Paul] told me very clearly, that although he liked Jim [an openly gay man helping with Paul’s campaign], he did not wish to use his bathroom facilities. I chided him a bit, but he sternly reacted, as he often did to me, Eric, just do what I say. Perhaps “sternly” is an understatement. Ron looked at me directly, and with a very angry look in his eye, and shouted under his breath: “Just do what I say NOW.”
Just don’t ask to use his bathroom. Or shake his hand:
“Bobby,” a well-known and rather flamboyant and well-liked gay man in Freeport came to the BBQ. Let me stress Ron likes Bobby personally, and Bobby was a hardcore campaign supporter. But after his speech, at the Surfside pavilion Bobby came up to Ron with his hand extended, and according to my fellow staffer, Ron literally swatted his hand away.
Again, let me stress. I would not categorize that as “homo-phobic,” but rather just unsettled by being around gays personally.
The current slate of Republicans may not be the worst ever, but it’s got to be close. That’s good news for Obama in 2012, but it’s bad news for America. At a time when we need the best and the brightest of both parties, we’ve got a convictionless incumbent and a group of wingnuts with the passionate intensity of the insane.
He’s complaining that Ron Paul believed the Bush admin would use 9/11 to push for invading Iraq. Am I completely mistaken or isn’t that exactly what happened? Apart from pushing the WMD angle the Bush admin was also pushing some tenuous links between AQ and Saddam.
http://bit.ly/uwh1kt
I heard Jamie Kirchick on the radio today and he was also going off about Ron Paul’s fringe foreign policy and using an example how Ron Paul believes that “the Iraq War was a mistake.” If that wasn’t a mistake then what the hell was it?
– or at least that is what some said of him. (Yet, there are no direct quotes saying this that I have seen.)
What’s more important, that he didn’t read these newsletters and he should have, or that he reads the legislation that he votes on? People here at BMG were miffed recently at the legislation that allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens. I’m sure many Congress critters voted on it without reading it. One guy who did read it was Ron Paul. He spoke out against in Congress and in the debates. And he voted against it. It would be good for everyone to put the newsletter issue into perspective relative to more important matters.
And look at the people dredging this up. Jonathan Chait, cheerleader for the Iraq War. David Frum, cheerleader for the Iraq War. Jamie Kirchick, cheerleader for the Iraq War. See a pattern? Serious question, what does it take to discredit this crew? The consequences of the newsletters as far as I can tell were nil. The consequences of the Iraq War were adverse to the extreme. I’d be hard pressed to think of anything good minus deposing Saddam (which for all we know would have happened anyways in the Arab Spring).
When do the media, the aforementioned guys included, let us know what the GOP candidates thought about going into Iraq? Did they think it was a good idea? That it would be a cakewalk? That it would pay for itself? Any candidate that answers yes to any of those questions is much more deserving of being disqualified from the Presidency.
Also keep in mind, everyone else in the GOP race has flamed out. This is a race between Paul and Romney (a man who couldn’t find the time to attend the “African American” debate in2007).
http://usat.ly/suaLxb
I’m biased, but at the time I remember thinking Paul won it it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdGGx7fj9j0
Ron Paul was well aware of what was going into his newsletters, even though he may not have written them. He was taking credit for the newsletters in ’95 (though not the racist stuff). Given “supportive” testimony from his aide, the guy seems racist and homophobic to me.
I dislike TNR quite a bit. And I have little patience for its former Iraq War cheerleaders, but these guys did the leg work and dug up the primary sources. I don’t really care about their stance on the Iraq War. I don’t care about Paul’s position on the Iraq War. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Ron Paul is dangerous inasmuch as he is a candidate for President. His racism is ugly, but his economics are pathologically dangerous. It’s time he stopped getting a free ride.
A lot of Republicans (and probably a fair number of Democrats) harbor very similar views – they just don’t say them out loud.
Case in point: the Easthampton City Councilor, who, when faced with a locked door, said “where’s a Puerto Rican when you need one”. At a City Council meeting, no less.
Second case in point: the hundreds of people posting on Masslive defending him and calling the head of the NAACP – described as a “violent racist organization” – “racist” for “playing the race card”.
Look at some of the comments – keeping in mind that those worse than these were deleted:
The whole meme of the “endangered white male” and the “lazy colored people”, and the “criminal minorities” is very prevalent in this country – just not in public unless the people are allowed to be anonymous.
a haven for a certain type of conservative: the kind that is afraid to put their names on their beliefs, but not afraid to not self-censor. These people are out there listening to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
As local boss of the NAACP, Talbert Swan has every right to call out the old Easthampton man who made the racist remark, but calling for his resignation is a bit over the top. He will face re-election again and voters can decide whether his apology was enough.
Masslive is one outlet, but this kind of stuff is absolutely everywhere. Here’s a quote from a WWLP.com story about possible Sears closings:
Here’s a comment from a story about a fire in Springfield that left 13 people homeless:
Ron Paul just verbalized what a lot of people apparently still think today.
Ron Paul reflects the racism and bigotry pervasive in our society. He and the GOP pander to and intentionally inflame it, in hopes of getting elected.
I don’t look at comments anywhere else. But Krugman is always complaining about trolls on his blog and people occasionally comment here about Boston.com’s crazy comments.
I guess I know people who think like this, but I don’t talk to them enough to get a dose of it.
Most people now know better than to talk like this in public. Get a couple of beers in them and it all comes out. Or when people think that they have your confidence, they grab your arm, pull you close, and speak this stuff in hushed tones.
I personally think that the newspapers are tolerating some of it because it increases their traffic and thus profits. Just like Ron Paul profited from his newsletters.
His anti-gay record is quite clear, including:
He often confuses people on his views regarding civil rights for gays because he speaks as if he’s a states’ rights advocate, then he contradicts that stance by supporting sweeping anti-gay federal legislation. While he did vote for the repeal of DADT, he opposed the federal hate crimes bill, the Lawrence v. Texas SCOTUS decision and anything allowing federal recognition of same-sex marriages. He’s clearly got a problem with the gays and clearly believes that heterosexuals are superior. No thanks.
I think his nastiness is obscured by his Libertarian veneer in the same way conservative justices hided behind an originalist interpretation of the Constitution.
Who isn’t a heterosupremecist?
Compare Paul against Bachmann, Santorum, Perry, Newt, and Mitt.
There is recent column at Slate that quotes some interesting things from Dan Savage.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/12/ron_paul_s_anti_gay_newsletters_why_they_don_t_bother_liberal_gays.html
but when he says about Paul “he’s content to leave us the fuck alone and recognizes that gay citizens are entitled to the same rights as all other citizens”, well, that’s patently untrue as already illustrated elsewhere in the thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Sexual_orientation_legislation
This I did not know:
I’m glad he voted to repeal DADT, but Ron Paul is no champion of the 14th Amendment. He’d rather that everyone be free to discriminate. He essentially advocates for Jim Crow. I find that disgusting. He has no hope of getting my vote.
Paul thinks businesses should be allowed to discriminate, remember his son (Ayn) Rand said the Civil Rights act was a mistake and Woolworth’s should have been allowed to have a whites only lunch counter. Ron never contradicted him, IIRC.
Santorum thinks government support and obligations should only be for couples that might procreate children together, Ron Paul thinks there should be no government support to couples to combine to create new people.
Ron Paul is a delusional, homophobic lunatic. He appears to be only slightly less insane than the rest of the GOP field, who are even more bizarre.
Mitt Romney is, outwardly, the least pathological of the lot — which itself speaks volumes.
The fact that any of these nut-cases has ANY support whatsoever (never mind anything approaching a majority) is symptomatic of our several larger cultural disorders.
I have to disagree with somervilletom — I think Romney’s willingness to enthusiastically back anything for modest personal gain is more pathological than the Bachmann/Paul stance of sincerely believing in strange things.
What fascinates me about Paul is he lends credence to questions about the others. Paul is to me what Romney, Gingrich, Perry, etc., would be if they could. Obviously there’s a miasma of racism about them all — I think Romney would say these things if not running for office. Paul and Gingrich worship at the altar of corporate supremacy; Paul openly admits he’ll watch Americans die for his beliefs, whereas Gingrich mumbles about history until the questioner gets bored.
For anyone with discomfort about the Republican Party, Paul offers confirmation that yes, they really are that crazy at a time when everyone else is trying to pretend they aren’t.
He didn’t see Borat, I guess. Bruno tries to seduce him in a private room before a fake interview, and Paul looks really uncomforatble, trying to ignore Bruno dancing and undressing. Then he finally runs out of the room and says “he tried to get queer!” or something like that.
I tried to watch Borat on the plane back from England, but I couldn’t get into it. I ended up watching Jackass II, which, aside from the graphic potty stuff, was funny as hell.
Since Paul is a homophobe, I guess he’s a somewhat deserving target, but it’s a kind of unfair prank. Here’s a link (the audio sucks):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7RnlPQCKBQ
is because he seems to be offering no evidence in the form of, say, bills proposed or initiatives supported, to prove that he has ‘reformed’. All we have is his ‘repudiation’ of stuff he won’t even take full responsibility for but obviously should. It leaves the voter with the impression that he’s more deceptive than honest. I don’t think that’s gonna cut it with voters who care about bigotry.
This was a debate held in 2007 that Romney, Guiliani, and McCain could not attend because of scheduling conflicts.
Those certainly don’t support claims that Paul is a racist. In fact, they speak well to the man.
But that is not the entirety of the Congressman’s record, as painfully revealed in the rest of this thread.
The guy’s a libertarian. Of course he doesn’t support “initiatives;” he is opposed to initiatives because he doesn’t think the government should have any. He voted against a Constitutional marriage amendment. To repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. In both cases, bucking his party.
So he didn’t like Borat yanking his pants down, neither would I and neither would you.
The guy shouldn’t be President because he is an extremist libertarian, but his views on gay rights are a world better than any other candidate for the GOP nomination.
In any event, Democrats should be rooting for the guy big time. A little success in the next few weeks and the nominee is going to have to give the guy space at the convention to call for repealing Social Security, or face a Tea Party third party candidacy in November.
So I’m not sure why you think his calling himself a libertarian means he doesn’t participate in organized efforts. Of course he does.
As for his vote on the constitutional amendment, have you read his reasoning? It isn’t because he thinks you shouldn’t discriminate against gays. It’s because he thinks you should discriminate against us at the state level, not the federal constitutional level. Although, as I said above, he’s contradicted that “conviction” by saying he *would* have discriminated against gays at the federal level if he’d been in Congress when DOMA was voted on.
My conclusion is he’s consistent in his bigotry but inconsistent in how he feels it’s best to go about enacting it. Not a very strong selling point, is it?
He wants the decision to be a state decision, rather than making a federally-imposed constitutional mandate. Same with abortion. I don’t think the DOMA position differs: the quoted position relates to the portion of the statute that supposedly keeps SSM a state-by-state issue.
At least with respect to SSM, that isn’t that far different from the “process liberal” position that was debated so vigorously here at the time of the Mass Constitutional Convention.
Would complete de-federalisation be that be bad for gays and or women in certain states? Yes, which is a pretty strong argument against his brand of extreme libertarianism. But to suggest that he advocates restricting federal power IN ORDER to facilitate socially conservative state policies gets the cause-effect string backwards.
And now I have probably made more of the distinction than it is really worth, because you are right about the results, which is what matters to most people. I just think that treating him like he is a Pat Robertson Christianist misunderstands him, and the political force that is behind him.
And I still think that you should secretly root for him, because of the pain he will inflict on Romney if he can stick around awhile. If he does, it won’t be a candidate building battle like Obama-Clinton, but a party dividing bloodbath like Dukakis-Jackson.
because he’s throwing a wrench into the GOP works. It’s great theater and he has no chance in getting the nomination, so for that reason I say “keep talking, Ron”!
But everyone who wants to restrict federal power wants to facilitate socially conservative state policies. It is always umbrage at the federal liberal policies that causes people to be libertarian, never conservative policies. I can’t think of any exceptions… Oh wait, one exception is the war on drugs, pot smokers often call themselves libertarians but they take umbrage to state laws too, and local police for that matter. They’d love a federal law that overruled state laws that prohibited drug use. Paul himself speaks of the failed war on drugs as if he would put a stop to it at the national level.
I think this doesn’t reflect what the guy is standing for. Libertarians in federal government favor a whole lot less federal government, but that doesn’t mean they favor anything in particular at the state level.
Libertarians in state government favor a whole lot less of state government.
The essence of libertarianism is the belief that government, because it cannot go out of business, cannot do anything competently, and because it holds a monopoly on the police power, tends to creep toward authoritarianism. As far as that goes, I think they are probably right. Indeed, both political parties in the US seem perfectly OK with a big dose of authoritarianism; the primary source of disagreement relates to whether one wants the government to compel X or Y.
But like other ideologues before them, it is their prescription for a well-identified problem that is naive and awful.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/12/26/fifteen_years_ago_ron_paul_wasn_t_claiming_somebody_else_wrote_his_newsletters.html
from HuffPo quoting The Dallas Morning News — May 22, 1996:
Paul is a paleocon like Buchanan, not a true libertarian. Get rid of statism and God takes its place in the public sphere and we return to a virtuous agrarian republic. Like Buchanan he is anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti black equality. He, like Buchanan has openly stated we need to roll back The Civil Rights Act and federal protection for blacks. He opposes not only Lawrence but Loving as well along with applying the bill of rights to states. He has called Lincoln a tyrant and made neo-Conderate arguments supporting the notion that slavery was not what the South was fighting to preserve.
The openly racist Political Cesspool has had him as a frequent guest. These fringe groups are never on the same page and normally eschew political participation, but are all coincidentally involved and excited. Until Paul explicitly disavows these groups beyond weakly agreeing to disagree we can only assume he is courting these groups willingly.
“totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American.”
_Dixit_ Don Neutrino de Gingrich.
Happy days.
Good ol’ Newt.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/24/395040/gingrich-defends-south-carolinas-decision-to-fly-confederate-flag-at-statehouse/
Speaking of Newt, I was thinking about a catchphrase used by a liberal organization that came into being during the Clinton impeachment hearings which seems to be to be appropriate, “Let’s move on.”
He basically believes that states will be more tyrannical at being anti-choice, so that is why he wants Roe v. Wade overturned. How is saying that your preferred lawmaking body is the one you think will be more heavy-handed in any way “libertarian”?
I also note this piece of legislation he sponsored a couple years ago.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4379:
He basically wants federal courts stripped of the power to hear sexual-orientation discrimination cases or cases regarding separation of church and state (e.g. forced prayer in school, forced posting of the Ten Commandments in government settings, etc.).
This is Rick Santorum/American Taliban stuff, not libertarianism.
I enthusiastically agree with you that this is not “libertarianism” (although who knows just what IS “libertarianism”). It may even be “American Taliban” stuff. This is, more than anything else, old-fashioned race-baiting.
These old canards of “states rights” have been used since before the civil war to provide cover for slavery (first), then racism and race-based exploitation. These venerable old targets are readily expanded to include gays, atheists, immigrants, and all the rest of today’s attractive scapegoats. Anything that distracts folks from the truth of what happens when we discard logic, rationality, and insight in exchange for money and power.
This is the GOP stock-in-trade, and has been since the Democrats ejected its southern racists in 1968.
off them. They were big $$$. http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/12/18/ron-paul-made-millions-from-racist-newsletter/
There’s no way he didn’t know what was going in them.
The best I’d believe from him is that he purposefully had the ghost writers pander to the red meat his conspiracy-theory-loving, fringe-right crowd likes.
Libertarianism was then more of a fringe political brand than it is now. Before the age of the internet, you probably had to appeal to various fringe groups in order to sell enough newsletters to make money.
So yes, he probably didn’t write them. But he most likely knew what was going in there, regardless of whether he wrote it himself.
He (and the GOP) pandered to racists and bigots then in order to make money. He (and the GOP) panders to racists and bigots now (the GOP/Tea Party “base”) in order to gain votes. This is the crowd that goes for the likes of Lyndon Larouche, the KKK, and the American Nazi Party. The Tea Party is a very slightly sanitized version of the others.
You wrote above of the “political force that is behind him”. Lyndon Larouche and John Birch are more representative of this ilk than Pat Robertson (and I’m no fan of Pat Robertson).
Iowa is big on notorious wireless electronic voting. Further, the Iowa governor has announced the votes will be counted in a secret location. (Now why would that be…)
Look for a big surprise on the 3rd of January and some candidate that wasn’t so popular make a big move to the top. It’s not about Dr Paul as it is about the money. Dr Paul’s moneys come from small donors. To run a political party one needs big corporate bucks. Ron don’t have it. Goodbye Ron.
“You’ve got to work things out in the cloakroom, and when you’ve got them worked out, you can debate a little before you vote.” –Lyndon B. Johnson
The numbers will be totaled at a secret location by the Iowa GOP with all media banned.
I’m sure as with any good dictatorial regime, the numbers will add up to the “right result”. Perhaps they already have been — maybe we can save everyone the bother of caucusing.
It was global warming that did in Ron’s campaign next Tuesday. Now, there’s the explanation before the event. Everybody and go home and have a good laugh. Your free press is at work.
“As long as our government is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their will; as long as it secures to us the rights of persons and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending.” –Andrew Jackson
The falling-out occurred because Paul opposed the Iraq war, which Dondero strongly supported.
Dondero has since been trying to redefine “libertarian” to mean someone who supports a hawkish foreign policy and is worried about a jihadist 5th column… it’s not hard to see why he’s no longer employed by Ron Paul. Check out his blog:
http://www.libertarianrepublican.net