Is peaceful libertarian Ron Paul a wacko racist bigot?

Based on various incarnations of a Newsletter published over several decades under the freedom-loving Texas physician's name, The New Republic's James Kirchick seems to think Maybe So:

...In other words, Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it.

For me at least, the TNR piece requires a slow & careful reading in order to form a Tentative opinion. There's a good deal of guileful Guilt-by-Association embedded within it; and it sure doesn't sound like the guileless old GoldStandard Freemarket Isolationist Son of Liberty we all Know & Love :).

Then again...well, Y'know: smoke, fire, & So forth. / Once again, here's the whole thing. What Say ye, gentle Peace&Freedomphiles?

Comments

[Sean]

Yeah, I've been reading a lot about this of late. The Liberty Papers has a lot about it, too. I tell myself that it's just him defending a staffer, but then I remind myself that I'm incredibly biased.

I don't know. Maybe Paul is a racist. He's done nothing currently to suggest that he is, so I hope not. I'd hate the message of freedom to be associated with insanity. (And what else can you call racism but a form of insanity?) Doesn't make much sense though. Libertarianism is anti-collectivist, and racism is one of the most blatant forms of collectivism around.

It's bad enough that progressives already smear libertarianism as inherently racist. We want to treat people as individuals rather than fungible members of a race - a concept that doesn't really exist because we can all procreate with each other and ideas of race vary from culture to culture? Racist! We think the best way to punish business people who discriminate is the loss of good workers and revenue from customers that they would otherwise get, thus letting them face their own natural consequences and poetic justice? Racist! We think private companies can handle making roads? Racist! Well, okay, I'm going overboard, but you get the idea.

[Joe Mama]

C'mon, this story is so old ;-)

[yea]

i think paul's crazy ideas are a better reason to not support him than this hit-piece. where there is smoke there is usually fire, but if you realized how much power/independence staffers often, and you looked and paul's overall record, ill give him the benefit of the doubt here.

[Sandy Underpants]

Crazy ideas... like smaller government, border enforcement, less spending, less taxes, less war. Crazy man indeed.

[Condor]

I read this article a couple of days ago, and the thing that struck me, even if it's conclusion is correct ( I'd have to do some hard research to find that out) is its sly presentation. The argument is like a slingshot. It uses a lot of baby steps and then hits you with a big punchline. Take this section here:

"And a few of the most prominent [newsletters] bore the name of Ron Paul.
Paul's newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Air Force surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.
The Freedom Report's online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul's newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles "Lefty" Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and that black representative Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism." "

It starts by talking about newsletters that BORE PAUL's NAME. Then it quickly switches to calling these PAUL's NEWSLETTERS, which seems to imply ownership and control, despite the fact that the article admits he was a minority owner. But then the main evidence of racism comes from a newsletter that doesn't bear Paul's name at all (The Freedom Report), yet they continue to call it "Paul's Newsletter." And they try to attribute the articles to him despite the fact that they admit that newspaper lacks bylines.

Who knows, maybe Ron Paul is racist, but you'd never be able to find it out from an article that obfuscates as much as this one.

[Brian Foster]

Thanks for this, Condor; it will help me calibrate how much time to -- er -- "spend" debating with you in the future.

then the main evidence of racism comes from a newsletter that doesn't bear Paul's name at all (The Freedom Report), yet they continue to call it "Paul's Newsletter."

I believe the article is pretty clear that "The Freedom Report" is the same as "Ron Paul's Freedom Report," which is the first newsletter name mentioned in the second sentence of your excerpt.

Perhaps you should try a "parallel argument" to show a newsletter titled "Ron Paul's Freedom Report" cannot responsibly be referred to as "Paul's newsletter."

[Condor]

You're right. I stand corrected.

[Joe Loy]

1. Everything Sean Said. / and most Especially: "Doesn't make much sense though. Libertarianism is anti-collectivist, and racism is one of the most blatant forms of collectivism around."

2. Apologies, Joe Mama. Carelessly :), I had Missed your commentpost Link to the piece & the ensuing discussion on the other thread. / I first heard about the Paul Report Report :> on Tucker Carlson's show, wherein he interviewed the TNR author. (Of course Tucker is Known for sometimes interviewing shady individuals. / Hi Brendan ;>. Nonono... :}

3. Condor, I agree that the article is full of fancy Footwork, not to mention sleight of Hand :}. Maybe the good Doctor is innocent on all counts ~ except perhaps the charge that he didn't do a very good job of doctrinally Policing the decidedly unlibertarian Content of some of these Bulletins apparently put out under either (a) his Name or (b) his organizational Auspices.

But like Joe Mama I thought, and I still think, that the story is legitimately worth a Look. / Admittedly, in guestposting it I also had 2 motives of dubious Worthiness ;>. (1) I have a strong visceral reaction to anything having to do with these egregious neo-Confederates, whose "movement" I regard as every bit as morally reprehensible ~ nay, More so, for they have less Excuse for their heinousness and no Gallantry to mitigate it ~ as the Treason of their paleo-Confederate ancestors, RIP. (2) I wanted to see if I could goad some ultralefty Daily Kos types, having dumbassedly inducted Dr. Ron into the Fold, to come on here & treat us to the spectacle of their Heads Exploding :).

[Condor]

Here's what Ron Paul had to say:
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.”

[Joe Loy]

Excellent, Condor. Thanks!